Trinity Church and The Contemporary Dwarfing of Historic Structures
Woodcut of Trinity Church's Spire with the Equitable Building behind it. Trinity, once the tallest building in the United States, has since been dwarfed by the subsequent construction around it. Image by Paul Morand.
Height in the built environment is relative. A tall building at the center of a major city today is quite a different idea than a tall building was a hundred years ago. As a city grows, taller buildings will get built throughout time, and the meaning of tall gets taller with them. Buildings once considered tall get overshadowed by more contemporary structures. This phenomenon can be seen wherever skyscraper construction is commonplace. Trinity Church, located at the end of Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, is a well-documented case of this. Once the tallest building in the United States, Trinity is now dwarfed by its surroundings, and made to look small in comparison. Let's take a closer look at how the character of a tall building changes when larger buildings overtake it through time.
When it was completed in 1846, the current Trinity Church had a spire that was 86 meters (281 feet) tall, and it was significantly taller than its surroundings (see image below). The building was a landmark, and its spire could be seen from anywhere in the area. It's height gave it importance and status, and the fact that it was the tallest building in the United States upon completion no doubt instilled a sense of pride in those who lived and worked nearby. This would be the case until the needs of the city saw the surrounding buildings grow up around it, and ultimately dwarf it in comparison.
Trinity Church after construction. The building towered over its surroundings and became a landmark for the area. Image source.
As seen in the image below, over time taller structures have come to surround Trinity, and its visual importance and status have suffered as a result. Seen from Wall Street today, the spire struggles to keep up with its more contemporary, commercial neighbors. This is an inevitability that comes with increasing density, and New York is a city that values density over most other urban pressures. The question becomes: is this a positive or a negative? There are legitimate arguments for each side.
Trinity Church in 1905. The surrounding buildings overtake Trinity's dominance of the skyline.
On the positive side, a city should be free to grow and develop as a result of contemporary pressures and values that exist within it. When Trinity was built, society put the most time and energy into building religious structures, because that's where the highest value was placed. According to Edward Glaeser, Trinity was a 'monument to God', and its height was symbolic of the power of the church.[1] Over time, however, the pressure for height shifted away from religion and the tallest buildings became commercial and residential. In fact, the building to eclipse Trinity's height was Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World Building in 1890, which housed offices for the New York World newspaper. Glaeser sees this moment as 'the true start of the irreligious 20th century.'[2] Building taller was the name of the game, and Lower Manhattan literally grew up around Trinity's spire. What we see today is a physical record of the city's history and how it changed over time. This is a positive thing to make visible, and it gives people a sense of history when experiencing a place.
On the negative side, much of Trinity's original presence in the city has been lost. The preservation of our historic monuments and great works of architecture usually focus on just the building itself, but this ignores the building's effects on the surrounding town or city. Paul Morand remarked on the shift away from Trinity's dominance in his book New York in 1930:
In the eighteenth century this little brown spire dominated New York; to-day, all blackened, with it's gilt clock which stands out so pleasingly from the Curb Market, it is vanishing, strangled by banks, merely the smallest and darkest of the downtown monuments. Religion has no business here.[3]
It's true that Trinity no longer dominates the skyline of Lower Manhattan, but what alternative is there? How would the skyline look today if there was a height limit imposed on buildings in order to protect its dominance? This may be too much to ask for in most places (Lower Manhattan included), but there are examples of cities that have put this idea into law. In Rome, no building can be taller than the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica. In Saint Petersburg, no building can be taller than the Winter Palace. In Madison, Wisconsin, no building can be taller than the State Capitol Building. By enacting these laws, a city can ensure it's most important buildings keep their status and height. On the flip-side, however, it also means that the surrounding city is not allowed to grow vertically in the way New York City has, which also has tangible effects on the built environment.
Trinity Church as seen from Wall Street. The spire seems puny in comparison to the massive office buildings that surround it. Image by Paul Morand.
As with most subjects of this nature, the correct answer will change depending on location. Development must be able to adapt to and accommodate changing needs and trends, but alongside that, the most important aspects of each city's history and character should be preserved for future generations in some way. After all, who knows what the needs of the distant future will be? Without too much imagination, one can see how supertall skyscrapers of today will one day be dwarfed by some new type of mega-structure, much like Trinity has. Will we one day look back to a time when the Empire State Building commanded the skyline of New York City with nostalgia, when its spire is no longer visible on the skyline? If current trends continue, then someday we will.
[1]: Glaeser, Edward. "How Skyscrapers Can Save The City." The Atlantic, March 2011.
[2]: ibid.
[3]: Morand, Paul. New York. The Book League of America, 1930. 49-50.