Here nature is analyzed and both structural and compositional message of nature is

depicted… An emphasis is placed on structure of every form which becomes unveiled in

a drawing that tends to describe all essential parts of the studied object similarly to a
working drawing in an architectural problem.33

Throughout Nowicki’s academic experience in North Carolina, structure was continually at the

forefront of his instruction of architecture. The study and understanding of both drawing and

structures served the greater field of design, as an “analysis of human needs, in both physical and

psychological sense.”34 Nowicki’s structurally expressive modern architecture was an approach

to architecture (not engineering), and his views directly shaped this innovative curriculum. It is

no surprise, therefore, that after Nowicki's death, the school sought another professor (Catalano)

who would foster the school's structural emphasis.35

Columbus Circle

Nowicki’s new teaching responsibilities did not prevent his involvement with

professional design projects. Along with his continued design work with Harrison on the United

Nations in New York, Nowicki began working with the architect Clarence Stein (1882-1975) in

fall 1948.36 A colleague of Mumford’s through the Regional Planners Association of America

(RPAA), Stein was well known for his urban plans (such as that for Radburn, New Jersey) and

his widespread use of the superblock and neighborhood unit concept.37 Nowicki and Stein

developed a close relationship, and collaborated on several small-scale projects prior to

Nowicki’s death in 1950.

The first of these projects, in 1948, was a proposal for a circular, elevated pedestrian

platform for Columbus Circle, at the southwest corner of Central Park in New York City.

! 245!
Clarence Stein later described it as “an addition to Central Park.”38 Rising above the intersection

of five different streets and an underground subway station, this structure proposed to separate

the movement of cars and people in this congested area of Manhattan, while also providing an

upper level of restaurants and cafes 21 feet above the traffic.39

Figure 5.3 – Nowicki and Stein’s Columbus Circle Proposal with lower photograph of Ponte
Vecchio, 1948. (Clarence Stein Papers, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collection, Cornell
University Library, Box 4, Folder 22)

This project was based on the separation of transportation modes (cars and pedestrians), a

guiding principle of Modernist urbanism that Nowicki had followed in his designs for Warsaw.40

In an early sketch of this project, Nowicki attached a photo of Ponte Vecchio in Florence, Italy,

the famous medieval bridge over the River Arno, which includes many shops. Attempting a

similar effect, Nowicki designed the Columbus Circle project to provide new retail space on a

bridge-like structure, activating it with pedestrian activity. As the Ponte Vecchio supported

! 246!
pedestrian space above the flowing river, so Nowicki’s design proposed pedestrian space above

the un-crossable flow of vehicular traffic at Columbus Circle.

Like his Ponte Vecchio example, Nowicki saw this project was more than just

infrastructure. Instead, he considered it an opportunity to celebrate the movement and vibrancy

of city life. He stated: “Our solution of the upper level in its present stage could be considered as

a ‘theater of the traffic’ where the pedestrian could observe the movement in the 'round stage'

inside the circle from the elevated level.”41 Nowicki’s renderings, aerial and eye-level

perspectives, highlight the movement of both people and cars. The cars are not sleek,

technological, high-speed machines, but accepted elements of the city movement. Nowicki’s

sketches show people on the ground level next to the car traffic, but they are shown crossing

easily via the elevated structure. The sketch also shows the program elements, with an open-air

walkway at the interior of the loop, and enclosed retail and restaurant spaces along the outer

edge. The circular structure surrounds the monument to Christopher Columbus located in the

center of the intersection.

! 247!
 Figure 5.4 – Perspective view of Nowicki and Stein’s Columbus Circle Proposal, 1948.
(Clarence Stein Papers, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collection, Cornell University Library,
Box 4, Folder 22)

Had the project been built, the movement of the traffic would have become part of the

scene for pedestrians to enjoy. Nowicki's scheme can be seen as a celebration of the complexity

of a five-way intersection as a part of New York City life. The structure created upper level

space for pedestrians within the activity of the city, yet allowed for visibility between pedestrians

and vehicles. Periodic stairs, and a large ramp on the Central Park side, provided multiple points

of access and easier flow for pedestrians to and from Central Park.

! 248!
 Figure 5.5 – Interior view of Nowicki and Stein’s Columbus Circle Proposal, 1948. (Clarence
Stein Papers, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collection, Cornell University Library, Box 4,
Folder 22)

Nowicki's innovative design made structural form the dominant architectural expression.

The structure has an inside diameter of roughly 260 feet, with an outside diameter of roughly 360

feet, creating a width of approximately 50 feet. The elevated structure, 21 feet above the streets,

was circular in plan, supported by (probably hollow) concrete columns located 80 feet on center

around the circumference, 12 columns in all. The columns were extremely large – measuring 10

by 4 feet at the base, and increasing in size as they rise – but may have been hollow. The form of

the columns appear to be similar to the massive piloti of Le Corbusier’s Unité d'Habitation at

Marseille. The Unité was widely published in French, beginning in 1947 (despite not being

completed until 1952), and, given Nowicki’s reverence for Le Corbusier, it is likely Nowicki

knew of its design. A continuous triangular beam, curved along the perimeter, rested on the

columns below and supported the pedestrian level with internal voids for mechanical services.42

The platform was covered by “upper level ribs 15 feet apart connected in stressed skin principle

! 249!
below and above the pedestrian concourse,” with a maximum height of 30 feet above the

platform. These individual ribs (presumably of steel) traced the profile of the upper structure,

and were connected together by a “skin” system (possibly of aluminum). The term “stressed

skin” refers to the emerging construction technique where the thin enclosure of the building can

help resist load (similar to airplane wing construction). Further illustrating his concept, Nowicki

described the structure as employing “the principle of a basket of aluminum and steel” – with the

steel ribs and aluminum “skin” in between.43

Figure 5.6 - Le Corbusier’s Unite’ d’Habitation, piloti, 1947. (Cities and Buildings Database,
copyright Meredith Clausen, slide no. 2209, University of Washington)

! 250!
 Figure 5.7 – Section of Nowicki and Stein’s Columbus Circle Proposal, 1948. (Clarence Stein
Papers, Division of Rare and Mansucript Collection, Cornell University Library, Box 4, Folder
22)

The regularly spaced steel ribs and aluminum skin, used in a sloping and rounded form,

recall an automobile profile or an airplane wing. The comparison to an airplane wing seems

particularly apt, as Nowicki's scheme seems to mimic a wing in both construction and form.

(Figure 5.7) The perspectives show the rounded forms of 1940s era autos possibly suggesting an

intentional visual relationship to the elevated structure. Although providing functional space, the

form is sculpted, almost stylized, indicating that Nowicki was not seeking a purely

functional/structural scheme but one attuned to aesthetic concerns as well.

Nowicki recognized the structural advantages of using a complete circle to surround the

intersection. He stated: “The plan of a circle adds to the rigidity of the structure.”44 The

complete circle would act as a single structural element, almost like a continuous beam,

redistributing stresses throughout the structure.45 Nowicki’s model of the structure (Figure 5.8)

displays the simplicity of form and clarity of the structure of his proposal. The significant

cantilevers on both the inside and outside are greatly assisted by the fact that they taper towards

! 251!
the edge, and that they form a compete circle around Columbus Circle. Recognizing these

cantilevers, Nowicki still provided a significant structural depth in the beam over top of the

column location (where shear stresses would be most severe). The circular form of the proposal

both relates to the circulation of traffic and people, and assists in achieving a structural

equilibrium.

Inspired by a historical form (Ponte Vecchio), yet realized through contemporary

materials and advanced structure, the Columbus Circle project is a clear example of Nowicki’s

modern design approach. Nowicki’s project made thoughtful use of the space created by

structural form, utilizing a very specific collection of modern materials and structural systems.

The structure attended to both the automobile and pedestrian experiences, was scaled to have a

favorable, human-centered reception, and like the Warsaw Parliament building, the Columbus

Circle utilized the structural and programmatic benefits of the circular form. More than a decade

later, urban observers would argue that the separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic has many

detrimental effects, but at the time Nowicki produced this design, such effects were not yet

understood or discussed and separation of modes was a basic principle of Modernist urbanism.46

Overall, the Columbus Circle proposes an innovative structure to enable a new use of space, all

the while addressing the significant urban issue of congestion.47

! 252!
Figure 5.8 – Model view of Nowicki and Stein’s Columbus Circle, 1948. (Clarence Stein Papers,
Division of Rare and Manuscript Collection, Cornell University Library, Box 4, Folder 22)

The design for Columbus Circle was not realized. In 1948, New York City was a major

center of debate regarding urban planning. Robert Moses was attempting to push through the

West Side Highway project, and was proposing the relocation of Madison Square Garden to the

Columbus Circle vicinity. Jane Jacobs was also beginning her work as a community activist on

the West Side.48 Stein and Nowicki encountered some of these issues tangentially through

correspondence and community meetings, but ultimately this Columbus Circle project was not

realized.49 In a letter to his wife, Clarence Stein described how he and Nowicki had presented the

project to the “Citizens’ Union Committee on Planning,” and it was received well. Then,

revealing the challenges they faced, stated: “Now all we have to do is prove to Bob Moses that it

was all his idea.”50

! 253!