The story begins in the remains of World War II. After the horrors of global conflict, world leaders wanted something radically different: a place where countries could talk instead of fight. In a private conversation in 1941, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested the name “United Nations” to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who envisioned an international organization dedicated to maintaining peace. This vision came to life in 1945, when 51 countries signed the United Nations Charter in San Francisco, officially founding the UN.

When it was time to build a home for this ambitious project, New York City stepped up as the host, with the Rockefellers donating land along the East River. Other locations were considered, including Flushing Meadows in Queens, the Presidio in San Francisco, the Black Hills of South Dakota, the Palisades in New Jersey, Boston, and Philadelphia. However, New York’s infrastructure, accessibility, and status as a global city with strong international connections made it the ideal choice. Manhattan’s centrality and prestige, combined with Rockefeller’s hefty support, sealed the decision to establish the UN in Turtle Bay.

An international team of architects, including Wallace K. Harrison (US), Oscar Niemeyer (Brazil), Le Corbusier (France), and others, was brought together to design this landmark. Many expected this elite team—responsible for iconic works like Niemeyer’s curving, futuristic buildings in Brasília and Le Corbusier’s bold, modernist visions like the Villa Savoye in France—to create something with character, something that pushed boundaries. But what emerged from this collaboration was surprisingly “boring” to some, a structure that seemed almost too simple. Why?

The architects chose an aesthetic that stripped away all cultural markers, deliberately avoiding the use of arches, columns, or ornamentation that might evoke a particular country’s history. Arches, for example, have deep roots in Islamic and Roman architecture, while columns often bring to mind ancient Greece and Rome. Any stylistic reference would have subtly aligned the building with specific cultural histories, which was exactly what the UN wanted to avoid. They envisioned a structure that was a “clean slate”—a design that would symbolize neutrality, a place belonging to no one and everyone. This decision led them to embrace the International Style, a modernist architectural approach that valued simplicity, function, and a kind of timeless, placeless aesthetic.

‍

Modernist or Just Boring? The Controversial Style Choice

The Secretariat Building—the tall, glassy structure that defines the UN Headquarters—was New York’s first real taste of the International Style. This style ditched the ornament and decoration of older buildings for something sleek and stripped down. For the architects, this was about honesty and transparency, ideas they believed reflected the UN’s mission. The building’s glass curtain wall, a novel idea at the time, gives it a weightless, almost two-dimensional look. For some, it’s sophisticated minimalism; for others, it’s a dull wafer.

But here’s where it gets interesting. The International Style was chosen precisely because it doesn’t “fit” anywhere in particular. It’s a style that feels foreign everywhere, which makes it feel like it could belong anywhere. In a way, the building’s design lets it act as neutral ground—a blank canvas where almost 200 countries can come together without any one culture taking the spotlight.

‍

Two Buildings, Two Purposes: The Contrast Between the Secretariat and the General Assembly

Now, let’s get into the details. The UN Headquarters complex is made up of three main structures, but the two that catch the eye are the Secretariat Building and the General Assembly Building. These structures don’t just look different—they serve completely different purposes, and their designs reflect that.

‍

The Secretariat Building: A “Wafer-Thin” Tower with a Purpose

The Secretariat Building, with its 39 floors, is a tall, narrow tower wrapped entirely in glass. This wasn’t just a stylistic choice. Its thin profile, stretching skyward, is both practical and symbolic. First, the 39 floors make it a significant visual landmark without overwhelming its neighbors. The building was originally intended to be even taller—45 floors—but was scaled down due to budget constraints. Its slim design keeps all interior spaces close to natural light, a rare feature in office buildings of the time. The narrowness means you’re never far from a window, which helps create a feeling of openness, in line with the transparency and accessibility the UN wants to symbolize.

The building’s glass curtain wall, which hangs off the structure like a sheer curtain, was an innovative choice in the 1950s. This curtain wall effect gives the building a lightweight appearance, as though it’s floating in place. While most New York buildings at the time relied on heavy masonry and thick walls, the Secretariat broke with tradition, embracing a material that allowed light to flood in.

However, all that glass also created challenges. The extensive use of glass led to significant solar heat gain, meaning the building could become uncomfortably warm and required more cooling. Le Corbusier had originally proposed adding external shading devices to help block the sun, but these were ultimately deemed too costly and impractical. Instead, the architects opted for tinted, thermopane glass, which helped mitigate some of the heat gain while preserving the building’s sleek, transparent look. So, while the tinted windows lend a slightly greenish hue that echoes the East River, they’re primarily there to keep the building cool—a practical solution to a design that was a bit ahead of its time in terms of energy efficiency.

The horizontal vents at every tenth floor also help with cooling and airflow, creating a subtle rhythm across the building’s exterior while serving a functional purpose. Altogether, these elements—the thin, vertical shape, the tinted glass, and the innovative curtain wall—helped make the Secretariat an early experiment in modernist office design, even if it wasn’t always easy to manage.

‍

The General Assembly Building: A Dome, Curves, and a Diplomatic “Theater”

While the Secretariat is all about height and light, the General Assembly Building takes a different approach. This low-slung, curving structure almost hugs the ground, as if to offer a more grounded, intimate space. The shape isn’t just aesthetic; it’s functional. The building was designed to house a grand hall where all member nations could meet. This horizontal spread allows the General Assembly to seat representatives in a sweeping, almost theatrical setting, where all voices can be heard in equal measure.

The concave curves of the building give it a unique “hourglass” shape, which also enhances the acoustics inside the Assembly Hall. Architect Wallace Harrison was inspired by his previous work on the Hall Auditorium at Oberlin College, a similarly curved structure. The curves in the General Assembly Building help direct sound toward the center of the room, making it easier for delegates to hear each other in a large, crowded hall.

One of the most striking elements of the General Assembly Building is its dome, a feature that wasn’t actually in the original design. A US senator insisted on including it, arguing that Congress might not fund the building if it didn’t look “important” enough. After all, most major American governmental buildings, from the Capitol to various state houses, feature domes. This dome was added to lend the building a certain gravitas, even though the architects initially resisted it, preferring a flat roof. The dome, however, became a defining feature, signifying the importance of the work that takes place within.

The interior of the Assembly Hall is just as thoughtful. Inspired by Finnish architect Alvar Aalto’s work at the 1939 World’s Fair, the hall features tall, wooden slats that lend warmth to the space and offer a comforting contrast to the sleek glass and stone exterior. These wood-paneled walls create an environment that feels natural and welcoming, adding a human touch to the formal setting of international debate.

The General Assembly Building also has a north and south lobby with distinct functions. The South Lobby, where delegates enter, is lined with glass, offering a sense of openness and transparency right as representatives walk in. The North Lobby, which is designated for press and visitors, features a striking mix of glass and marble. Inside, graceful curves and ramps—a signature style of Niemeyer, who had been inspired by Le Corbusier—create fluid, open spaces that invite movement and reflection.

Breaking Boundaries with an “Out-of-Place” Design

New Yorkers have mixed feelings about the UN Headquarters. Some argue it messes with the skyline, while others think its simple design gets overlooked. But the truth is, the UN was never meant to fit into New York’s architectural narrative. It’s meant to stand out—to be a constant reminder of its mission as neutral territory, where nations come together to solve (or try to solve) global issues.

While it may not be the most glamorous building in New York, the UN Headquarters is an architectural experiment in diplomacy. Its international style is deliberately “placeless,” a reminder that the UN doesn’t belong to any one culture or history—it’s for everyone. So, while it might seem out of sync with the city’s jazzed-up skyline, that’s part of what makes it special. It’s not a building trying to make New York look good; it’s a building trying to make the world a better place.

‍

Why the UN Headquarters Matters

Even after seven decades, the UN Headquarters remains a polarizing feature of New York. Some see an architectural marvel; others see an ugly block of glass. But beyond the aesthetics, the UN Headquarters stands as a testament to a world that, despite its conflicts and challenges, still believes in unity.

So next time you look at the UN’s “boring” glass facade, remember that it’s not there to impress but to inspire—to represent a fresh start, a commitment to dialogue, and a belief in the power of collaboration. In a city that’s all about being bold and brash, maybe the UN’s subtlety and restraint are the most New York thing about it.