The relevance of a comparison of the Lever House and the Seagram Building is not only because of their opposing positions on Park Avenue and 53rd Street in New York, but their shared symbolism for architecture. Michelle and James Nevius describe the buildings as “the most significant postwar architectural statement in New York City”. (259) These two buildings share a further affinity, insofar as they are classically understood as emblematic of the International style that stresses volume, balance and an elimination of ornamentation. Yet the two buildings can be understood as representing their own distinct interpretations of this style, placing emphasis on particular aspects of a shared architectural philosophy.

The basic structure of Lever house is its »21-story office tower and a two-story podium building raised on columns crowned by a roof garden.« (Weston, 101) Following basic commitments to International style, the building materials include a curtain wall of glass around a structural steel frame. The building retains a striking uniformity in its composition, presenting a harmony between its two basic components of tower and a protruding two-storey podium building as base. Yet the distinction between these two elements can be viewed as a certain break in the harmony of the overall building, as though the architects of the SOM firm attempted to create a singular example of the International Style in their work. Thus, the apparent simplicity of the style in its lack of ornamentation achieves a certain affect of singularity and ornamentation by breaking up the overall harmony of the building through this uneven division of tower and podium. In this sense, International style principles are pushed to their limit, as the podium itself serves as a certain inverse crowning ornament of the entire building.

The Seagram building, designed by Mies van der Rohe, adheres to the same basic principles as the Lever House, although Mies’ commitment to a deeper unity is apparent. For Nevius and Nevius, »Mies’s structure is so compelling because – unlike Lever House – it doesn’t struggle so hard to break free of the grid.« (261) Mies’s radical functionalism is based on the materials of a steel frame and concrete core sheer walls, while incorporating a similar glass curtain. Mies’s structure attempts to abjure from ornamentation even more than the Lever building, in a direct subjugation of its own individuality. Mies’ Seagram Building wishes to create a harmony in its own internal structure that will thus harmonize with the greater exterior environment – this philosophy could be expressed as internal harmony generating external harmony.

Because of the functionalist aesthetic of the Seagram Building, the differences with the Lever House building could be understood in terms of such individuality – while adhering to the same basic architectural principles as the Seagram Building, the Lever House, in order to assert its own originality, must somehow deviate from the International style in order to make a claim for its own originality. Accordingly, principles of an overall harmony with the surroundings and the building’s own functionalist simplicity are compromised by an attempt to avoid interpretations of the Lever House as a mere repetition of Mies’ style, who was already established as a renowned architect. The distinction between these two pieces of architecture show the limit of any unique architectural school or style – by following a style too closely, one develops a certain copycat aesthetic.

Accordingly, the main difference between the Seagram Building and the Lever House could be traced back to the idea of the architect as auteur – the architect’s individuality needs to be maintained, instead of a commitment to an overall homogeneity of space. This is not to suggest that the Lever House radically differs from the Seagram Building – rather it symbolizes the tension that exists between an architect attempting to follow a certain style, while simultaneously expressing his or her own individuality.