![\"GIF-TALLEST-11\"](\"https:\/\/skyscraper.org\/the-modern-concrete-skyscraper\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/18\/2025\/02\/GIF-TALLEST-11.gif\" "\\"GIF-TALLEST-11\\"")
\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\tClick here to view a static chart in a larger format.<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to view the World’s Tallest Towers in any material.<\/a><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t TALLEST CONCRETE SKYSCRAPERS by year of completion<\/strong><\/p>\n\t In our research for the exhibition, one of the first things the Museum did to try to understand the rise of the concrete skyscraper was to make a “World’s Tallest” graphic of all the buildings that, in succession, took the title of the tallest building constructed of reinforced concrete. We know of no other graphic that pursues this concept or includes all of these buildings. We also knew the concrete lineup would look very different from a “World’s Tallest”\u00a0chart\u00a0that includes buildings of steel, the material that dominated high-rise construction through the mid-1970s.<\/p>\n Our chart\u00a0illustrates the astonishing ascent over more than twelve decades, and\u00a0reveals significant moments of innovation and its impact. It shows the rise of the reinforced-concrete skyscraper from the first clear example in 1903, the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, to the record holder today, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, which is 13 times taller. Progress\u00a0was not steady: there were few examples in the first half of the 20th century, but after WWII construction boomed and average heights rose. The next step to towers of 1,000 ft.\/ 300 meters and taller came in the 1990s, when supertalls also began their global spread. Then\u00a0a giant leap in this century when the Burj Khalifa nearly doubled the height of the Petronas Towers.<\/p>\n The buildings and the dates in the lineup make visible three eras of innovation and widespread adoption in the use of concrete from the 1950s to today. As the exhibition documents, these eras were made possible by progress in engineering knowledge and advances in material strengths and construction techniques.<\/p>\n Innovation in concrete design and construction boomed in the 1960s when, especially in Chicago, both residential and office towers stacked 50 to 70 stories in flat-topped Modernist towers. Gradual and incremental improvements in concrete mixes, efficient building techniques, and engineering concepts such as flat-plate construction, tube structures, and composite concrete-and-steel design allowed greater economies and heights.<\/p>\n Further advances through the 1980s in high-strength mixes, new methods of computer-aided structural analysis, and better pumps enabled concrete to achieve greater heights. In 1990, 311 S. Wacker in Chicago set a new record, but was the last “tallest” in North America’s dominance. Thereafter, the title moved to Asia and the Middle East.<\/p>\n The invention and evolution of the skyscraper as a building type is principally an American story, but the history of the concrete skyscraper is international. Of the 16 buildings that have held the title of “world’s tallest concrete skyscraper,” eight are in the U.S. (six in Chicago); one in South America; two in Canada; one in Europe: three in Asia: and one, the Burj Khalifa, in the Middle East. Viewing the skyscraper through a material lens offers another way to understand its complicated history.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t A Timeline of Concrete History and Application in the Technology and Construction of Tall Structures<\/strong><\/p>\n\t The exhibition begins with a 30-foot long timeline, organized in eight panels that present significant chapters or periods in the evolution of the concrete skyscraper. After a prologue on Roman concrete and the rediscovery and early industrial production of Portland Cement, the focus is on the late-19th century development of reinforced concrete. The patent era, beginning in the 1890s, spawned many competing systems of using metal rebar embedded in concrete to make it stronger. Entrepreneur engineers and builders applied their systems mostly to factory architecture and\u00a0stretched them to as tall as 16 stories by the 1910s.<\/p>\n The remaining panels focus on the development of true skyscrapers as a building type. The chronology groups buildings in eras that are marked by new forms, architectural and engineering innovations, and material advances. They illustrate the rise of the concrete skyscraper over more than a century – both as the ascent in height and, also, the expanding dominance of the material in the structure and construction of tall buildings worldwide.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t Romans to Renaissance and 18th-Century Reinvention<\/strong><\/p>\n Although many ancient building cultures used cement made from burned limestone as mortar to bind stones or bricks in masonry walls, it was the Romans in the 3rd century BCE who invented a method of monolithic concrete construction. Discovering that a local volcanic ash, pozzolan<\/em>, could cure and harden even underwater, Roman builders soon exploited “hydraulic” cement to construct arches, vaults, and domes. They used “aggregate” – discarded stones or bricks – to economize on cement, and they became experts at wooden formwork and centering, which held the fluid concrete in place until it hardened. With these methods, the large spans of Roman baths, towering aqueducts, and the vast dome of the Pantheon were possible. While the emperor Hadrian boasted that he built Rome into a “city of marble,” it would be more accurate to say he and other builder-rulers constructed an empire of concrete.<\/p>\n This technology was largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire. However, similar chemistry went into the mortar that bound bricks and stone together in Byzantine and Medieval structures such as the Aya Sofia, the Great Mosque at Isfahan, and Gothic cathedrals.<\/p>\n Concrete as a structural material was revived in the 18th century when it was discovered that adding clay to lime mortar produced some of the same properties as pozzolan. After English engineer Joseph Smeaton used hydraulic cement for the Eddystone Lighthouse in 1756, others began experimenting with the recipe. In 1824, Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin patented a mix of lime and silica-rich clay called “Portland Cement” that began to make concrete commercially viable throughout Europe and the United States.<\/p>\n In 1856, the French builder Fran\u00e7ois Coignet built a concrete house to demonstrate its usefulness as an architectural material. Coignet went on to patent formulas and formwork systems used throughout France and as far afield as New York City.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t Reinforced Concrete: Patents and Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n The critical ingredient in modern concrete is iron or steel reinforcement. Metal adds tensile (pulling) strength that perfectly complements the compressive strength of concrete. Early experiments with colliery rope and chains in England were matched by French patents for embedded wire mesh. In 1861, Joseph Monier invented a system of embedded iron mesh for garden pots. Within a generation, numerous patents for iron bars, or “rebar,” embedded in concrete gave the material reliable tensile strength. However, turning this knowledge into actual buildings would require entrepreneurs who recognized the potential for the new material to build strong, fire-resisting structures.<\/p>\n In the 1890s in California, Ernest Ransome developed a twisted square bar that gripped surrounding concrete and used it in industrial warehouses and university buildings. Ransome expanded his business, building factories around New York City and beyond. In 1903, his system was applied in the 15-story Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, which at 210 ft. became the tallest concrete building in the world and acclaimed “the first concrete skyscraper.” Ingalls’ heavy structure relied on a rigid frame braced by a core, short spans, and exterior bearing walls. Few followed its example.<\/p>\n In Paris in 1892, Fran\u00e7ois Hennebique took a different approach. He patented the Systeme Hennebique, a column-and-beam tectonic that was used for hundreds of European structures through licenses. The Hennebique system was used in the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool, the world’s tallest concrete office building upon its completion in 1911. French architect and contractor Auguste Perret designed and erected apartment buildings from the early 1900s that demonstrated how reinforced concrete could provide freer, more open floor plans. In America, Thomas Edison was one of several inventors who patented and built concrete houses.<\/p>\n Other early 20th-century patented systems pursued different structural strategies, especially in factories and industrial buildings. Minneapolis engineer C.A.P. Turner eliminated deep beams to create flat floor slabs. Connections between the columns and floors had to be enlarged, thereby forming “mushroom columns.” Henry Turner, whose legacy company is Turner Construction, built taller and taller factories and warehouses. The company assembled their impressive annual production in a graphic called “Turner City.”<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t Concrete Skyscrapers 1900-1950<\/strong><\/p>\n Reinforced concrete was ubiquitous, but not conspicuous, in the first half of the 20th century. In the 1910s, multistory factories of three to five stories proliferated across America. Where demand was high and land constrained, the buildings grew taller, as in Manhattan and on the Brooklyn waterfront, where warehouses and lofts pushed to 10 and even 16 stories. In 1915, the Robert Gair Company Building No.6, known to New Yorkers as DUMBO’s Watchtower Building, was the tallest of Henry Turner’s constructions. At 275 feet, the “industrial skyscraper,” as it was called on the cover of The Cement Era<\/em>, surpassed the 1903 Ingalls Building, although not the 1911 Royal Liver Building\u00a0at 322 feet.<\/p>\n Hotels were another high-rise type where reinforced concrete was valued especially for its fire-resistant properties and its capacity to create monumental forms and decorative details. Impressive examples were the Atlantic City giants, the 1906 Marlborough-Blenheim, and the 1915 Traymore, both by architect Will Price.<\/p>\n As office buildings, though, Ingalls and Royal Liver remained virtual one-offs. Although there were a few experiments with concrete high-rises in the 1920s scattered across the U.S. – San Antonio’s Milam Building (1928), Seattle’s Exchange Building (1930), and Chicago’s Century Tower (1930) – in general, reinforced concrete did not emerge as a competitor to steel for skyscrapers during the first half of the century. While it did offer significant advantages – it was durable, naturally fire resistant, and had a solidity and mass that provided resistance to wind – it was, ultimately, weaker than steel. Concrete also required larger column sections to carry the weight of floors, as well as bigger foundations.<\/p>\n Concrete gained acceptance in residential construction in the U.S. for its efficiency and fire resistance, but steel remained popular for its faster construction time. As builders and developers gained experience, more flat-slab concrete apartment buildings appeared, especially in cities with access to good aggregate and innovative construction industries such as Chicago and Seattle. In New York, though, steel was standard until after WWII. Outside the U.S., concrete was the traditional material for high-rise residential and office construction, especially in regions without good access to native steel industries such as South America and Italy.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t Postwar Decades: The Modern Concrete Skyscraper<\/strong><\/p>\n Skyscraper design changed dramatically after WWII, incorporating new technologies, materials, construction techniques, and stylistic expressions. “Modernism” took on a distinct set of characteristics that conformed to the Bauhaus-influenced International Style. Minimalism, functionalism, and the visible expression of structure were valued and engineers became key partners in the design process.<\/p>\n Concrete began competing with steel in the 1960s, both as a structural system and as an aesthetic. Chicago was a center of innovation, with early projects such as Bertrand Goldberg’s twin Marina City towers. In SOM’s Brunswick Building, architect Bruce Graham and engineer Fazlur Khan developed the concrete “tube,” in which the fa\u00e7ade became a bearing wall. In New York, Eero Saarinen’s CBS headquarters, Black Rock, exploited the tube system to create a seeming monolith.<\/p>\n Different techniques were used by the influential Italian engineer Pier Luigi Nervi, who developed structural elements that morphed from walls into columns in Milan’s Pirelli Tower. In Montreal’s Victoria Place, Nervi used concrete trusses to link the massive corner piers to the core and to steady the tower, which in 1964 became the world’s tallest concrete skyscraper.<\/p>\n New calculation techniques and improved mixtures allowed concrete to compete with steel for efficiency and height. The monolithic nature of concrete had made calculation difficult, leading earlier generations of architects to over-design structures. However, with the development of computer power, engineers could better understand how forces flowed through them. As calculations became more precise, beams, columns, slabs, and foundations could be made smaller because designers understood them as systems working together, rather than as independent elements.<\/p>\n The science behind concrete design was matched by better techniques on the job site. Concrete pumps and slip-forming – where formwork was continuously raised while wet concrete was placed inside it – made construction faster. Fiberglass formwork and treated surfaces also allowed smoother finishes, while older techniques, such as bush-hammering, were updated with better, more precise tools. Exposed concrete became part of the architectural palette.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t 1970s – 1980s: Formalism, Brutalism, and Postmodernism<\/strong><\/p>\n Concrete’s “coming out” in the 1960s – as a material of both structural and aesthetic value – coincided with the zenith of steel’s dominance in skyscraper construction exemplified by the titanic World Trade Center and Sears Tower. From the late 1970s, the use of concrete in high-rise projects, visible or hidden, began its inexorable rise.<\/p>\n Stylistically, the late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed a range of conflicting expressions. One was the continuation of the Modernist ethos emphasizing the collaboration between architects and engineers. Another was a celebration of innovative, often sculptural, forms seen in the rare towers of Brutalism. In contrast, Postmodernism, which originated in literature and cultural criticism, was primarily manifested in architecture, including high-rises, by reviving historical references.<\/p>\n Concrete played an essential role in the rise of these towers, even when hidden behind fa\u00e7ades that displayed a range of styles. Sleek modernist towers sheathed in continuous glass, such as Portman’s early 73-story Westin Peachtree, and Postmodern compositions clad in stone with ornamental flourishes, such as KPF’s 311 S. Wacker Drive, all exploited heights and slenderness made possible by new concrete technologies.<\/p>\n \u200b\u200bCooperation among suppliers, testing laboratories, and engineers led to recipes for much stronger concrete. New pumps and hydraulic lines replaced slow crane-lifted buckets. Admixtures that improved concrete flow and curing helped with placement, and anti-corrosion additives guaranteed longer reinforcement life. Structural engineers recognized that combining stiff concrete cores with lighter, longer-spanning steel trusses offered significant advantages in wind resistance and floor layout. Although coordinating the different materials presented scheduling issues and required special calculations to avoid problems in settling, the results were lighter and more efficient buildings. This hybrid approach spread rapidly, and composite construction – concrete and steel – became a standard technique in skyscraper design and construction.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t 1990s Supertalls<\/strong><\/p>\n By the end of the 1980s, advancing technologies in high-strength concrete and construction methods, as well as the engineering sophistication of designing supertalls – skyscrapers of at least 1,000 ft.\/ 300 m. – fueled the market and aspirations for greater height. Several schemes for 2,000-foot towers were proposed in Chicago. The earliest was the telescoping Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle, designed by Cesar Pelli and engineer Thornton Tomasetti, followed by SOM’s 7 South Dearborn, a mast-like structure with six distinct segments to reduce sway. Both relied on massive concrete cores to stiffen the structure against wind. Although unbuilt, these towers represented real advances in the engineering of the performance of supertalls.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the race for record-breaking height moved beyond the U.S. to Southeast Asia, China, and the Middle East – mainly through the expertise of American architects and engineers. The buildings that first illustrated this global competition were the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur. Cesar Pelli and Thornton Tomasetti continued their collaboration by designing twin towers, dramatically linked by a skybridge that symbolized a gateway and which, at 1,483 ft.\/ 452 m. to the tips of their spires, stole the title of world’s tallest building from Chicago’s Sears Tower. Concrete was chosen because Malaysia had no national steel industry, but already by the 1990s, concrete was becoming the standard material for supertall construction. \u200b\u200bIn Shanghai, the 88-story Jin Mao Tower, designed and engineered by SOM and completed in 1999, was the first of China’s supertalls. Jin Mao’s massive octagonal core, which hollowed out into a soaring atrium, artfully expressed the malleability of concrete.<\/p>\n Foundations also used massive amounts of concrete. In fluid or muddy soil, as in Shanghai, thick mat foundations were generally supported by hundreds of friction piles. These long, thin cylinders filled with concrete often extended down 150 to 300 feet to create surface resistance along their lengths. The core of Jin Mao, for example, rises from a 4-meter concrete mat that transfers the tower loads to more than 1,000 bearing piles. In cities with deep bedrock, such as Chicago, concrete caissons continued to be used. At 311 S. Wacker, caissons 6 to 8 feet in diameter stretched 92 ft. to find a solid stratum. Concrete’s resistance to water and high compressive strength make it ideal for piles and caissons.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t The grid of skyscrapers in this panel was created for the Museum’s past exhibition, Supertall!<\/a> The two charts of skyscraper elevation drawings are courtesy of CTBUH.<\/p>\n\t 2000s: Global Supertalls<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite the many predictions of the end of skyscrapers after the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, the new century saw a worldwide rise in tall buildings. The grid of global supertalls on this panel was created by The Skyscraper Museum for the 2011 exhibition SUPERTALL, which surveyed all towers – completed or planned – of 1,250 ft.\/ 380 m. or higher. The survey makes clear the new centers of development: China and the Middle East, especially Dubai.<\/p>\n Concrete dominated supertall construction. Many different structural systems were employed, including core-and-outrigger, megaframe, and buttressed core. Even when steel was used, these approaches depended on thick concrete cores for elevator and mechanical shafts. The massive cores also provided stiffness and a stable base for construction cranes. In China, supertalls were usually mixed-use, with offices on the lower floors and a hotel or residences above.<\/p>\n Innovations in structural systems and construction methods allowed buildings and client ambitions to stretch higher. Wind tunnels and digital analysis produced astonishing increases in heights. Tests of the Burj Khalifa in the wind tunnel at RWDI enabled SOM to stretch the initial 523-meter design to 828 meters. simply by adapting the spiral form to “confuse the wind.” Tuned mass dampers placed at the tops of towers could also be used to mitigate motion problems.<\/p>\n The heavy concrete cores that began to dominate skyscraper construction in the 1980s were ubiquitous by the early 2000s and continued to facilitate ever-rising heights. In 2012, a chart created by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), shown here, projected the “Tallest 20 in 2020.” Eight years later, as the second chart showed, only half had been completed. While 2012 may have marked the apogee of enthusiasm for extraordinary height, the falloff in the number of projects completed is not unusual. The taller the tower, the more expensive it is per square foot or meter to build. Economics, not engineering, limits the ambitions of supertall projects.<\/p>\n Background Images: Grid of global supertalls from the 2011 Skyscraper Museum exhibition SUPERTALL!<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Click here for image credits.<\/a><\/p>\n\t 2010s: World’s Tallest and Most Slender Skyscrapers<\/strong><\/p>\n In 2010, the Burj Khalifa achieved its stunning height of 2,717 ft.\/ 828 meters. The Dubai icon remains the world’s tallest building today, although it could be topped by the Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia, which began construction in 2013, but was paused at around 300 meters. If completed as planned, Jeddah Tower will rise to 1,000+ meters.<\/p>\n Although the engineering and construction of skyscrapers has advanced enormously since the first 10-story office buildings in New York and Chicago in the 1870s, the Burj Khalifa and Jeddah Tower have something in common with their earliest progenitors: they are “bearing” buildings.” Unlike all the world’s tallest towers of the 20th century, which relied on steel frames and point-support columns to shape structures and interior spaces, the Middle East megatalls carry the gravity and lateral loads on a system of thick masonry walls. Both Burj Khalifa and Jeddah Tower employ the structural approach of a tapered, buttressed core with three wings in a Y-shaped plan. Their “liquid stone” is a sophisticated mix of high-strength concrete that in Burj Khalifa was pumped to an unprecedented height of 600 meters.<\/p>\n The super-slender “pencil” buildings that sprouted along New York’s Billionaire’s Row in the 2010s were enabled by new technologies suited only to concrete. While slim supertalls are built in other cities in the Middle East, Asia, and Australia, none match the extraordinary slenderness ratios of Manhattan’s ultra-luxury condominium towers erected on postage-stamp lots.<\/p>\n Advances in concrete and composite systems now allow for infinite invention in skyscraper forms. The sculptural shape of the Al Hamra Tower in Kuwait City or the curvy ribs of Zaha Hadid’s One Museum in Miami exploit the fluidity of concrete and the precision of bespoke formwork. So does the “swiss cheese” screen that envelops O-14 in Dubai or the naturalistic rock-ledge balconies that project from Jeanne Gang’s 80-story Aqua in Chicago. Digital fabrication has made complex formwork possible and affordable and digital analysis allows engineers to calculate structural performance with accuracy. Thus, new technologies have revolutionized how to design, construct, and analyze concrete buildings.<\/p>\n In the spirit of the classic question asked by architect Louis Kahn: What form does a material want to be? Twenty-first-century concrete answers: Any form you like.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Prologue: Concrete Construction 1900-1950<\/strong><\/p>\n\t One wall of the exhibition focuses on the first half of the 20th century, when concrete was ubiquitous, but not conspicuous in skyscrapers. There were only a few experiments in fully reinforced-concrete high-rises and those remained virtual one-offs, like the Ingalls building in Cincinnati or the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool, England, both featured on the wall. Yet, concrete was present and essential in every high-rise building, and in fact was often the dominant material, if measured by weight. The pervasive presence of concrete in steel-skeleton buildings is illustrated in a suite of photographs of the Empire State Building that picture foundations, floors, and fireproofing, among other key uses.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Model of Ingalls building by Adam Berg and Paige Zolnierek from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign<\/p>\n\t Ingalls Building<\/strong><\/p>\n At 16 stories, the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, Ohio, can legitimately be called “the first concrete skyscraper,” a proof-of-concept that demonstrated the new material could be relied upon for strength and stiffness at heights that competed with steel. Local architects Elzner and Anderson contracted with the Ferro Concrete Company of Cincinnati, who had built several low-rise concrete structures in the city. The company operated as a licensee of Ernest Ransome, a successful builder and entrepreneur who pioneered the use of reinforced concrete in industrial and civic structures in California and New York. Ransome developed patented twisted reinforcing bars that gripped the surrounding concrete, providing reliable connections with the tensile capacity of steel. He parlayed his building experience into a system he licensed to local contractors, providing bars, recipes for use with local cement and aggregate, and engineering consultation. The photographs on the left show the process of construction on the exterior as the building rises as well as for interior staircases, floors, and columns.<\/p>\n As seen in the model, created from floor plans and photos by architecture students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Ransome’s advice led to bulky, oversized columns and girders connected with haunched, heavily-reinforced joints that made the building a stiff, monolithic frame. Additional stiffness came from the exterior walls, which were made of concrete, but decorated with stone panels and ornament. Nevertheless, Ransome’s patented reinforcement allowed thinner beams than steel, and he estimated that his system saved about one foot in height for every floor. But concrete suffered when compared to steel with regard to the speed of construction. Ingalls pioneered the use of reusable formwork, and crews worked with three sets, but they were only able to pour one floor every twelve days. In addition, the curing time required to achieve strength added to the schedule. In general, a steel-skeleton building rose more than twice as fast as concrete.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Royal Liver Building<\/b><\/p>\n The Royal Liver Building was among the most prominent and tallest structures built using the Hennebique system of reinforced concrete construction, which treated the material as a column-and-beam system. Developed by the French builder Francois Hennebique in 1892, this system used steel reinforcement bars in patented shapes to connect columns and girders with strong, stiff joints. The resulting frames were ‘self-braced’; they resisted gravity and wind forces by themselves, without additional shear walls. Used throughout Europe mostly to build factories, warehouses, and industrial structures, the Hennebique system was the most successful patented system in Europe. By 1900, the company had erected more than 1,500 projects annually.<\/p>\n The construction photographs here show how the Hennebique system mimicked the skeletal appearance of steel framing. Concrete formed floors, columns, girders, and walls-even a spiral staircase leading to the clock towers. The deep girders conceal heavy steel reinforcing that helps direct loads into the thin columns, while thick shear walls toward the base help stay the building against wind. The middle image in the slideshow on the left shows formwork (the upside-down trays) being laid to mold one-way joists that will carry floor loads to the deeper girders while minimizing the overall weight. In the other two images, granite cladding is hung from the concrete frame, concealing it entirely and presenting a more formal appearance to the rest of the city. Hennebique’s work typically consisted of this ‘hidden structure’ behind a stone or masonry veneer.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t Empire State Building<\/b><\/p>\n Through the 1930s, even in a nominally steel building, concrete had a major presence, as this selection of photographs of the Empire State Building\u00a0in the Museum’s collection illustrate.\u00a0The steel columns and beams that arrived like clockwork on the Empire State Building’s job site were accompanied by an average of 5,000 cement bags daily.<\/p>\n Concrete was vital to the structure’s 210 massive caisson foundations and thick basement walls. It also was used to create floor slabs by pouring light-weight cinder aggregate over draped steel mesh. Although the concrete was mixed on site, standardized wooden formwork allowed speedy construction. Concrete also encased and fireproofed the steel frame. Crews followed ironworkers, casting shallow concrete jackets around each column. Despite its long curing times, concrete played a crucial role in the record-breaking, 11-month construction of the Empire State Building.<\/p>\n The images in the adjacent panels are from the Museum’s collection of 511 Empire State Building construction views, as documented in a scrapbook by the original contractors and accessible online through the Visual Index to the Virtual Archive<\/a>.<\/p>\n Left Panel Images (left to right):<\/p>\n Right Panel Images (left to right):<\/p>\n Installation views of the cases for Marina City, One Shell Plaza, and the CBS Building.<\/p>\n\t The Modern Concrete Skyscraper<\/strong><\/p>\n\t The main gallery focuses on the second half of the 20th century to the present day. The buildings featured are “case studies” that represent both the importance of key designers – and generally the intimate collaborations of architects and engineers –\u00a0and the impact of new technologies in materials and advances in construction that, from the 1980s, allowed for greater heights, slenderness, and formal expression.<\/p>\n The post-WWII decades were characterized by the triumph of Modernism, both as an aesthetic and an ideology connected to simplicity of forms and expression of structure, and to an avoidance of applied ornament, but value of the intrinsic beauty of materials. While the “glass box” model of Lever House or the Seagram Building became the dominant approach for the postwar skyscrapers, some architects and engineers began to explore structural systems in reinforced concrete that offered striking contrasts to steel skeletons and glazed curtain walls. Buildings such as Marina City, One Shell Plaza, the CBS headquarters “Black Rock”, and One Australia Square illustrate the range of expression that could be achieved in concrete while exploring the principles of Modernism.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\tIngalls Building, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1903
\n64 m\/ 210 ft\/ 16 floors
\nArchitect: Elzner & Anderson, with Ernest Ransome
\nRetrofit Architect: Luminaut
\nPhotographs from the Collection of Cincinnati & Hamilton County Public Library and\u00a0Architectural Record\u00a0<\/em>(June 1904)\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\tRoyal Liver Building, Liverpool, England, 1908-1911
\n98 m\/ 322 ft\/ 13 floors
\nArchitect: Walter Aubrey Thomas
\nClient: Royal Liver Assurance Group
\nPhotographs courtesy of Liver Building CoLtd.\n\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\tEmpire State Building, New York, 1930-1931
\n443.2 m\/ 1,454 ft\/ 102 floors
\nArchitect: Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates
\nContractor: Starrett Brothers and Ekin
\nCollection of The Skyscraper Museum\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMarina City, Chicago, Illinois, Elevation and Details Copy of a sepia print, graphite, and zip-a-tone on Mylar Original: 30 \u00d7 41 in. Courtesy of Geoffrey Goldberg\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMarina City, Chicago, Illinois. Bertrand Goldberg Associates, architects, Richard Nickel, photographer. Richard Nickel Archive, Ryerson and Burnham Art and Architecture Archives, The Art Institute of Chicago. Digital File # 201006_191016-542\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMarina City Model\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tConstruction view courtesy of Geoffrey Goldberg\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tConstruction view courtesy of Geoffrey Goldberg\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFloor plan from the book Marina City: A City within a City, collection of The Skyscraper Museum\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\tMarina City, Chicago, 1962
\n179.2 m\/ 588 ft\/ 61 floors
\nArchitect: Bertrand Goldberg & Associates
\nStructural Engineer: Bertrand Goldberg & Associates, Bertold Weinberg, and Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
\nDeveloper: Building Service Employees International Union
\nMarina City model by Atousa Esmaili from the Univeristy of Illinois Urbana-Champaign\n\t\t