The Concrete Line: Miami's Marine Passenger Terminals

p. 1-20

Capa dos anais

10º Seminário Docomomo Brasil, Curitiba, 2013

Baixar PDF DOI10.5281/zenodo.19074396

Resumo

In the 1960s, as cruise ship travel exploded and Miami emerged as the nation’s primary port of embarkation, the city developed an unusual ocean passenger terminal on a new island just east of downtown. The heroic docking station comprised almost 800m of terminal modules and airfoil-shaped covered gangways constructed of concrete, punctuated by telescoping steel walkways. Australian-born architect John Andrews designed the structures using a systems-based approach that re-invented the port terminal type, improving the functionality of ship to shore loading and unloading. He also synthesized the operations of the port into the theater of the city, taking full advantage of the port’s position straddling Miami and Miami Beach while considering the gleaming new cruise ships that were Miami’s newest attraction as part of the design. Historians have neglected Andrews, an important if cryptic figure in the development of modernism in the 1960s-70s (and of Brutalist architecture). A graduate of the University of Sidney, he attended Harvard GSD (grad. 1958) where he came under the influence of Jose Luis Sert. Andrews established his practice in Toronto and in 1965 launched his career with the design for Scarborough College of the University of Toronto. Scarborough’s powerful concrete modernism, contrived as a mega-structure, emerged from a logical approach to communication and programming that would henceforth define his approach to architecture. Only two years later, his firm was selected to design the Port of Miami terminals following a competition organized by the Philadelphia architect Romaldo Giurgola. Almost unique in Miami, Andrews’ port terminals elevated infrastructure to a significant public presence in the city. Based on the serial repetition of monumental forms, the rhythmic scheme emphasized the horizontality of both its program and its context. While not explicitly intended as a tropicalist type of architecture, the adaptation of Andrews’ own brand of Brutalist architecture to Miami’s hot and humid environment is notable. The amalgamation of open-air umbrella-type structures with hermetically sealed and air-conditioned compartments defined a regionally accepted environmental strategy, one found in other Brutalist work in the city (for example, the various campuses of Miami-Dade College, and many of the projects for Interama, Miami’s proposed Inter-American Worlds Fair, which were all contemporaries). As cruise ship sizes swelled, the port’s fixed concrete terminal modules reached functional obsolescence, a fate common to other, more prominent terminal projects of the same period. Yet the Miami structures remain substantially intact, adapted into the contemporary needs of the port, a strategy that may offer lessons in the re-use of similar projects internationally.

Abstract

In the 1960s, as cruise ship travel exploded and Miami emerged as the nation's primary port of embarkation, the city developed an unusual ocean passenger terminal on a new island just east of downtown. The heroic docking station comprised almost 800m of terminal modules and airfoil-shaped covered gangways constructed of concrete, punctuated by telescoping steel walkways. Australian-born architect John Andrews designed the structures using a systems-based approach that re-invented the port terminal type, improving the functionality of ship to shore loading and unloading. He also synthesized the operations of the port into the theater of the city, taking full advantage of the port's position straddling Miami and Miami Beach while considering the gleaming new cruise ships that were Miami's newest attraction as part of the design. Historians have neglected Andrews, an important if cryptic figure in the development of modernism in the 1960s-70s (and of Brutalist architecture). A graduate of the University of Sidney, he attended Harvard GSD (grad. 1958) where he came under the influence of Jose Luis Sert. Andrews established his practice in Toronto and in 1965 launched his career with the design for Scarborough College of the University of Toronto. Scarborough's powerful concrete modernism, contrived as a mega-structure, emerged from a logical approach to communication and programming that would henceforth define his approach to architecture. Only two years later, his firm was selected to design the Port of Miami terminals following a competition organized by the Philadelphia architect Romaldo Giurgola. Almost unique in Miami, Andrews' port terminals elevated infrastructure to a significant public presence in the city. Based on the serial repetition of monumental forms, the rhythmic scheme emphasized the horizontality of both its program and its context. While not explicitly intended as a tropicalist type of architecture, the adaptation of Andrews' own brand of Brutalist architecture to Miami's hot and humid environment is notable. The amalgamation of open-air umbrella-type structures with hermetically sealed and air-conditioned compartments defined a regionally accepted environmental strategy, one found in other Brutalist work in the city (for example, the various campuses of Miami-Dade College, and many of the projects for Interama, Miami's proposed Inter-American Worlds Fair, which were all contemporaries). As cruise ship sizes swelled, the port's fixed concrete terminal modules reached functional obsolescence, a fate common to other, more prominent terminal projects of the same period. Yet the Miami structures remain substantially intact, adapted into the contemporary needs of the port, a strategy that may offer lessons in the re-use of similar projects internationally.

Como citar

SHULMAN, Allan. The Concrete Line: Miami's Marine Passenger Terminals. In: SEMINÁRIO DOCOMOMO BRASIL, 10., 2013, Curitiba. Anais [...]. Curitiba: Docomomo Brasil; PROPAR-UFRGS, 2013. p. 1-20. ISBN 978-85-60188-14-7. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19074396.

Referências

  • Arthur Chapman, “Watch the Port of Miami,” Tequesta 53 (Historical Association of Southern Florida) 1993: 10.
  • George Fox Mott, Miami’s Marine Destiny: Today’s Decisions (Washington, D.C.: Mott of Washington & Associates) 1955.
  • Kristoffer A. Garin, Devils on the deep blue sea: the dreams, schemes, and showdowns that built America’s cruise-ship empires, (New York: Viking) 2005.
  • Planning Review Report of the Miami Seaport Location (Miami: Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department) July 1959, Project Report No. 1.
  • Charles Whited, “Dodge Island Opens Amid Toots and Blasts,” The Miami Herald, June 8, 1965.
  • Paul Einstein, “Seaport Ugly Duckling Rejected by Metro,” The Miami News, March 31, 1966.
  • “Scrub Port Shed Design, Miami Will Urge County,” The Miami Herald, October 29, 1966.
  • Paul Einstein, “Port Can’t Dodge Woes,” The Miami News, May 15, 1966.
  • Rich Archbold, “Panel Screens Architects for Dodge Island Terminal,” The Miami Herald, March 27, 1967.
  • Jennifer Taylor and John Andrews, Architecture as a Performing Art (New York, Oxford University Press) 1982.
  • “Beyond the Individual Building,” Architectural Record, September, 1966, v. 140, n. 3, p. 161-172.
  • Peter Blake, “Half-Mile Gangplank,” Architectural Design, p. 57.
  • “Port Proposal Makes Sense,” The Miami News, December 24, 1959.

Ficha catalográfica

10º Seminário Docomomo Brasil: anais: arquitetura moderna e internacional: conexões brutalistas 1955-75 [recurso eletrônico]. Porto Alegre: Docomomo Brasil; PROPAR-UFRGS, 2013. ISBN 978-85-60188-14-7