Places

About
Foundation
Partner Schools
Print Archive
Peer Review
Submissions
Donate
Contact


Departments

Critique
Essays
Gallery
Interviews
Multimedia
Partner News
Peer Reviewed
Poetry & Fiction
Projects


Topics

Architecture
Art
Books
Cities + Places
Community
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Film + Video
Food
Geography
Health + Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Infrastructure
Landscape
Photography
Planning
Politics + Policy
Preservation
Public + Private
Reputations
Sustainability
Technology
Transportation
Urbanism
Water



Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Comments (4) Posted 01.13.14 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Critique: Belmont Freeman

"The moment for something to happen"


On the heyday, the demise and the legacy of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, 1967 – 1984


Top left: Peter Eisenman, Anthony Vidler, Diana Agrest, Kenneth Frampton (left to right), at the IAUS, ca. early 1970s. Top right: Oppositions, the Institute's influential journal. Bottom right: Peter Eisenman at the IAUS, ca. early 1970s. Bottom left: New York Times article on the IAUS, October 30, 1975. [Most images here and below from The Making of an Avant-Garde]

I wish that it still existed.
— Frank Gehry

It would be the world's biggest nightmare if the Institute were still alive.
— Mark Wigley

It was the moment for something to happen.
— Diana Agrest

Let me start with a disclaimer: I was not there. I was not a Fellow at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, nor did I take classes there or attend lectures. I can offer no insider view of the “The Institute,” as everyone called it, or dish up racy tales of the goings-on there. I moved to New York City in early 1977 for my first job after graduate school and I certainly was aware of the IAUS and its activities — there were posters on the walls and a lot of talk, even in the drafting room at Davis Brody. I visited the Institute’s quarters on Bryant Park a few times, to see exhibitions, but I found the place a bit intimidating, like an exclusive club for people with special knowledge to which I did not have the key. I loved reading Skyline and I would pick up Oppositions and read articles that I often found unnecessarily abstruse. Certainly I could burnish my intellectual credentials today if I told people that I had been a regular at the IAUS. The IAUS is, in a way, the high-minded architectural community’s equivalent of Woodstock. (I wasn’t there, either.) If every architect of my generation who today claims to have “hung out at the Institute” really was there, the top floor of 8 West 40th Street would have been as crowded as Yasgur’s farm.

During my formative years as a student and young architect the Institute loomed large, as the self-proclaimed center of the architectural universe. For today’s emerging architects the place, much like Woodstock, must seem a distant Parnassus shrouded in myth. The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies was founded in 1967 by Peter Eisenman, who came to New York a free agent with an agenda after having been denied tenure at Princeton. The enterprise initially enjoyed the backing of the Museum of Modern Art and Cornell University, but this would prove nominal and fleeting: I suspect that curator Arthur Drexler’s better instincts steered him clear of investing too much of MoMA’s resources and prestige in a project so clearly set up to be Eisenman’s baby, and Cornell probably felt some remorse for their involvement after star professor Colin Rowe was unceremoniously ejected from the organization. The IAUS was conceived as a think tank for progressive inquiry into architectural history and theory and contemporary urban issues, independent of any professional or academic institution and free of the burdens of accreditation.

From the beginning the Institute attracted an impressive cadre of forward-thinking architects and scholars, including friends of Eisenman’s from Princeton, Cooper Union and elsewhere and, throughout the 1970s, a parade of rising stars from abroad. Fellows of the Institute, as they were called, participated in a vibrant culture of intellectual production, including lectures, conferences and design forums. Graduate students came to the IAUS to work on projects with the masters, and in 1973 the Institute started an undergraduate educational program, drawing students from a consortium of liberal arts colleges for immersion in theory-based architectural history and design — sort of a junior year abroad in New York City. (Friends of mine who went through the program say that it was life changing, and I readily believe them.) In the early days, engagement with the city was robust, epitomized by a prototype housing complex, commissioned by the Urban Development Corporation for the Ocean Hill-Brownsville neighborhood in Brooklyn and designed by Kenneth Frampton with a team of IAUS students.



Left: Diana Agrest. Right: Founders and participants at the IAUS, ca. early 1970s.

The Institute’s most significant contribution was the publication, from 1973 to 1984, of the journal Oppositions; edited during different phases by Peter Eisenman, Kenneth Frampton, Mario Gandelsonas, Anthony Vidler and Kurt Forster, with Julia Bloomfield as managing editor, and designed, with indelible punch, by Massimo Vignelli. Eisenman knew that to publish is to endure. The hefty square pages of Oppositions carried seminal works by the leading thinkers of the decade, and vigorously injected theory and criticism into American, and international, architectural culture. (Vladimir Slapeta, the distinguished Czech architect and educator, recently told me that back in soviet-era Prague, when news broke of the latest Oppositions’ arrival, he would literally run to the one bookstore in the city that carried the journal. He says it was, in those years, his lifeline to the greater world of architecture.) In addition, Oppositions Books, a companion to the journal, introduced important European texts to the American audience, including, for instance, Aldo Rossi's The Architecture of the City. In 1978 the Institute inaugurated Skyline, a cheeky monthly tabloid that combined listings, news and gossip about the New York architectural scene (and gave an early boost to the career of editor Suzanne Stephens).

As memories of the architectural world in the 1970s simultaneously fade and become embroidered with the half-truths of selective recollection, and as the original protagonists age and expire, the enterprise of documenting the history and assessing the legacy of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies is under way and gaining momentum. In 2011 Suzanne Frank, who was involved with the Institute from 1970 until its demise in 1985, published a highly personal memoir of her time there. A freshly minted art history PhD from Columbia University, Frank was initially hired as a researcher for Eisenman and eventually grew into the elastically defined job of librarian. [1] IAUS: The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, An Insider’s Memoir does not purport to be a definitive history of the organization but is, rather, a closely observed chronicle of one secondary participant’s time there. As such it is jammed with data and full of interesting and amusing anecdotes; a record (sometimes slow-going) of the various triumphs, mundane operational challenges, hijinks and epic spats that transpired on West 40th Street. Frank’s text — supplemented by the recollections of 27 other characters involved at the Institute — will provide valuable first-person narrative for future historians; but the personal nature of the project, its hagiographic tone, and her mixed success in securing interviews with prime players (most significantly, Peter Eisenman) leaves the book short of being a fully formed story. Several scholars in the United States and Europe are reportedly working on histories of the IAUS and its various aspects. Kim Förster, a PhD candidate at the ETH Zürich who has enjoyed the support of key individuals and access to IAUS archives, will probably deliver the first authoritative history but, I predict, not the last.  

Now the principals are weighing in. Diana Agrest, who was a Fellow of the IAUS from 1972 to 1984 and one of the core group that shaped the Institute during the prime years (and the most prominent woman), recently completed a long-term project that has yielded the documentary The Making of an Avant-Garde: The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, 1967-1984. It is a remarkable work, less for its cinematic quality (which is admirable) than for the depth of primary historical documentation that it contains. The 64-minute film is structured around a series of interviews — carefully edited and enhanced with vintage photographs — that Agrest filmed over the past ten years with all of the key figures, including Peter Eisenman, Kenneth Frampton, Richard Meier, Charles Gwathmey, Anthony Vidler, Mario Gandelsonas, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Robert Stern, and Julia Bloomfield, among others.





Interviews with younger architects and critics, some of whom studied at the Institute, add valuable perspective. Mark Wigley, until recently the dean of Columbia’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, plays the jester’s role with a wit that enables his perceptive and not always flattering commentary to hit home. Evocative music (if not of the correct period) stitches the segments of the film together and, with scenes of New York City in the 1970s, gives the production a certain Woody Allenesque feel. Agrest’s real ace in the hole is the priceless footage of grainy Super-8 film that she herself shot on site, during Institute functions and dinner parties, which transports the viewer to the time and place. (I wonder what she was thinking, when she shot those home movies, now emanating like time-traveling Twitter: Was she conscious of recording history, or just having fun?) It’s a hoot to see some of the giants of architecture cavorting in their youth. There’s Rem Koolhaas (who wrote Delirious New York while an Institute Fellow) with long hair; Agrest herself, asserting her equality with the boys through body language and style — and if there was any man in the room more handsome than Ken Frampton, I didn’t spot him.

During a discussion after a recent screening at Cooper Union, Agrest explained that early on she decided not to impose a narrator onto the film; that she preferred that the interviewees and images tell the story of the Institute. That’s a legitimate creative position, but I’m afraid that as a result her finished product feels a bit short on expository material and consequently leaves much unexplained. I would like to have learned how Fellows were selected, for example, or what, exactly, was the arrangement with the different feeder schools. And the identities and connections of some of the interview subjects are unclear: What roles, for example, did the art dealer Frederieke Taylor and MoMA trustee Barbara Jakobson — both of whom offer great commentary — have at the Institute? [2] One is left with the feeling that the film is a project by and for Institute insiders, who already know these things.





Top: Kenneth Frampton and Peter Eisenman at the IAUS, ca. early 1970s. Bottom: Rem Koolhaas, working on an exhibit on Wallace Harrison at the IAUS, and Wallace Harrison.

Early into the film I grew tired of hearing one talking head after another declare that the Institute was the first place, the one place, the only place in the United States where there was any critical discussion of architectural history and theory; where IDEAS were paramount. I’m not so sure about that. Allowing for some hyperbole on the part of the players, I might concede that, in those years, it was the only institution that self-consciously specialized in critical theory unencumbered by concerns about technical or economic viability or, as Institute Fellow Deborah Berke put it, architecture as merely a "banal strategy of problem-solving." Since the IAUS was not an accredited degree-granting school, it operated free of any obligation to tailor pedagogy to a context of professional practice, and there’s no question that Institute Fellows produced brilliant work of enduring value and altered the course of architectural theory and education. But to lay blanket claim to all advanced ideas within the discipline is a stretch. In the early 1970s I studied at Yale, with Vincent Scully, then in his prime, and at the University of Pennsylvania, where Louis Kahn was still alive and the dominant presence, though the Venturi-Scott Brown crowd, led by the charismatic Steve Izenour, was stirring up the school with subversive ideas about meaning and representation — complexity and contradiction — in architecture. Somehow I never felt that my education was stunted by a lack of history, theory or critical thinking. And wasn’t Colin Rowe producing highly influential work at Cornell? Yes, but Peter Eisenman, in the film, reminds us that Rowe’s was the wrong kind of theory, and he gleefully recounts how he had the lock on the Institute door changed so that Rowe and his students couldn’t get in. He never explains why — we are supposed to know, or just take his word for it.

Agrest’s film project is self-serving, but in the most benign and permissible way. It is fascinating to watch how she and her peers set out to write the official history of their era — or at least the first draft — and of course they are entitled to do so. Now is the moment when members of that generation are understandably concerned with shaping their legacies. There is something almost (almost) touching about listening to today’s titans of corporate and haute institutional architecture remind us that once upon a time they were young, idealistic, radical thinkers. In some cases it’s heavy lifting. Agrest inadvertently plays a cruel joke on Charles Gwathmey, whose interview segments are accompanied by stills of the diminutive but iconic 1967 home and studio that he designed for his parents — while Tony Vidler’s interviews, shot in his dean's office at Cooper Union, offer a clear view, through the window, of Gwathmey’s dreadful 2005 condominium tower on Astor Place.

The penultimate episode of The Making of an Avant-Garde meditates on the demise of the IAUS, which happened swiftly after Peter Eisenman’s exit in 1982. Eisenman himself says that 15 years of running the Institute was too much, and that he simply had to move on to other pursuits, like tending to his practice. Frampton took over as director in 1982, Vidler in 1983, and Stephen Patterson in 1984 until the Institute’s closure in 1985. Clearly Eisenman had not expended much effort on sustainable institution building, nor had he nurtured a next generation to take over the place. Ken Frampton is more direct in stating that Eisenman did not want the Institute to survive; that he tried to “kill the baby” when he left. Others in the film suggest that the conservative turn of the country and the surge of deregulated capitalism (and real estate prices) in the Reagan years somehow rendered New York City less hospitable to the avant-garde. It falls to Barbara Jakobson to point out the obvious; that, at the end of the day, architects "like to make things," and while the economic slump of the 1970s had restricted their creativity to theoretical projects on paper, the lucre that infused New York City in the '80s produced opportunities to build that these guys grabbed.

I am reminded that it was in 1982, just as the IAUS began to peter out, that the visionary architect Kyong Park started Storefront for Art and Architecture in a derelict street-level commercial space in Soho. Storefront for sure had a mission and modus operandi quite different from those of the Institute, but it shared a comparable aspiration to avant-garde cultural production. It’s not that New York in the 1980s could not sustain a venue for radical creative inquiry on architecture and urbanism; it was simply time for the cause to be taken up by a younger group of artists and intellectuals in a different part of town. I might add that after 15 years of running Storefront — precisely the length of Eisenman’s tenure at the IAUS — Park burned out from the effort and, subconsciously or otherwise, sought to take the institution down — to kill the baby — with his departure. For reasons that some future PhD candidate can sort out, Storefront has managed to survive and, so far, adapt to changing cultural and economic landscapes. [3] But not all cultural institutions, and least of all those of the avant-garde, are meant to go on forever. As Robert Stern points out in Agrest’s film: “The magic can never last. Some things should have a moment and stop.”



IAUS fellows and friends at a dinner, ca. 1974. Clockwise from lower left: Bill Ellis, Rick Wolkowitz, Peter Eisenman, Liz Eisenman, Mario Gandelsonas, Madelon Vriesendorp, Rem Koolhaas, Julia Bloomfield, Randall Korman, Stuart Wrede, Andrew MacNair, Anthony Vidler, Richard Meier, unidentified woman, Kenneth Frampton, Diana Agrest, Caroline Sidnam, Jane Ellis, Suzanne Frank, Alexander Gorlin.

The Making of an Avant-Garde
closes with a consideration of the legacy of the IAUS, particularly in the realm of architectural education. Stan Allen speaks movingly of his experience as a student in the Institute’s undergraduate program in 1977–78 and how it has informed his own teaching at Princeton, where he became dean. Bernard Tschumi brought much of what he saw and learned at the IAUS to his tenure as dean at Columbia. Undergraduate architecture majors (in contradistinction to the old five-year professional programs), which didn’t exist in the 1960s and '70s, are now popular at many schools while, at the other end of the academic spectrum, PhD programs in architecture schools (as opposed to art history departments) proliferate. We have no way of knowing if these programs would have come into being even if the Institute had never existed: New York City was not, after all, the only place on earth where architectural education was evolving. Speakers in the film make what I think are outsized claims for the Institute’s transformative influence on American education, but it is true that in the years since the Institute crafted its template for an instruction based on history, theory and design, disconnected from the exigencies of practice, the academy has embraced the position. Yet this is a dubious legacy. My sense is that the IAUS, particularly in its late years, advanced a trend toward pedagogy that has become increasingly self-referential and hermetic. And when this academic posture, post IAUS, intersected with today’s digital technology, it has produced, at all too many institutions, design education banefully untethered to any notions of technical, social or professional reality.

One indisputable accomplishment of the IAUS was that it made architecture seem awfully glamorous. Oppositions and Skyline routinely carried photos of Institute events, showing chic, well-dressed people, in Manhattan, drinking cocktails and engaging in what had to be brilliant conversation about architecture. Mark Wigley, in the film, mischievously floats his theory that the IAUS existed simply to produce Oppositions, which in turn existed to print those photos of Institute events and to disseminate them to the hinterlands: all an epic promotional enterprise on behalf of architecture and those who populate its social and intellectual heights. We might well trace our present architectural star system to the penthouse at 8 West 40th Street.

Eisenman and company were obsessed with controlling the door to the clubhouse — figuratively and literally — and determining who was a member of the intellectual elite of architecture and who was not. This preoccupation appears still to be active today, as the old guard seeks to consolidate the legacy of the Institute and to establish their individual centrality to the story, and younger participants strive to insert themselves into the picture. The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies closed 30 years ago. The fact that people are still talking about it today — and still trying to get in — says something about its importance. We should be grateful to Diana Agrest, and to Suzanne Frank, for persevering in their respective documentary projects and laying down the groundwork — if very particularly contoured — on which more fully examined histories might yet be built. 




Editors' Note

For related content on Places, see also Massimo Vignelli: Oppositions, Skyline and the Institute, by Kim Förster.

Notes

1. Suzanne and her husband, Dick Frank, an architectural photographer, hired Peter Eisenman to design a house for them; completed in 1975 and known as House VI.

2. Frank tells us that Taylor started out fundraising for the Institute and later became Administrative Director and was much involved in the exhibitions program. Jakobson took classes offered through the Open Plan evening program, which was open to the public, and became a friend and patron of the IAUS.

3. Full disclosure: I am a member of the Board of Directors of Storefront for Art and Architecture, and served as president of the board for the nine immediate post-Park years during which the organization struggled to survive the departure of its founding director.

Post-Publication Authors' Note

Diana Agrest informed me that Kyong Park studied at the Institute and was, in fact, a student of hers in the Advanced Design Workshop. He did not complete the program; “disappeared” and later “re-surfaced, forming the Storefront.” I thank her for this very interesting bit of information that connects the two institutions.
Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


A Life in Ruins


Hubbert’s Peak, Eneropa, and the Visualization of Renewable Energy


Fairy Tale Architecture: The Little Match Girl


What I Learned from Architect Barbie


Tourist Snapshots



RSSSubscribe to Comment Feed

Comments (4)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>

Whew, that Fellows dinner image from 1974 is awesome, a mash-up of the Last Supper, Judy Chicago, and some incredibly tense moment in an Antonioni film - one can imagine the insufferable blow-ups from that meal...
Mr. Downer
01.14.14 at 09:31

The 'unidentified woman' between Meier and Frampton was, I think, Regina Wickham.
Dick Perlmutter
01.17.14 at 01:53

Šlapeta kecá, jako vždy...
FilipK
01.26.14 at 02:04

Belmont, Since Moji Baratloo sadly passed away in 2013, the Storefront film should be made before we lose other key leaders. I remember Moji lecturing Kyong and I on many Storefront projects. She and her husband Clif Balch were very important to the moral direction and artistic focus of early Storefront.

Kyong and I thought that IAUS had lost it ethical path and a humane touch. My last experience at IAUS was hearing Maya Lin's professor at Yale describing her Vietnam Memorial in the worst way. I could not understand why a professor would prioritize his "intellectual skill" over celebrating the accomplishments of his student.

We did understand that we benefited from the end of the IAUS. It left NYC to Storefront, the Architectural League, Metropolis and Parsons.
glennweiss
01.27.14 at 10:51



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




Donate to Places: Your Support Makes Our Work Possible



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Belmont Freeman, FAIA, is an architect based in New York City.
More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









MORE ON New York City


Resilience in Red Hook
On Places, Alexandros Washburn, chief urban designer for New York, describes the frightening onset and complicated aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated the city last October.

The City and the Sea
On Places, Tom Vanderbilt surveys the landscape and politics of New York City after Hurricane Sandy, focusing on both early response and long-range planning.

An Interview with David Burney: On New York and the 21st-Century City-State
On Places, an interview with New York City Design and Construction Commissioner David Burney, who reflects on the urban design record of the Bloomberg years, the post-Sandy recovery effort, and the rise of the 21st-century city-state.

Seagram: Union of Building and Landscape
On Places, Phyllis Lambert explores the evolution of the Seagram Building, focusing on Mies van der Rohe's profound concern for the relationship between building and nature.

Past Perfect: Four Freedoms Park
On Places, Belmont Freeman reviews the controversial politics of presidential memorials, focusing especially on Four Freedoms Park in New York City, the memorial to FDR designed 40 years by Louis Kahn.

Occupying Wall Street: Places and Spaces of Political Action
On Places, Jonathan Massey and Brett Snyder explore the physical places and virtual spaces of Occupy Wall Street — the "hypercity built of granite and asphalt, algorithms and information."

Occupy: The Day After
On Places, Reinhold Martin explores how Occupy Wall Street might challenge the structural inequities of finance capitalism, and how architects and urbanists can contribute to the next phase of the movement

Occupy: What Architecture Can Do
On Places, Reinhold Martin explores the role of architecture in the Occupy Wall Street movement — and in the larger challenges of constructing a better and more equitable society.

Above Grade: On the High Line
On Places, writer Phillip Lopate traces the pre-history of the High Line, and ponders whether New York City's elevated park will be a victim of its own success.

Lunch with the Critics: Supertall
On Places, Alexandra Lange and Mark Lamster debate the merits of Supertall!, the latest exhibition at New York City's Skycraper Museum.

The Art of Advocacy: The Museum as Design Laboratory
On Places, MoMA's curator of architecture and design, Barry Bergdoll, describes his efforts to expand the museum's role to support experimentation and advocacy.

Queer Beacon
On Places, architect Kian Goh explores LGBT public spaces in contemporary New York, where activism confronts gentrification.

Gita Lenz: New York Views
On Places, a gallery by the mid-century New York photographer Gita Lenz, whose long neglected work is gaining new recognition.

Jane Jacobs, Andy Warhol, and the Kind of Problem a Community Is
On Places, Tim Mennel compares the radically different New York worlds of Andy Warhol's Factory and Jane Jacobs's Village — and comes to some provocative conclusions.

Jane Jacobs and the Death and Life of American Planning
On Places, Thomas Campanella evaluates the complex legacy Jane Jacobs, including the ongoing marginalization of the urban planning profession.

Lunch with the Critics: Northwest Corner Building, Columbia University
For this installment of Lunch with the Critics, Mark Lamster and Alexandra Lange visit the Northwest Corner Building, Columbia University.

Street Cred
On Places, Mimi Zeiger reviews Street Value, the new book about Downtown Brooklyn and the dynamic interplay of shopping and planning, of politics and race and class.

What's Going On in the Garment District?
On Places, an interactive section created by the Brooklyn-based Interboro Partners offers a detailed look at "what's going on in the garment district" of Manhattan.

Hallowed Ground, Worldly City: Ground Zero and the Struggle for Lower Manhattan
On Places, James Sanders looks at the current controversy over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in a larger context, noting that New York City has for most of its history "abhorred the very idea of memorials." 

Lunch with the Critics: Park51 & 15 Penn
"Lunch with the Critics," a new feature on Design Observer: Mark Lamster and Alexandra Lange travel to midtown to visit the Hotel Pennsylvania, across from Penn Station and Madison Square Garden.

Lunch with the Critics: The New Lincoln Center
"Lunch with the Critics," a new feature on Design Observer, begins with Alexandra Lange and Mark Lamster's visit to the recently revamped Lincoln Center.

The Water Underground
On Places, watch The Water Underground, a video from the Center for Urban Pedagogy that tracks the complex — and contested — systems of water supply, treatment and waste that serve New York City.

Green Metropolis
On Places, urban planning professor Timothy Beatley, author of Green Urbanism, reviews Green Metropolis, by David Owen, which argues that Manhattan is the greenest city in the U.S.

Adventure Playground: John V. Lindsay and the Transformation of Modern New York
On Places, James Sanders on the transformation of New York City that began in the Sixties under Mayor John Lindsay — the reinvention of the city from a workaday zone to a scenic setting for urban play, an "adventure playground."

Two Feet High and Rising: On Optimism, Speculation and Oysters
On Places, Mimi Zeiger reviews MoMA's ambitious new architecture and urban design show, Rising Currents: Projects for New York's Waterfront, which explores how New York Harbor might be adapted in the face of rising sea levels.

The City's End
Architect Beth Weinstein reviews The City's End: Two Centuries of Fantasies, Fears and Premonitions of New York's Destruction, by architectural historian Max Page — just in time for the season premiere of 24, which finds Jack Bauer and his fellow counter-terrorists relocated to NYC.

Bodega Down Bronx
Why is it easier to get fresh produce in Park Slope than in the South Bronx? Places presents Bodega Down Bronx, a video from the Center for Urban Pedagogy, that examines where and why New York's bodegas get their food.

The Past Is Promenade: On the High Line
Architect Ian Baldwin contemplates the High Line and sees in New York's newest park a rare and valuable form of urban place: a slow corridor.

On the Water: The New York/New Jersey Harbor
As the planet warms, rising seas will endanger coastal communities around the world. Engineer Guy Nordenson proposes a bold plan to protect New York City.