Transforming Historical Architecture: Case Studies From Renzo Piano

!
Transforming Historical Architecture:

Case Studies from Renzo Piano
A Division III Project by Blithe Archbald

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Bachelor of the Arts at Hampshire College 2016
School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies
Committee Chair: Naomi Darling

Committee Member: Karen Koehler 
I would like to thank my advising committee for all the time they put into reading
and editing my work and meeting with me every week; I wouldn’t have made it
through this process without them. Thank you to my committee chair, Naomi
Darling, for her expertise in advising me on my architectural drawings, and to my
committee member Karen Koehler for pushing me to be critical in my writing and
find my voice. Thank you to Jessica Maier for her class that inspired my love of
acknowledgments historical architecture, and for her editing and advice throughout this process.
I would like to thank Hampshire College for giving me the opportunity to find
what I love and the guidance and resources to pursue the course of study I chose.
This school has given me an extremely challenging academic path, and I am
grateful for both the independent and critical approach to learning and for a
student body that does not hesitate to stand up for what they believe in. While
attending Hampshire I have found some of the most dedicated, hardworking, and
supportive people I have ever met, and I greatly appreciate their love and
friendship.
Finally, I am eternally grateful for my parents and their continued support in my

academic pursuits and their complete trust in my decisions. I could not be where I
am today without the love and generosity of my parents and my sister, Hattie. A
special thank you to my mom, for not only editing every piece of writing I sent
her, but for her continuous encouragement and advice.
 
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 1: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum . . . . . 18
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 2: The Morgan Library and Museum . . . . . . . . .42
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Chapter 3: Fogg Museum | Harvard Museums . . . . . . . . 67
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Selected Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

!5
This thesis is an investigation into the relationship between historical and

contemporary architecture, focusing on three case studies of recent Renzo
abstract Piano additions to historical museums: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
in Boston, the Morgan Library and Museum in New York City, and the Fogg
Museum at Harvard University. The goal of this paper is to convey to future
architects the importance of respecting historic buildings, and suggest a
variety of methods, based on Piano’s design precedents, through which to
create a complimentary relationship between contemporary and historical
architecture. 
!6
!7
introduction
!8
Why are historic buildings important?
Historical buildings represent a shared past. They are physical
manifestations of our cultural heritage. In traveling through a city, the variety
of building types, sizes, and styles demonstrate the changing tastes and
values of a city’s inhabitants. Old buildings provide comfort and foster
nostalgia, helping people feel a connection with their physical environment.
Their composition, massing, and balance are recognizable and
understandable, and their ornamentation adds a “richness of texture” that is
uncommon in modernist architecture.1
In addition to this emotional reasoning, the preservation of historical
buildings is an integral part of creating sustainable cities. Old buildings are
often considered drafty, with their lack of insulation and outdated technical
systems; but what they do have is embodied energy. A constructed building
holds all of the energy used in extraction, processing, manufacture,
transportation, and assembly. When an existing building is demolished in
favor of a new building—even one with modern, high-tech solutions for
sustainability—all of the embodied energy is lost. Because of this embodied
energy, the environmental footprint of constructing an entirely new building
is much larger than that of retrofitting an existing one. In fact, even if a new
building is built from 40% recycled materials, it would still take about 65
!1 Charles Bloszies, Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations (New York: Princeton Architectural,
2012), 15.
!9
years for a new, energy-efficient building to recover the energy lost in
demolishing the existing building.2
While historic architecture is an important element in our cities, not
every historical building can or should be preserved. Enacting preservation
laws on every historical building would result in a “museum city,” that is
unable to adapt to changing needs or experience necessary growth. In
determining the designation of a historic building, many factors are
considered.
What makes a building worth preserving?
There are a variety of reasons for which a building is deemed worthy

“A structure’s significance
of preservation. The beginning of historic preservation in the United States
is based on two primary
was based on protecting buildings that had had an important, often patriotic, factors: historical or
event or function. This included buildings like Independence Hall where the cultural importance and
architectural value.”
Declaration of Independence was signed, or politicians’ homes like
- Norman Tyler, 2000
Monticello and Mount Vernon. Over the years this narrow focus grew to
include a wider variety of locations, including the historical sites associated
with accomplished women and African-, Asian-, and Latino-Americans. Today
the National Registry of Historic Places includes sites like Mary McLeod
Bethune’s Washington DC townhouse, the headquarters of the National
Council of Negro Women; The Spanish San Antonio Missions in Texas; and
multiple World War I Japanese Internment Camps like Manzanar.
2Moe, Richard, “The Greenest Building is one that Already Exists,” Vincent Scully Prize Reception Speech, National
Building Museum, Washington, D.C., December 12, 2007.
!10
Some buildings or districts are preserved because they represent a
prominent style or time period. This can be seen in the preservation of
Colonial or Victorian houses in New England like the Parson Capon House in
Topsfield, MA; New York City brownstones like those in Clinton Hill, Fort
Greene, or Prospect Heights; or Pueblo and Mission Revival in the Southwest
like the Historic Districts of Riverside, CA. 3 Preserving building types like this
allows inhabitants to see the history of their neighborhood and its transitions
through the years.
Lastly, certain buildings in the United States are preserved because
they were designed by a famous architect and are therefore iconic of their
style or time period. Examples of this type include Frank Lloyd Wright’s
Fallingwater, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Lake Shore Drive apartments, or
Frank Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall. Buildings of this type were often
influential in the architecture community and are recognizable as the work of
their architect or their time period.
How can interventions, especially contemporary additions keep historical
buildings relevant?
Any of the reasons above, or a combination, can explain the
architectural or historical significance of a building. Based on their location,
style, and cultural significance, some are locally recognized as historic sites,
others are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and very few of
!3 Historic District Brochure Text, Riverside, CA, last modified 2015, https://www.riversideca.gov/historic/pdf/
hpDistrictBrochureText.pdf, 3.
!11
those are designated as National Historic Landmarks. 4 As these buildings
age, they often begin to lose their ability to fulfill necessary functions. Their
uses change, their technology becomes outdated, or the needs of
inhabitants outgrow the physical space. Once a building has been deemed
deserving of preservation, there are still varying degrees of possible
intervention. Based on their registration status, varying intervention strategies
can be implemented, including preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation.5
Preservation is the maintenance of a building in its current condition; changes
to the original structure that have occurred are retained, but no new
alterations can be made. Restoration refers to recreating the appearance of
the building at a specific time, often its original state. Rehabilitation consists
of preserving the elements of the building that represent its historical,
cultural, or architectural significance while allowing changes to the rest of the
structure. The appropriate method of intervention varies based on the
building’s reason for preservation. The most significant, like St.
Bartholomew’s Church in NYC would be preserved as close to its original
appearance as possible, while a less significant building could be completed
transformed on the interior to fulfill a new function, like the converted mill
building in North Adams, MA that now houses the Mass MoCA art museum.
Most interventions result in an alteration of the interior, while preserving the
!4 Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton,
2000), 151.
!5 Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton,
2000), 191.
!12
historic facade. However, when a historic building is severely lacking in space
or other required facilities, an exterior addition can be necessary. Additions
to historic buildings create an entirely new and complicated set of concerns
for an architect. As stated in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, “the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall
be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”6 This
standard requires that in these projects, architects must design a new
addition that is different enough that it does not appear as a copy, while still
respecting and complimenting the original historical form.
Why do contemporary additions need to relate to their context?
When intervening in a historical building, the altered structure is most
successful when the contemporary architects consider the form and style of
the original building, whether the new design be matching, complimentary,
or contrasting. The elements that create a “successful” design can vary
greatly, but some central design components to consider include massing
and scale, circulation, materials, negative space, and geometry. Without
considering these factors, an intervention can look massively inappropriate,
like Marcel Breuer’s proposal of a new skyscraper addition above the old
Grand Central Terminal (see figure). Contemporary Italian architect Renzo
6 United States. National Park Service, "Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines—Technical Preservation Services,
National Park Service,” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016, <https://www.nps.gov/tps/
standards/rehabilitation.htm>.
!13
Piano, on the other hand, is known for his consideration and care for
historical buildings.
“Unlike most other
architectural stars, Piano
Why focus on Renzo Piano’s additions? has no signature style.
Instead, his work is

Renzo Piano is a master of creating such relationships, while
characterized by a
simultaneously designing innovative contemporary structures. The majority of
genius for balance and
his projects consist of public buildings like universities and museums, and are context, an ability to
often very high-tech examples of postmodernism, although they vary greatly establish inventive
correspondences
in style. In an interview with The Independent, Piano stated: “I think it
between his buildings
["style"] is a trap. But what I don’t hate is ‘intelligence’ or ‘coherence’.
and those that surround
Because coherence is not about shape, it is about something stronger, more them.”
humanistic, more poetic even.” 7 The most recognizable elements of Piano’s - Paul Goldberger, 2006
design are a highly structured use of daylight, focus on environmental
sustainability, and “coherence,” or an ability to respect and interact with the
site’s architectural context. 8
His consideration and care in designing within an architectural
context allowed him to design buildings next to many well-known
architectural works, including Le Corbusier’s Chapel at Ronchamp and
Carpenter Center at Harvard, and Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum. His
sensitivity is most apparent in his many additions to historical buildings,
!7 Simon O'Hagan, "Renzo Piano: 'The Shard Is My Dream Building'" The Independent. Independent Digital News
and Media, last modified April 27, 2012, <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/renzo-
piano-the-shard-is-my-dream-building-7678862.html>.
!8 Rory Stott, ”Spotlight: Renzo Piano,” ArchDaily, last modified September 14, 2015, <http://www.archdaily.com/
273403/happy-birthday-renzo-piano/>.
!14
including the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, MA; the Morgan
Library and Museum in New York City; and the Fogg Museum at Harvard
University.
Why focus on these three additions?
This paper investigates the relationship between historical and
contemporary architecture through three of Piano’s recent additions: The
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Morgan Library and Museum, and the
Fogg Museum. While these historical institutions each have their own history
and character, they share many similarities that create a strong baseline for
comparison. The historical portion of each museum was built in the United
States in the early 20th century, each in a neoclassical or renaissance revival
style. Their physical appearance was a very traditional, European inspired
form. The Gardner’s Venetian Renaissance-style palace from 1901, the
Morgan’s neoclassical limestone Library from 1906, and the Fogg’s brick
Colonial-revival facade from 1925, each represent a commonly used style in
early 20th century America. The museums, each lacking the space necessary
for their facilities and collections, requested an addition designed by Renzo
Piano in the early 2000s. The additions, built in a contrasting contemporary
style, have all been completed within the last ten years. In each of these
three institutions, the founding of the museum was based on a private
collection, and was meant only for a select group of privileged patrons. Over
the past century, their directors have made an effort to transition these
!15
private institutions into more accessible, public organizations. I believe this
mission has been physically represented in Piano’s additions.
In order to illustrate the architectural elements discussed in the text,
each case study is accompanied by a series of original drawings. I used the
existing plans, elevations, and sections of each building as a base for a series
of analytical drawings to show the connecting elements between the
historical buildings and Piano’s additions. Many of the diagramed features are
the same across different case studies in order to show the consistencies in
Piano’s designs, and the illustrations use corresponding language, labeling,
and color coding for clarity. The drawings are located at the beginning of
each chapter in full scale, and are included in reduced size in the margin
when they are referenced in the text.
The following case studies and corresponding diagrams will
investigate these contemporary additions, their physical and aesthetic
relationship to their historical counterparts, and determine possible elements
that make them successful and that could be implemented in other similar
projects.
Literary Review
My sources for this research include books produced by Renzo Piano
Building Workshop and the museums, books on the theories and philosophy
of historical preservation, and short articles by architectural reviewers. The
books produced by Piano’s firm or by the museums, while they contain lots of
!16
first hand information on the design and construction processes, are often
used as advertising material, and are therefore overwhelmingly positive and
complimentary. I often found it necessary to consult other sources, including
architectural reviews, in order to approach Piano’s work critically. Because of
Piano’s high reputation in the architecture community, it was possible to find
a variety of reviews about these three projects in the New York Times, the
New Yorker, the Architect’s Newspaper, the Architectural Record, and the
Boston Musical Intelligencer. I also used a variety of resources written about
historical preservation, including work by Norman Tyler, Charles Blozies,
Brent C. Brolin, and Paul Spencer Byard. These authors outline the various
theories of historic preservation, its development in the United States, and
the methods of intervention in historic structures. I used these texts to
consider why historical architecture is important and worthy of preservation.  

!17
!18
chapter one:
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

 
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
!19
Emerald Necklace
Fe
nw
ay
ad
Ro
ace
Pal
ay
sWn
Eva
Evans Way Park
Tet
lowS
tre
et
Context Diagram
N
10’ 50’
20’ 100’
 
!20
East
Elevation
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
N
Massing Analysis 5’
10’
20’
50’
 
!21
East Section
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
N
Void Analysis 10 50
5 20
 
!22
East Elevation
East Section
Horizontal Absolute Analysis 10’ 50’

5’ 20’
 
!23
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
Captured Outdoor Spaces 5

10
20
50
 
!24
East Section
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
N
Daylighting Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
 
!25
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
N
Circulation Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
!26
The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum was founded by its namesake,
a well-known Bostonian art collector in the late 19th century. Isabella Stewart
was married to John Lowell Gardner Jr. in 1860 and they had their first son in
June of 1863. Their son died of pneumonia only two years later and, after his
death, Mrs. Gardner suffered years of depression and illness. In an effort to
restore her health and spirits, Jack Gardner arranged a trip to Scandinavia,
Russia, Vienna, and Paris in 1867. The trip not only returned Isabella’s
“ebullient personality and zest for life,” but also inspired her future love of art
and travel.9 The couple traveled extensively throughout Europe,, giving
Isabella the opportunity to meet many well-known artists and art collectors,
including James McNeill Whistler, John Singer Sargent and Bernard Berson,
who became her primary agent and advisor. She was also influenced by her
visit to the London Grosvenor Gallery in England, where she saw art exhibits
that displayed pieces by Old Masters and new artists together, typical of the
Aesthetic movement. Her exposure to this gallery experience would prove
inspiring in her own exhibitions in the future. Arguably the most influential
architecture in Isabella’s travels was the Palazzo Barbaro in Venice, Italy.
Starting in May of 1884, the Gardners took the first of many trips to Venice,
where they stayed with Jack’s relative Daniel Curtis, who owned the fifteenth
century palace.
Over almost thirty years of travel, Isabella gathered hundreds of
works of art, including pieces by Titian, Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Rubens.
!9 Hilliard T. Goldfarb, The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: a Companion Guide and History (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1995), 8.
!27
In 1896, the Gardners realized they needed more space than their home on Emerald Necklace
Fe
nw
ay
Beacon Street in Boston could provide, and began plans for a new building
ad
Ro
ce
that would serve as both a residence and museum. Jack Gardner died
Pala
ay
sW
Evan
unexpectedly on December 10th, 1898, and following his death, “the grief- Evans Way Park
Tetlo
w St
reet
stricken Mrs. Gardner immersed herself in the museum project.” 10
Context Diagram
N
10’ 50’
20’ 100’
Plans for the new building, referred to as “Fenway Court,” were

Figure 1
designed by architect Willard T. Sears, and were to be built on the corner of
Fenway and Evans Way, across the street from the Emerald Necklace,
Boston’s green park designed by famous landscape architect Frederick Law
Olmsted. (See figure 1). At Isabella’s request, Sears’s design drew heavily
from the Palazzo Barbaro, Isabella’s favorite travel location. The facades of
both Fenway Court and the Palazzo are made up of flat, rectangular expanses
with very few projecting or recessed elements. Windows vary in size, shape,
and decoration on different floors and even within the same level, though
they are far more simplified on the Fenway Court. The materials are similar as
well, as each facade is pale brown with a red tile roof. The similarities
increase within the courtyard of Fenway Court, where the windows to
surrounding galleries are all either original or replicas of Venetian
Renaissance arched windows. (See figure 2). An arcade runs the
circumference of the first floor, and exotic plants enhance the visitor’s
Figure 2
experience of the covered courtyard full of elaborate carvings and antiques.
The resemblance was so recognizable that some Bostonians rumored that the
!10 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: Boston Landmarks Commission Study Report (Boston: Boston Landmarks
Commission, Environment Department, 2011), 31.
!28
original Palazzo Barbaro had been dismantled by the Gardners and moved to
Boston.
Isabella lived on the fourth floor of the palace until her death in 1924,
hosting various dinner parties and social gatherings for Boston’s elite,
featuring prominent writers, poets, artists, and musicians of the time. The
pieces that Isabella had gathered in her travels were shared exclusively with
other wealthy residents, and not accessible to the public, a common practice
for collectors at the time.
The 1903 building stood for over 100 years, straining to
accommodate almost 200,000 visitors annually. Many facilities had been
added over the years, including offices, classrooms, a café, and a shop, all of
which overextended the physical capacity of the historic building. While the
numbers of visitors grew, the museum’s ability to hold functions and
programs dwindled. By the time Museum Director Anne Hawley was hired in
the late 1980s, the museum had lost its former status as a public center of art
and culture in Boston; Hawley even described the Museum as “tomblike.”11
The director and trustee board were eager to transform the formerly
exclusive, private institution into a more accessible center for the community.
In 1999, the museum board launched “a major planning initiative to become
a cultural center for the public for yet another century.”12 The plan included
new programs with curators, artists, scholars, and musicians; historic-
!11 Anne Hawley, Robert Campbell, Alexander Wood, Barbara Hostetter, and Nic Lehoux, Isabella Stewart Gardner
Museum: Daring by Design (New York: Skira Rizzoli, 2014), 57.
! Hawley, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 58.

12
!29
preservation efforts within the Palace Building; and the design and
construction of a new building. It was passed unanimously in a vote by the
Museum’s Board of Directors in 2002, the year before the Museum’s
centennial. The board considered over 75 architecture firms, undecided on
the direction of the new building, until trustee Marcia Radosevich
spontaneously stated that “the new building must be a work of art, just as
Gardner’s museum was.” 13 A visit to Renzo Piano’s Nasher Sculpture Center
in Dallas with its modern style, light airy galleries, and relationship with
nature, convinced the committee to offer Piano the commission. Upon his
acceptance, Piano was faced with the task of how best to approach the
historic structure with both innovation and respect. Anne Hawley and Barbara
Hosteler wrote a letter to Piano, asking that the new museum “flow quietly
behind the historic museum; that it assure the unimpeded ‘epiphanic
moment’ one experiences when approaching the courtyard; that it contain a
transparency to allow the visitor to experience the creativity of the museum
at work in its greenhouses, classrooms, gardens, and other programming
spaces.”14 Today, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum consists of the 1901
Palace Building, the 2012 Museum building, and its adjacent greenhouses.
The relationship between old and new structures exists aesthetically in their
facades, floor-plans, and interior appearance; physically in the glass hallway

13

14
!30
that connects them; and in their common goal: creating a holistic experience
of art, music, nature, and architecture for the visitor.
When a visitor looks at the historic structure, the Palace’s facades
appear uniform and clearly differentiated from one another. The eye can
easily take in the flat rectangular elevation and its repeating window forms,
just like that of the Palazzo Barbaro. As one turns to the Piano addition, the
facades are divided horizontally, as the first floor on both the East and West
facades is differentiated from the central structure in both material and
alignment. The entrance on the East facade projects from the building, while
the first floor on the West recedes slightly from the central form. (See figure
3). This distinction is reaffirmed in the physical description of the building in
Figure 3
!31
the report by the Boston Landmarks Commission, in which the Palace
Building is described in four separate facades, while the addition is divided
by horizontal floor.
The restrictions of the Boston Historical Society included that the
new addition must not be taller than the original Fenway Court. Although
each is four stories, the height of the Piano addition is about five feet below
that of the palace building. Height restrictions are common in the protection
of historic architecture, as an impressive 19th century building might stand at
only 50 feet, while newer buildings tower around it. Piano was careful to East
Elevation
respect the integrity of the original structure by not overwhelming it Palace Road
physically. His design added two forms, one volume parallel to the Palace
Tetlow Street
Fenway
and a smaller greenhouse. (See figure 4). The height of the green house Evans Way
Plan
N
corresponds to the first floor of the Palace, evident on the exterior by the
Massing Analysis 5’
10’
20’
50’
Figure 4
windows and a horizontal division on the Palace facade. The height of the
facades below the roofline on each wing are also equivalent, and the roofline
of Piano’s projecting entryway aligns with the parallel brick wall in front of the
Palace. These corresponding heights across multiple volumes are referred to East Elevation
as “horizontal absolutes,” and are a design element used to create a visual
relationship between two building forms. (See figure 5). East Section
Horizontal Absolute Analysis 10’ 50’

5’ 20’
The two major volumes—the Palace and the Museum Building—are

Figure 5
clearly separated from one another by a 50 foot void. The distinction
between new and old is very apparent from either the east or west facade,
making the wings appear almost like two separate structures, as the only
!32
connection for visitors is through a glass corridor that Piano placed between
them. The use of negative space between architecture from different time
East Section
periods and styles is a common technique to distinguish them from each

Palace Road
other, and is often utilized by Piano. (See figure 6).
Tetlow Street
Fenway
The variety of materials on the facades results in a strong contrast on
Evans Way
the building’s exterior, in both color and tactile surface. The Palace is Plan
N
Void Analysis 10 50
5 20
constructed of brick, with a roof of Spanish red tile, clearly a reference to the
Figure 6
Palazzo Barbaro. Its use of a single material on all facades gives it a unified
and solid appearance. The addition appears much lighter because of both
the facade divisions and the thinner, more transparent materials. The first
floor on both the east and west facades is primarily canopied glass, which a
four-story rectangular central volume seems to float above. This form is
reminiscent of the heavy block structure of Fenway Court, but replaces the
brick with a thin layer of patinated copper sheets. The smooth pale teal
surface contrasting with the textured brick creates additional visual
separation.
While the surfaces vary greatly in appearance, Piano also used
materials to create visual connections between two structures. Red brick
accent walls on the first floor of the west and south facades tie together the
patinated copper with the brick of the original Palace and the surrounding
red brick buildings of Boston. Some scholars are very fond of the greenish
shade of the copper, pointing out that it creates an extension of the green
park space across the street. Others criticize the material choice, arguing that
!33
using chemically pre patinated copper gives the surface less depth than
copper that has naturally patinated over time.
The shape and form of the windows designed by Sears and Piano are
very different. Piano’s windows are large sheets of glass, located on the first
floor and on the north walls facing the old building, not on the main copper
facades, as they would interfere with the interior wall space of the galleries
and performance hall. The Palace’s windows are uniform rectangular
openings, lessening in height towards the upper floors and creating a grid of
horizontal and vertical divisions. While Piano included no windows on the
copper volume, a different repetition of divisions on both wings provides a
visual similarity: a repetitive pattern of steel and glass surrounding the
building envelope. A small walkway serving as a fire escape wraps around the
west facade differentiating each of the three upper floors, and steel
supporting cables create vertical divisions. (See figure 7). This projecting
Figure 7
element on the flat facade gives the building a dimension and depth that it
wouldn’t otherwise have, while its transparency allows the copper volume to
reference the flat expanse of the Palace Building’s facades.
Surrounding the entire museum at ground level are various fences or

Palace Road
enclosures. (See figure 8). The historic wing is separated from the sidewalk at
Tetlow Street
Fenway
the northern entrance by an elaborate, almost seven foot tall wrought iron
Evans Way
fence, in which the entry gate stands even taller. The original structure is then Plan
Captured Outdoor Spaces 5

10
20
50
surrounded on the eastern facade by a tall, curving brick wall with a metal
Figure 8
cap. Two small openings in the wall are decorated with fiberglass grills,
!34
replicas of the original stone grills. The brick wall ends at the southeast
corner of the Palace Building, exposing the open space between the old and
new wings. A new fence designed by Renzo Piano extends to the new
entrance, starting just behind the brick wall. Vertical steel divisions encase
glass panels, creating a transparent separation between the sidewalk and the
2012 Museum Building. Piano continued the same fence on the west facade.
This fence extends from Piano’s building to the southwest corner of the
Palace building, but creates a gradual transition with a five-foot section of
bright red brick between the glass and the faded tan brick of the old Palace.
With this design, Piano successfully continues the existing tradition, fulfills a
security function, and changes his materials and form enough to make a
visually appealing and more welcoming experience for the visitor. (See figure
Figure 9
9).
Piano had a similar approach in designing the entrance to his
addition. The entrance to each wing is located within an extended portico,
but they create very different experiences. On the north facade of the Palace
Building, a small white rectangular form projects from the surface plane with
a flat roof. (See figure 10). The influence from the Palazzo Barbaro is clear.
The entrances to Neoclassical or Renaissance Revival buildings are often
large and grand, usually rising above the street with multiple stairs, a porch,
columns, and other decorative elements. Conversely, entrances to Venetian

Figure 10
palaces are often flush with the building, recognizable only by a slightly
larger archway, if at all.

!35
The 2012 alterations included moving the visitor’s entrance from its
original location on the Palace Building’s north facade to the addition on
Evans Way, a common practice in museum renovation in order to allow
modern facilities for ticket sales, coat rooms, shops, and cafés. Piano’s
entrance is larger and more welcoming, but still not grand or imposing. (See
figure 11). The revolving door is level with the sidewalk, and the transparent
glass facade draws visitors inside in a way the Palace does not. New Figure 11
entrances on historic buildings are also useful for meeting modern
accessibility standards. The Piano wing provides automatic doors, wide
hallways, and more spacious elevators that the original Palace entrance
lacked. The clear glass and accessibility of Piano’s entrance symbolize the
museum board’s goal of transparency for the Gardner Museum’s future.
The visitor’s transition from city to galleries has been greatly altered
in the shift from the old to the new entrance. Until 2010, guests would enter
through the small portico on busy Fenway Street into a small dark room, from
which the daylight of the courtyard would already be visible. The new
entrance, in keeping with common practices for new museums, creates a
longer transition between the city outside and the interior galleries. (See
figure 12). This is due somewhat to practical functions, in allowing visitors
space to purchase tickets and check coats, but also fulfills a more conceptual Figure 12
purpose in separating the everyday light outside from the cultivated artistic
experience within the museum. The Piano entrance realizes both of these
goals. Visitors enter the glass portico and are surrounded by glass walls and
!36
ceilings supported by a thin steel frame that defines the view of the
surrounding landscape, buildings, and the Palace. After passing through the
hall with the coat check and visitor shop, the foyer opens again into a wide
double staircase. The steel staircase with its glass railing stands in the center
of the room away from the walls, seeming to float above. (See figure 13).
Behind the stairs is a wall of windows facing north, through which visitors can
see the south facade of the old Palace Building, its image framed again by
Figure 13
steel divisions. Within the wall of windows, a one-story glass corridor extends
to the Palace: the only physical connection between the two buildings. The
glass walls of the first floor, the North wall, and the corridor not only provide
transparency, light, and views of the Palace, but also create a series of
reflections. Piano designed all of these views strategically, creating a strong
relationship with the historic building.
The glass corridor, referred to by Renzo Piano as the “umbilical
cord,” allows visitors to look not only out to the landscape and street, but
also up towards the Palace as they enter. (See figure 14). After passing Figure 14
through the corridor, the threshold into the new museum is a very dark, brick
enclosure (which feels almost as though it’s underground), through which the East Section
Palace Road
light from the courtyard beyond is visible and inviting. This progression of
Tetlow Street
Fenway
dark and light (See figure 15) may be purposefully reminiscent of the original
Evans Way
entrance on Fenway Court. The path from the corridor leads to a covered Plan
N
Daylighting Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
Figure 15
arcade, creating a slow transition to the bright, open courtyard on the left.
!37
Visitors circle the sunny, central courtyard through galleries on the
upper floors with views to the courtyard through the classical Venetian
windows. The layout of galleries around a central void in the Palace is
reflected in the open stairwell of Piano’s foyer, with a café, classrooms, Palace Road
gallery, and performance hall around its perimeter. These central spaces are
Tetlow Street
Fenway
the focus of circulation in the museum, and each is intersected by long
Evans Way
hallways that cross the buildings like axes, guiding visitors through both
Plan
N
10’
20’
50’
Figure 16
historical and contemporary wings. (See figure 16).
Isabella Stewart Gardner’s goal when designing the Palace Building
was to be a center of culture, education, arts, music, and nature. But her
audience was limited to a select group of wealthy, upperclass individuals who
were invited to Isabella’s dinners parties, and prominent artist and musicians
who were requested to perform. This sentiment was reflected in the
architecture. The Palace’s tall forbidding facades and small dark entrance
were not a welcome invitation to passing pedestrians, and the bright and
open courtyard was only experienced by those who had been invited inside.
Over the course of the 20th century, this exclusive mentality became less
appealing to the people of Boston. The 1999 planning initiative included
plans to rejuvenate the museum through outreach programs including
conversations and lecture series, artist talks, performances, open studio days,
the “Teens Behind the Scenes” educational program for local young adults,
and the Gardner’s School Partnership Program for neighboring city
elementary schools. This change in the Museums relationship with the Boston
!38
public was manifested in the architecture of the new wing by Renzo Piano.
The lightness of the building, symbolic transparency in materials, and the
new accessible entrance of the Museum Building reflect the new relationship
between the Gardner Museum and the local community.
Although advocates of historic preservation are often hesitant to
praise alterations to historic buildings, reviews of Renzo Piano’s addition to
the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum were generally favorable. This is likely
due to his careful treatment of the historical building, especially in the
negative space between the original building and its addition, which creates
a visual distinction that honors the historic Fenway Court in itself while
adding a complimentary structure.
The most common criticism of this addition is perhaps that Piano was
too restrained in his approach to the Palace Building, whose exterior is
sometimes considered “a bit bland.” 15 For years, critics of Fenway Court
have accused Isabella’s concept of a Venetian palace in Boston,
Massachusetts as naive, and criticized the building’s overly romanticized style.
A few critics, including well-know Nicolai Ouroussoff, say that Piano was too
hesitant in his modification of the old palace, arguing that “Mr. Piano has
been so careful to protect the sanctity of the existing museum in his design
that you may find yourself tiptoeing through the galleries.”16
!15 Nicolai Ouroussoff, "An Architect Pays Respects to a Dowager,” The New York Times, last modified January 20,
2010.
! Ouroussoff, “An Architect Pays Respects to a Dowager,” 2010.

16
!39
Critics of contemporary architecture have also found some faults in
the abstract nature of Piano’s design. The concept for the Museum, as
defined by Isabella Stewart Gardner, centered around a holistic approach to
art and music, while Piano’s addition physically separates the two into a
performance space and a detached art gallery. The two spaces reflect each
other in shape and size, as each is a cube of 44 x 44 x 44 feet, but as
architecture critic John Tittmann argued, “the artistry of their work is platonic.
It is not felt, but intellectually understood.” In the same piece, Tittmann
criticized the lack of definition the addition holds within the city block,
especially on the southeast corner, where the 45 degree angle of the
greenhouse roof to the ground leaves a feeling of openness that is
uncommon in a city.17 (See figure 17). But this museum is not downtown, and
the greenhouse stands across from Evans Way Park, an open, grassy block,
Figure 17
which seems appropriate.
Piano’s 2012 Museum Building is simultaneously an innovative
example of contemporary architecture and a respectful compliment to the
historic Palace. The Museum Building’s placement is well-suited to its site and
its visual distinction from the historic Palace makes it a courteous companion.
The similar shape and form of Piano’s copper volume creates a visual
connection with the historic building, while generating visual interest through
its various projecting and receding floors, its surprising copper and glass
facades, and the dimensionality of the glass fire escapes. Their visual
!17 John Tittmann, "Distractions from Gardner's Visceral Mission?" The Boston Musical Intelligencer, last modified
January 16, 2012.
!40
connection, physical link, and reflection in function create a strong
relationship between the old and new wings. There are many ways to
approach a contemporary addition to a historical building, and Renzo Piano
has designed a successful example of a daringly contrasting modern addition
while remaining respectful of the integrity of Isabella’s Palace.

!41
!42
chapter two:
The Morgan Library and Museum
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
!43
E3
ue
7th
St
en
Av
on
dis
Ma
E3
6th
St
e
Av
rk
Pa
E3
5th
St
Context Diagram
N
10’ 50’
20’ 100’
 
!44
McKim Library Annex Ofﬁce Annex Library Annex Addition Voorsanger Garden Court Demolision Piano’s Addition
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37
th th th th th th th
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
St St St St St St St
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36
e
e
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
1906 1928 1957 1961-1971 1991 2005 2006
Progression Diagram N
50’
100’
200’
500’
 
!45
37th Street Elevation Madison Avenue Elevation 36th Street Elevation
E 37th St
E 36th St
Madison Avenue
Plan
N
Massing Diagram 5
10
20
50
 
!46
E 37th St
E 36th St
Madison Avenue
Plan
N
Void Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
 
!47
Horizontal Absolutes Analysis 5’

10’
20’
50’
 
!48
Section
10 50
Daylighting Diagram 5 20
 
!49
The Morgan Library and Museum in New York City was originally founded by
a single collector: John Pierpont Morgan (1837-1913). In addition to

E 37
e
th
venu
St
nA
iso
Mad
collecting art, Morgan was a well-known businessman in many industries, E 36
th
St
ve
rk A
Pa
including steel, railroads, shipping, oil, and electricity, and was influential in
E 35
th
St
national economic policy through the late 19th century. Many referred to him Context Diagram
N
10’ 50’
20’ 100’
as “the second most powerful man in America after the president,” 18 and not
always in the most positive light. By the end of the 19th century he was the
greatest private collector of European art in America, and owned many
famous paintings, books, and manuscripts, including Gutenberg Bibles,
ancient cuneiform cylinders, and a letter written by Elizabeth I. He was well-
known around the world for spending over $60 million (equivalent to around
$900 million today) on the most precious valuables from other nations,
earning his nickname, “the magnet.” (See figure 1). The extent of his
influence and power, not only in the art collecting world but also in national
politics and the economy, can be seen in a series of cartoons from the early
20th century. Morgan was depicted as overpowering Uncle Sam with his
power in the U.S. economy and trampling European kings as he gathered
their country’s most valuable artifacts. The enormous size of his collection
eventually led him to build a private library to house and display his pieces
for himself and wealthy visitors. Although he traveled extensively in western
Europe and owned a home in London, he chose to build the library next to
his brownstone house on the corner of Madison Avenue and 36th Street. Figure 1
!18 Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano (New York: Morgan Library
& Museum, 2008), 9.
!50
Because of his many business ventures in America, Morgan felt very invested
in the future of the United States, and believed that collecting the “finest
objects of European civilization” for research would highly benefit the
country’s future.19
The plans for the library were drawn by Charles McKim, of McKim,
Figure 2
Mead, & White, who was well-known for his Italian Renaissance style. Morgan
wrote a letter to McKim, indicating his specifications, asking that the library
be “set in a garden with ample space on both sides. In style, it should be
classical and restrained on the outside, but inside it should be more elegant
and ornate.” Plans included an office for Morgan and one for his librarian,
and a reading room not a “picture gallery.”20 These objectives can be seen
today in the Library on 36th St. (See figure 2). While the building contains
elements of traditional Renaissance revival buildings, including Ionic columns,
pilasters, arches and a stylized frieze, the basic design is fairly simple, and
decoration is in no way garish. Writer Holland Cotter said on the Library’s
facade: “McKim’s white marble exterior, clean of line, clear of ornament,
easily passes the Vreeland elegance test [“Elegance is refusal”]: It’s a Beaux-
Figure 3
Arts version of Zen.”21
On the interior, however, elaborate carving and decoration is applied
throughout. (See figure 3). The main entryway features marble patterning on
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 23.
19
20
!21 Holland Cotter, "Let There Be Light, and Elegance." The New York Times, last modified October 28, 2010,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/arts/design/29morgan.html?_r=0>.
!51
the floor, Corinthian columns and pilasters supporting a heavy entablature, a
marble rotunda ceiling heavily decorated with frescos, guided carvings, and
an octagonal oculus in the center. To the west, Morgan’s study is outfitted
with red carpeting, red fabric wallpaper, and a carved dark wood ceiling. The
few windows and heavy dark wood furniture adds to the feeling of
extravagance. The East Library stands across the entrance hall, and though it
is also highly ornamented, its high ceiling and large skylight make it feel less
heavy and dark. The walls are covered in three stories of walnut bookshelves,
with balconies accessible only by staircases concealed behind bookcases,
displaying the extensive collection of Morgan’s purchases. Over the large,
Istrian marble fireplace, a 1545 tapestry from the Netherlands titled The
Triumph of Avarice depicts the mythological King Midas personifying the
deadly sin of greed, an ironic choice considering Morgan’s extreme wealth
and his persona as ‘the magnet.’ Above the rows of bookshelves, the ceiling
rises first in a series of lunettes and pointed arches. The lunettes picture
paintings of historical cultural icons, including artists, architects, philosophers,
explorers, and poets. Between the lunettes are hexagonal images portraying
the signs of the zodiac.
Pierpont Morgan used the library as a personal study, where he could
“play solitaire, meet friends, conduct business, and enjoy his great books and
manuscripts…Morgan thought of his library as a private preserve, primarily
for his family, friends, and scholars.”22 This concept was physically apparent
22
!52
in its placement, adjacent to his home, and in its design. The severe marble
facade, lack of windows, and dark, formal entrance were certainly not a
welcoming invitation to the public.
Over the past century, the Morgan has been altered by many
additions and changes. The first of these was authorized by Morgan’s son
soon after his father’s death. In the mid 1920s, J.P. Morgan, Jr., or Jack
Morgan, began planning to transform the private family library into an
educational resource for the public, starting with a massive addition that
would double the size of the old library. He stated that this had always been
his father’s intention, although there had been no official indication of this
plan while Morgan was alive. Additionally, Jack Morgan chose to demolish
his father’s brownstone house in order to create a site for the addition — an
idea that had certainly not been suggested during his father’s lifetime.
The architect chosen for the addition was Benjamin Wistar Morris,
and the new building, referred to as the Annex, was completed in 1928.
Morris designed a classical revival building fairly similar to the McKim library,
although highly simplified in decoration. Morris carried over the height of the
roof line upper entablature from the library, as well as repeating the facade’s
symmetry and use of white limestone. He removed the decorative pilasters,
niches, the heavy entablature and frieze, and the large portico, which he
replaced on the Annex with a simplified entrance flush with the building’s
facade. (See figure 4). The buildings were connected by a single-story porch
Figure 4
in the rear called the Cloister.
!53
As per Jack’s request, the addition held a two-story exhibition room,
a smaller lecture room, and a reading room for students who were studying
the Library’s materials. In creating these new spaces, Jack had “dramatically
redefined the institution’s mission going forward. It was to be both a research
library and museum. A reading room would serve the scholars; an exhibition
gallery and a lecture room would serve the general public.”23 With the
completion of the addition, a new mission was written for the library, defining
it as an “institution of educational value to the public,” a dramatic shift from
its previous function. This transition was manifested physically in the
architecture, as the main entrance was shifted from Pierpont Morgan’s grand
portico to Jack Morgan’s more accessible Annex door.
In the middle of the 20th century, the library continued to grow in its
collections and staff, and a few smaller changes were made, including a
simple brick Office Annex on 37th street, built in 1957, and a Library Annex
Addition in the 1960s. The Library Annex Addition was a long narrow
structure reaching from Madison Avenue behind the Annex and the McKim
Library, replacing the existing Cloister. Its design reflected that of the Annex,
an even more simplified version of American Beaux-Arts architecture.
The Morgan’s architecture experienced another dramatic change with
the purchase of J.P. Morgan, Jr.’s house in the mid-1980s. The Italianate
brownstone house, on the corner of Madison Avenue and 37th street, had
Figure 5
originally been designed by Isaac N. Phelps Stokes of Phelps Dodge & Co.,
23
!54
and constructed in 1853. (See figure 5). After Jack Morgan’s death in 1943,
the house was purchased by United Lutheran Church. By the later 1900s, the
Board of Directors was eager to gain new space for its expanding programs
and collection, and bought the historical brownstone for $15 million. The
purchase of this property also secured the Morgan’s ownership of the entire
segment of the block, from 36th to 37th Street.
After acquiring the Morgan House, the Museum Board determined
that a new connecting addition should be built between the Morgan house
and the 1928 Annex. The commission for this project was given to
Voorsanger Architects, who designed a small garden court that was
completed in 1991. The Library Annex addition from the 1960s filled almost
half of the space between the two historical buildings, so the remaining site
for the garden court resulted in a long narrow glass enclosure, with a steel- Figure 6
framed glass roof curved like a wave. (See figure 6).
At this point, the Morgan Library and Museum was made up of six
buildings from six different decades spanning the last 150 years. (See figure
7). The patchwork of varying styles and
McKim Library Annex Ofﬁce Annex Library Annex Addition Voorsanger Garden Court Demolision Piano’s Addition
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
n Av
E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37 E 37
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
iso
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
Mad
E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36 E 36
e
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
1906 1928 1957 1961-1971 1991 2005 2006
Progression Diagram N
50’
100’
200’
500’
Figure 7
!55
building types were not successful in utilizing the available space or allowing
easy circulation, and the museum board decided another change was
necessary. In the late 1990s, the Museum Board composed eleven goals to
be manifested in a new addition, including “a welcoming entrance on
Madison Avenue, improved internal circulation, including greater wheelchair
accessibility, new and renovated galleries that would enable more
exhibitions, a new performance hall, a new Reading Room with greater
capacity and electronic resources, substantially expanded space for
collections storage.”24
In 1999, the Morgan held an architectural competition for the design
of a new addition to meet these goals. Renzo Piano was personally invited to
enter the competition, but declined. The committee narrowed the
submissions to three finalists: Hugh Hardy, Steven Holl, and Tod Williams and
Billie Tsien. After reviewing more detailed plans by the finalists, they were still
unable to choose a winner, as they determined the submissions to be too
large and overpowering, lacking in usable space, and all were missing a
“level of excitement.”25 They offered a chance at a second round of
submissions for the finalists, but even with alterations the committee was not
drawn to any of the designs. In the spring of 2000, the competition was
abruptly closed without a winner. Museum Director Charlie E. Pierce wrote a
letter to Piano, informing him of their unsuccessful competition and
!24 "2006: The Renzo Piano Expansion and Renovation,” The Morgan Library and Museum, accessed February 1,
2016, <http://www.themorgan.org/about/architectural-history/14>.
25
!56
requesting his acceptance of the commission. Piano arrived in New York in
September of that year, where he met with the board and drew his first
sketches for his design, which remained remarkably similar throughout the
design process. At a dinner with Pierce and some of the Museum Trustees,
Piano said, “You have three historic buildings. All are old and we must
respect them, but only one is truly great.” He added that additional
structures had detracted from the prime landmarks, and that he aimed to free
them “of their later additions and insert within the campus three new
buildings of various sizes” connecting the existing structures, with a glass-
enclosed piazza in the center.26 He presented his design to the committee in
January of 2001, and it was accepted unanimously. Finalization and
construction lasted five years, until the grand opening in April of 2006.
Piano faced a difficult challenge in designing the addition for the
Morgan Library and Museum. Not only did he need to design a performance
hall, new galleries, and a grand, welcoming entrance, he would also be
responsible for creating a physical and aesthetic connection among three
historical buildings. The Library, the Annex, and the Morgan House each have
their own character, relationship to their site, and a different function. Piano
was able to create a relationship between this collection of historical
buildings and his own contemporary addition through his material choice,
strong horizontal absolutes, and use of negative space.
26
!57
The footprint of Piano’s building fills the space between each of the
three historical buildings, with small facades facing Madison Avenue, 36th
E 37th St
E 36th St
Street, and 37th Street. (See figure 8). In each of these three street faces, the
clean white metal sheets and steel grid-framed glass create a sharp contrast Madison Avenue
Plan
N
Massing Diagram 10 50
to the classical white marble and historic brownstone.

5 20
Figure 8
The largest street intervention in Piano’s design is the new entrance,
located on Madison Avenue between the Annex and the Morgan House. The
entrance stands within a vertical rectangular volume, directly between the
two historical buildings. The structure is divided by a steel frame into a grid
with three rows of six tall, narrow panels in each. The upper two-thirds are
paneled in white-painted steel sheets, which appear to be floating over the
bottom panels of glass. (See figure 9). The choice of material for the
building’s facade was a topic of discussion during the planning phases of the
addition. A common method for creating unity between buildings is the use
Figure 9
of a material already existing on the site, in this case stone, copper, or
bronze. The three historical buildings were right to display stone facades,
because their structure was also composed of stone. In Piano’s addition,
however, a stone facade would function as cladding over the steel structure.
Piano pointed out to the board, “The project we are creating is of our time. It
should reflect it. We’re not building a stone structure. The structure is of
metal. It is steel.”27 The Museum director Charlie E. Pierce, along with others,
worried that a steel facade would be cold and unwelcoming, “too massive
27
!58
and inelegant.”28 In order to address these concerns, Piano and the trustees
considered many options for the color of the steel panels, including red,
green, and ochre. In the end an “off-white with a pink cast” was chosen to
blend warmly with the surrounding buildings.29 Unfortunately the color does
not appear rosy or pinkish in person, but more gray. The color and texture of
the large steel panels seems fairly flat and lifeless, especially on a cloudy day
in the city. Luckily, Piano also altered the facade from its first iteration, at
Charles’s suggestion, so that drab steel panels would only be on the upper
levels, and the street level would be paneled in glass instead, which is much 37th Street Elevation Madison Avenue Elevation 36th Street Elevation
more welcoming. A glass entrance would also represent the transparency
E 37th St
E 36th St
that the Museum hoped to achieve through this project.
On either side of the paneled facade, an eight-foot gap remains

Madison Avenue
Plan
N
Void Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
between the entrance and the adjacent historical building. In this void, a thin,
glass-enclosed stairway rises to almost the height of the building, set back
behind the three larger buildings. This “void,” serving as a negative space
while still utilizing the area for a necessary function, is an element Piano used
throughout the Morgan expansion. (See figure 10). Piano spoke about this
method in an interview with Cynthia Davidson, saying:
the buildings never touch. This is very simple. To define the

width of those spaces, I’ve been trying to remember the
proportions of the little streets, the little calle in Venice…As a
European you may have a kind of habit to do this. By the way,
Figure 10
one way to create tension between something and something is
by inserting something small—a small negative—between them,
28
29
!59
like a rest in music…So basically you have the existing buildings,

you have the new buildings, and they don’t touch, and then you
have the spaces. So that means, when you walk on the street,
you have the feeling that this building is an institution that is
more penetrable, more welcoming, more open, more
transparent. But it’s not soluble. We also wanted to express the
sense of robustness and solidity and protection by making those
new volumes in steel. 30
The glass allows visitors to see into the interior of the addition even from the
street, furthering the concept of transparency in the design. This technique
has been praised since the Museum’s opening. New York Times critic Nicolai
Ouroussoff wrote, “It’s as if the Morgan complex has been gently pulled
apart to let life flow through the interiors, hinting at the fragile balance
between the city’s chaotic energy and the scholar’s interior life.”31
The entrance pavilion is also defined by its distance from the street.
While the Annex and the Morgan house on either side reach almost to the
sidewalk, the Piano volume is recessed about fifteen feet. This feature was
intentional in Piano’s design, inspired by a “parvis,” an enclosed courtyard or
space at the entrance to a building, usually a church. The entrance to the
Morgan might be thought of as a very much simplified and modernized
interpretation of the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square. What might be called
opening architectural arms welcome a visitor into a sheltered but open space
30
!31 Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Renzo Piano’s Expansion of the Morgan Library Transforms a World of Robber Barons and
Scholars,” New York Times, last modified April 10, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/arts/design/
10morg.html?_r=2&.
!60
before guiding them inside. This feature, again, aims to create a more
accessible and welcoming exterior appearance for the Morgan.
While the Madison Avenue entrance is the most conspicuous of
Piano’s interventions, two more aspects are visible on 36th and 37th streets.
Between the McKim library and the Annex on 36th street, Piano designed a
small box, creating “an architectonic hyphen.”32 Its form, a six-meter cube,
was inspired by Italian Renaissance studioli, and functions like a tempietto, or
chapel. Its face is paneled in the same white steel as the entrance, but in a
smaller scale. Like the entrance pavilion, negative space is created on either
side of the cube, separating it from the historical buildings using recessed
glass walls. The new connecting form is much more successful than the old
Cloister. Critic Paul Goldberger wrote that the library and annex, “formerly
tethered by a dreary connecting walkway, had an uncomfortable relationship
with each other. Piano replaced the walkway with a compact steel cube…The
cube is divided into eight ridged panels, to give it scale and texture, and it
provides a firm counterweight to the mass of buildings on either side.”33
Piano then uses the horizontal absolutes, carried by Morris from the library to
the Annex, to create a relationship among all three structures. The line of the
upper entablature that stretches the length of the classical revival buildings
defines the height of the cube and the recessed glass walls. Piano’s glass
central plaza rises behind all three structures, and a horizontal division in the
32
!33 Paul Goldberger, "Molto Piano,” The New Yorker, last modified May 26, 2006, <http://www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2006/05/29/molto-piano>.
!61
grid of the glass wall corresponds to the roofline of both the McKim library
and the Annex. (See figure 11).
Horizontal Absolutes Analysis 5’

10’
20’
50’
Figure 11
On 37th Street, the third of Piano’s pavilions stands next to the
brownstone Morgan house. The use of horizontal absolutes is even more
apparent on this facade, as the horizontal lines of Piano’s grid correspond
directly to the four floors of the Morgan House. Unlike the other pavilions,
the horizontal rows here vary in size, lessening in height as they rise. This
effect is common in classical architecture, and can often be seen in the floor
divisions of a traditional brownstone like the Morgan House. The first row of
the grid is aligned with the first floor of the brownstone House, which is
defined by its window heights and belt cornice. The central two floors
correspond to the next two rows, and the smallest row on the top with the
entablature below the roof. The use of these horizontal absolutes between
the Morgan House and the 37th street pavilion creates a strong geometric
relationship, even though their styles differ greatly. On this facade, Piano
again separates the two volumes with a recessed glass wall encasing a
stairwell, establishing a pattern on all three street faces. He also repeats the
materials on this pavilion, but inverts their location within the grid. On this
!62
facade, the lower level is paneled in white steel in order to conceal the
loading dock and mechanical room located inside, and glass panels on the
upper rows allow natural light into the offices on the upper three floors.
The Museum Board’s goal of creating a more welcoming and
accessible institution can be seen throughout Piano’s addition. Especially in
the evening, the warm glow of light that can be seen through the glass
entrance encourages visitors to step inside to the cozy, intimate reception
hall. The exterior grid theme is carried through on a smaller scale in the dark
cherry wood panels on the walls. (See figure 12). The ticket booth and coat
check stand just within the front entrance, and, beyond them, the low ceiling
Figure 12
opens up into a three-story, glass-enclosed court.
Directly ahead, a wall of steel-framed glass provides natural light as
well as views of the limestone McKim library and the brick apartment
buildings beyond. (See figure 13). Piano’s use of views to familiar buildings in
the surrounding city has been praised by many architecture critics. In
reference to Piano’s atrium Goldberger wrote, “this is one of the greatest
modern rooms in New York, not by virtue of grandeur or scale but because of
the subtle links it establishes between the Morgan’s older buildings and the
rest of the city;”34 and on the framed view another said, “it's not a very
romantic view; Mr. Piano is not precious about New York's history. The Empire
Figure 13
State Building spire blends in with the chipped brick facades and tinted glass
surfaces that are part of our everyday lives: hard, gritty and sometimes
! Paul Goldberger, "Molto Piano,” 2006.

34
!63
glamorous. We're left with a subtly layered urban experience in which the
Morgan's interior is part of a broader urban picture.”35
The high ceiling, outfitted with a complex system of moveable
baffles and screens, allows a gentle natural light to filter through it as well.
These elements were clearly intentional, as Piano stated, “there is beauty,
complexity, poetry in having natural light coming from above—natural light is
lyrical.”36 Piano is known for his skill in utilizing natural light, but in the
Morgan court it is especially remarkable. (See figure 14). Because many items
in the collection are light sensitive, the existing galleries and reading rooms Section
10 50
Daylighting Diagram 5 20
are fairly dim. By connecting all of the dark rooms of these historical Figure 14
buildings with an airy, light-filled atrium, Piano creates a strong contrast that
has been praised by many critics. In Old Buildings, New Designs, Charles
Bloszies praises the interior of the Morgan, “this textbook solution,
transparent connective tissue between disparate parts, has been gracefully
implemented. Since most of the Morgan’s collection of rare manuscripts
eschews light, bathing the central court in it defines a beacon from which to
Figure 15
circulate among the three existing buildings.”37 (See figure 15).
This court space was very important in Piano’s design for the interior
of the Morgan expansion. Piano approached the floor plan as though it were
a small city, and in the center of the three historical buildings, this glass-
! Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Renzo Piano’s Expansion of the Morgan Library,” 2006

35
36
!37 Charles Bloszies, Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations, (New York: Princeton Architectural,
2012).
!64
enclosed court, would serve as a piazza, “a nexus of roads as well as a place
where people meet for any number of purposes and pleasures.”38 His
intention can be experienced today in the completed addition. Many visitors
sit at the tables near the windows, relaxing with coffee or a meal. From this
central court, they proceed in any direction, to the McKim library entrance,
the shop and cafe in the Morgan House, upstairs to the modern galleries, or
down to the performance hall below. Each of the historical buildings ground
the corners of the court, and their formerly exterior walls now create a
boundary for the interior courtyard. (See figure 16). The ability to see and
touch the historical buildings creates the feeling of a small piazza in an old
Figure 16
village, rather than a contemporary atrium.
To the left from the entrance, two balconies project from the upper
floors, reached by visitors through a beautifully clean glass elevator. On the
right, a grand wood and glass staircase descends beneath the ground. The
lower level is an important element in the Morgan expansion. As part of
Piano’s design, a series of new galleries, mechanical rooms, and a
performance hall descend sixty-five feet below the street level. This design
serves a practical function, in allowing more square footage without building
a tower that would appear out of place among the four-story historical
buildings, but also a symbolic one. Influenced by The Library of Babel by
Jorge Luis Borges, Piano discussed his ideas with his friend, author Umberto
Eco,
38
!65
…this idea of exploring, going underground to look for things…

then we started to talk about this idea of the safe, of the
treasure…It made a lot of sense to put the vault in the granite for
a number of reasons: practical, psychological, cultural. It was
good from the point of view of practicality as well, because we
didn’t want to build too tall. So this building is a bit like an
iceberg with quite a lot below grade.39
The floors below ground now hold the most precious works, located in
climate-controlled security spaces, almost like treasure hidden in the
Manhattan rock.40
Piano’s addition to the Morgan Library and Museum created a
physical and aesthetic connection among three important historical buildings.
By separating new and old with negative space and designing an atrium
reminiscent of an Italian piazza, Piano successfully created the feeling of a
miniature city within one building. While the buildings’ functions, time
periods, and styles vary greatly, they are drawn together by the repeating
grid of glass, steel, and natural light. 
39
! Renzo Piano and Fulvio Irace, Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Visible Cities (Milano: Triennale, 2007), 60.
40
!66
!67
chapter three:
Fogg Museum | Harvard Art Museums
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
!68
Cambridge
Street
ve
usetts A
Massach
Br
oa
dw
ay
Harvard Yard
Street
Street
tt
Presco
Quincy
Mas
sach
use
tts A
ve
N
10’ 50’
Context Diagram 20’ 100’
 
!69
Hunt Hall Fogg Museum Naumburg Hall Werner Otto Hall Agnes Mongan Hall Piano’s Harvard Art Museums
Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge

Street Street Street Street Street Street
Br Br Br Br Br Br
oa oa oa oa oa oa
dw dw dw dw dw dw
ay ay ay ay ay ay
Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard
t
t
Stree
Stree
Stree
Stree
Stree
Stree
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
1895 1925 1932 1991 1994 2014
Progrssion Diagram 50’

100’
200’
500’
 
!70
North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation
Prescott Street
y
wa
ad
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
N
Massing Analysis 10 50
5 20
 
!71
Prescott Street
ay
adw
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
N
Void Analysis 5
10
20
50
 
!72
South Elevation North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation Section
Prescott Street
ay
adw
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
Horizontal Absolute Analysis 5

10
20
50
 
!73
Daylighting Analysis 5’ 30’

2’ 10’
 
!74
Prescott Street
ay
adw
Bro
Quincy Street
N
10’
20’
50’
 
!75
The founding of Harvard University in 1636 marked the beginning of
higher education in the United States. Two and a half centuries later, a few
Harvard professors were again on the forefront of another academic pursuit.
Harvard University was one of the first institutions to develop an art history
department, then called the Division of Fine Arts. The first president of the
Division, Charles Eliot Norton (1827-1908), was fundamental in organizing the
program. Norton was strongly influenced by the department of natural
sciences at Harvard and their laboratory system. This influence resulted in the
construction of the Division of Fine Arts as an “art laboratory,” meaning that
the “concept that scholarship in he field of art was ideally shaped by the
interactive study of objects, techniques, images, and texts in a single, unified
space.”41 Rather than a focus on aesthetics or art theory, the Division of Fine
Arts valued “scholarly publication, museum studies, and scientific inquiry.”42
Central to this laboratory model was a single building that would include
lecture halls, hands-on studios, literary resources, and galleries under the
same roof. In this way, the most crucial element of the Division of Fine Arts at
Harvard was the establishment of the Fogg Museum, which housed all of
these functions, in the early 1890s. Norton, along with the first two directors,
Charles Herbert Moore (1840-1930) and Edward Waldo Forbes (1873-1969),
centered the studies on original works and participatory learning.
!41 Kathryn Brush, Vastly More than Brick & Mortar: Reinventing the Fogg Art Museum in the 1920s (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard U Art Museums, 2003), pg. 15
! Kathryn Brush, Vastly More than Brick & Mortar, 15.

42
!76
The Fogg Museum and the studies that centered around its
collections were first located in Hunt Hall, a Beaux-Arts style building on
Harvard Yard, designed by Richard Morris Hunt. The building was not well-
suited to the requirements of the Division of Fine Arts for multiple reasons.
The entrance hall served as a gallery, which left no space for unpacking;
space for storage was severely lacking, the galleries were poorly lit, as the ill-
designed skylight illuminated only the lower half of the walls; and the small
lecture hall had poor acoustics. The aesthetic of Hunt Hall was also
controversial. The buildings on Harvard Yard were all Colonial or Georgian
Revival brick facades, making Hunt’s limestone Classicism seem out of place.
Many believed that Hunt was “more attentive to Beaux-Arts symmetry and
detailing than to the practical requirements of a combined museum and
teaching facility,” and Norton himself referred to the hall as a “permanent
injury” on Harvard’s campus.43
Even with the variety of concerns, the Harvard administration was
hesitant to allocate funds to this new department for a new building. They
considered art a “mere accessory that had nothing of the seriousness of
mathematics, classics, or the natural sciences.”44 In order to fund the
museum expenses, many personal contributions were made by wealthy
directors and their associates. One of the major donors was alumnus Paul J.
Sachs (1878-1965) from Goldman, Sachs & Company in New York City. Sachs

43

44
!77
left banking to become assistant director and professor in the Division of Fine
Arts, but was still able to use his many connections in the German-Jewish
banking community to acquire donations. Forbes and Sachs visited many
philanthropists and collectors in New York, including J.P. Morgan, Jr. to
procure funding. As the Division of Fine Arts grew in size and reputation, the
Cambridge
Harvard Corporation eventually allocated $1 million in funds for a new

Street
setts Ave
Massachu
Br
oa
building and $1 million in endowment for the Fogg Museum.45 In March of

dw
ay
Harvard Yard
Street
1924 the Harvard Corporation acquired the property neighboring Harvard
t Stree
Prescott
Quincy
Massa
chu
setts
Ave
Yard between Prescott and Quincy Streets, and the plans for a new museum Context Diagram
N
10’
20’
50’
100’
building were begun. (See Figure 1). Figure 1
The specifications for the new building were determined by Forbes,
the director at the time:
Forbes projected ‘the ideal museum’ as a ‘ dignified’ but

‘unpretentious’ building ‘having none of the typical museum
decoration of classical columns and arcades.’ Rejecting the
Beaux-Arts aesthetic, he envisioned a facility in which the
building, its furniture, and its fixtures would be serviceable as
well as ‘simple and sincere.’ He emphasized the ‘utmost
importance’ of original works of art, as well as the necessity of a
library and a large room for drawing and painting that would
permit students to gain insight into artistic production.46
The first plans were drawn by alumnus Metric R. Rogers, but were
meant only as an initial point of departure for discussion, and were later
altered by Charles A. Coolidge of Coolidge, Shepley, Bullfinch & Abbott,

45

46
!78
who were the primary architects for Harvard at the time. Rogers studied as a
reformist of museum architecture and agreed with Forbes, stating that, “the
museum of art should be a conveniently and harmoniously arranged
background for its contents rather than a ‘public palace.’”47 The style of the
new Fogg was also highly influenced by Coolidge and his desire to unify the
look of the campus architecture using colonial Georgian elements. This look
was determined by the appearance of the Old Yard and its eighteenth-
century buildings, which were considered “dignified and morally uplifting as
well as representative of New England’s colonial history, and hence most able
to instill a sense of institutional identity and community.” 48 The influence of
Forbes, Rogers, and Coolidge combined resulted in the new Fogg Museum
building completed in 1925, a brick, Georgian-revival. (See figure 2) Its wide,
two-story facade is symmetrical in massing and decoration, with two slightly
projecting wings of four bays each on either side. The large windows on the
first floor have simple moldings and unadorned pediments, the lintels and
sills are classically light-colored wood to contrast the red brick, with blind
windows above. A low parapet wall over the heavy cornice with dentils holds
a decorative baluster segment above each bay. The only other decoration is Figure 2
centered on the entrance, where a glass paneled door with a fanlight is
enclosed with Corinthian pilasters that support a bulky, almost Baroque,

47

48
!79
carving. The broken pediments holds a cartouche engraved with Harvard’s
motto: “Veritas.”49
After the array of problems with Hunt Hall, Forbes and Sachs were
very careful in working with Coolidge to ensure that the new building would
meet all of the needs of the department. Their influence was clearly apparent
in the layout of the Fogg Museum building, where the classrooms, galleries,
and labs were carefully arranged to increase accessibility for students and
visitors, maximize space, and create ideal lighting for the functions within.50
The final building, and the department it held, was the only location in the
United States to combine an art collection, classrooms, a lecture hall, a
research library, and studios for technical work.51
Soon after establishment of the Fogg Museum, the Harvard Division
of Fine Arts developed two more art museums with more specialized
concentrations. In 1903, the Busch-Reisinger Museum was founded, its
collections centering on art from German-speaking northern Europe. By the
late 1970s, Harvard’s collections of non-European art were large enough to
warrant their own museum as well. The Arthur M. Sackler Museum was
established in 1977 to display Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indian art.52

49
! Kathryn Brush, Vastly More than Brick & Mortar, 74, 76, 95.
50

51
!52 President and Fellows of Harvard College, "History and The Three Museums,” Harvard Art Museums, accessed
March 1, 2016, <http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/history-and-the-three-museums>.
!80
As the art history department and its museums grew, many additions
and changes occurred at the Fogg to accommodate the new programs. An
East Wing was added to the rear of the building, dedicated the Naumburg
wing on November 9, 1932, consisting of three rooms to increase space for
galleries and social functions. 53 The Naumburg wing was a small boxy brick
addition, with a service entrance on Broadway and three white trimmed
windows, an imitation of the Georgian-revival fenestration. (See figure 3). In
1991, the collections of the Busch-Reisinger Museum were moved into Figure 3
another addition designed by Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects on
the rear of the 1925 Fogg, beside the Naumburg wing. This new wing,
named Werner Otto Hall, established a two-story facade on Prescott Street
and a larger, curving three story volume rising behind. (See figure 4). Werner
Otto Hall provided many necessary amenities, including a larger library, a

Figure 4
new reading room, an archival storage room, and additional galleries.54 Yet
another architectural intervention was completed three years later in 1994.
Samuel Anderson Architects designed a renovation and expansion of the
Naumburg wing called the Agnes Mongan Center, which provided a climate-
controlled space for the collections and curators of works on paper.55 This
Figure 5
addition included a gray tiled exterior wall tilted at an angle in between the
!53 Laura Dudley Saunderson, "Forty Years In The Fogg Museum,” The Cambridge Historical Society, last modified
January 19, 1954, accessed March 20, 2016, http://www.cambridgehistory.org/content/forty-years-fogg-museum.
!54 Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects, “Werner Otto Hall,” Cambridge: 1991, accessed March 20, 2016,
<http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/pdf/198804.pdf>.
!55 Samuel Anderson Architects, ”The Agnes Mongan Center,” 1994, accessed March 20, 2016, <http://
www.samuelanderson.com/default.aspx?page=5&type=53&project=387&set=1&focus=0&link=1>.
!81
original Fogg facade on Broadway and the matching Naumburg brick
volume, modernizing the exterior appearance and physically separating the
original and the imitation. (See figure 5).
Hunt Hall Fogg Museum Naumburg Hall Werner Otto Hall Agnes Mongan Hall Piano’s Harvard Art Museums
Cambridg Cambridg Cambridg Cambridg Cambridg Cambridg

e Street e Street e Street e Street e Street e Street
Br Br Br Br Br Br
oa oa oa oa oa oa
dw dw dw dw dw dw
ay ay ay ay ay ay
Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard Harvard Yard
tt Street
tt Street
tt Street
tt Street
tt Street
tt Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Presco
Presco
Presco
Presco
Presco
Presco
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
Quincy
1895 1925 1932 1991 1994 2014
Progrssion Diagram 50’

100’
200’
500’
In the late 1990s, the Harvard administration determined that the
Department of History of Art and Architecture would be more successful if
the collections of the Fogg, the Busch-Reisinger, and the Arthur M. Sackler
Museum — and the resources to observe and study those collections — were
housed in one building. Harvard Art Museum Director, Thomas W. Lentz, led
the integration of the museums, stating during the project in 2010, “what we
like about this idea is that it allows us to have a much greater dialogue
between those three collections.” 56 Some questioned the administration’s
motives. Each of the museums previously had their own building and didn’t
seem to be lacking in space. The Fogg had also experienced two additions
only a decade earlier. However, it would also be beneficial for the University
to have one larger museum on campus for other reasons. New buildings
designed by star architects that house large collections attract more visitors,
generate more revenue, and receive more funding.
!56 Gautam S. Kumar, "Fogg Museum Renewal Continues,” The Harvard Crimson, last Modified March 11, 2011,
<http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/11/fogg-art-museum-harvard/>.
!82
The initial plan for the location of these combined museums was in a
new building to be constructed on the Charles River. Italian architect Renzo
Piano was hired in 1997 to design the structure but the project was scrapped
due to neighborhood opposition.57 Another attempt was made in the early
2000s, when Los Angeles architect Daly Genik was hired to create a design
for a site in Allston, but the project was again abandoned, this time due to
the financial crisis of 2008.
Finally the decision was made to combine the three collections at the
site of the existing Fogg Museum. However, the 1925 interior and its
mechanical systems were now outdated, and the multiple additions on the
rear of the building created a mismatched exterior appearance. Piano was
hired once again to design a complete renovation and expansion of the 1925
building, after the demolition of Werner Otto Hall and the Naumburg and
Agnes Mongan wings. The goal in designing the addition was still centered
around the original mission of the Fogg Museum: to combine gallery space,
teaching, and conservation in one facility.
The site presented to Piano was extremely challenging. In addition to
the historic Georgian brick facade, the Fogg also sits next to the 1963
Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, a concrete Brutalist building designed
by renowned architect Le Corbusier. (See figure 6). On the corner of
Figure 6
Broadway and Prescott Street, adjacent to these two iconic structures, Piano
!57 Joseph P. Kahn, "An Ambitious Expansion Unveiled at Harvard Art Museums,” Boston Globe, last modified
November 1, 2014, <https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/11/01/with-opening-expanded-harvard-art-museums-
complex-patience-rewarded/DGhCKlNLxmBqwlvB3ZatMK/story.html>.
!83
designed a large rectangular volume, separated from the Georgian brick by a
glass seam, a “visual saw cut.”58 (See figure 7).
While the Quincy Street Museum entrance remains, facing the
campus and Harvard Yard beyond, Piano also designed a second entrance on
Prescott Street, the East facade, which symbolically faces the city of
Cambridge, opening the museum and its collections to the public. The new
entrance is set back from the street, sheltered under the large boxy form that
holds the two upper floors. In order to separate himself from the historic
Figure 7
brick facade or the modernist concrete to the left, Piano used a different
material. In addition to his usual glass canopies and structural steel, Piano
made a surprising choice by cladding the rectangular volume in wood —

specifically Alaskan Yellow Cedar. The material does not look entirely like Prescott Street
ay
adw
wood, from a distance and in photographs it appears much heavier, like
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
N
Massing Analysis
concrete or aluminum paneling. The cedar does have a precedent in New

10 50
5 20
England, and even on Harvard’s campus, where a few neocolonial buildings
are also clad in light gray wood clapboarding.59
Considering the concept of accessibility to the public, the new
entrance does little to provide this in practice. The entryway, hidden under
the upper floors, seems small and dark from the street. (See figure 8). One
Figure 8
narrow set of stairs leads to the main door, intersected by a long ramp that
!58 James S. Russell, "After 17 Years, Piano's Overhauled Harvard Art Museums Open,” Architectural Record, last
modified November 19, 2014, <http://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/3280-after-17-years-piano-s-overhauled-
harvard-art-museums-open>.
!59 Michael Z. Wise, "Confrontation at Harvard Art Museums." ARTnews, last modified October 29, 2014, <http://
www.artnews.com/2014/10/29/confrontation-at-harvard-art-museums/>.
!84
stretches from Broadway toward the Carpenter Center. At the end, the ramp,
supported by heavily rusticated white stone, makes an awkward junction with
Le Corbusier’s famously elegant curving concrete ramp. (See figure 9).
The connection between this wooden clad form on the East facade
and the traditional Georgian brick on the West facade is facilitated through a Figure 9
few design elements. One glass roof spans both the brick and wood forms.
From Prescott Street and beyond, the roof can be seen rising over them like
a transparent truncated pyramid. When approaching from Harvard Yard and
the campus, however, the majority of the pyramid is hidden behind the
height of the Georgian facade. From the North and South facade it becomes
clear that the roof is not, in fact, one complete pyramid. The physical
boundary between the brick and the wood is a narrow strip of glass,
stretching from the first floor up through the glass roof. (See figure 10). In Prescott Street
ay
adw
addition to providing separation from the historic structure, the glass column
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
N
Void Analysis
also allows visitors views out to the surrounding city on the north, and
10 50
5 20
Figure 10
towards Le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center on the South.
To the north and south Piano also included two projecting volumes,
which he referred to as “winter gardens:” glass cubes surrounded by steel
rails and beams that support a large, moveable cedar-clad panel. The north
cube is encased in a cedar form that extends from the central volume,
sometimes compared to a “teacup handle.”60 (See figure 11). These
Figure 11
projecting elements help create a more cohesive relationship between the
! James S. Russell, "After 17 Years, Piano's Overhauled Harvard Art Museums Open,” 2014.
60
!85
historic and contemporary facades on the north and south elevations,
primarily because of Piano’s use of horizontal absolutes. The height of the
winter gardens corresponds to the horizontal line of the heavy cornice on the
two-story Georgian wings, and the roofline of those wings is equivalent to

South Elevation North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation Section
Prescott Street
the height of the rectangular cedar volume. (See figure 12). Unfortunately,
ay
adw
Bro
South Elevation North Elevation Quincy

West Elevation Street South Elevation Section
Plan
Prescott Street N

10
20
50
Figure 12
ay
adw
Bro
these corresponding relationships are not visible from the east facade,
Quincy Street
Plan
making Piano’s frontal facade seem somewhat unrelated to its historic N

10
20
50
component on the west elevation.
The relationship between the historical and contemporary
architecture at the Fogg Museum is very apparent on the exterior, especially
in its jarring contrast of material choice and visual separation using negative
space. In the renovation of the Fogg Museum, the interior of the Georgian
building was almost completely removed, except for the iconic Calderwood
Courtyard. The Courtyard was central to Coolidge’s museum plan in the early
20th century. While the building’s exterior was simple colonial in style, the
courtyard was more neoclassical, inspired by the facade of the canon’s house
of the church of San Biagio, Montepulciano, designed by Antonio da
Sangallo the Elder around 1534.61 (See figure 13). The use of Classical Figure 13

61
!86
European or Renaissance architectural elements was very common in the
United States, especially in higher education and the arts. Even more
specifically, the use of an exterior Renaissance facade as an interior courtyard
had a precedent right in Boston, in the courtyard of the Isabella Stewart
Gardner Museum. Calderwood Courtyard featured two levels of arcades,
square piers support the large arches in the five by three bay plan. The upper
bays are bisected in two arches by thin Ionic columns. 62 The third floor was a
simple plaster attic, with square windows framed in travertine above each
bay. Above the attic, mock rafters projected in to the courtyard, supporting
Mediterranean tiles, furthering the illusion of a European outdoor city square.

Figure 14
(See figure 14).
Calderwood Courtyard remains the heart of the museum after Piano’s
renovation, but it is now a stunning combination of historic neoclassical
arcades and clean, modern glass. (See figure 15). Piano removed the third
floor of windows and replaced it with two levels of glass, the fourth
projecting into the center like a viewing balcony. The open arches and glass
walls allow people on every floor to look across to different levels and
departments throughout the museum, creating a literally and symbolically
transparent atmosphere, and therefore fulfilling the director’s goal of
combining the three art museums. Chief curator Deborah Martin Kao called it
a “social building,” adding, “You can literally see what’s happening behind Figure 15

62
!87
glass doors and walls, breaking down boundaries physical and conceptual.”63
The courtyard itself has also become more sociable. While Coolidge’s
courtyard was only accessible through three locations, the courtyard today
can be entered through all sixteen openings in the first floor arcade. In the
center are chairs and tables for visitors to rest and eat. Some have compared
the light-filled courtyard to a city-square, the hub of activity in the center of
the three museums.64
A recognizable element of Piano’s architecture is his use of daylight,
and the Fogg is no different. The Courtyard, as the physical and symbolic
center of the museum, is flooded with light through the roof. (See figure 16).
The glass pyramid visible from the exterior now rises to its full height on one
Daylighting Analysis 5’ 30’
2’ 10’
side of the courtyard and slopes down toward the historic entrance, Figure 16
contrasting the perfect symmetry of the Renaissance-style arcades below.
The angled roof faces south, allowing the maximum amount of sunlight to
filter through Piano’s glass panels, which are fitted with a complex system of
ventilation and light modulation that the architect refers to this roof as a
“Light Machine.”65 The glass walls on the third and fourth floor, in addition to
providing visibility and interaction between floors and departments, also
allows diffused light from the courtyard to reach the neighboring classrooms,
! Joseph P. Kahn, "An Ambitious Expansion Unveiled at Harvard Art Museums,” 2014.
63
!64 Jason Farago, "Renzo Piano Reboot of Harvard Art Museums Largely Triumphs,” The Guardian, Guardian News
and Media, last modified November 14, 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/14/renzo-
piano-reboot-of-harvard-art-museums-largely-triumphs>.
!65 Josephine Minutillo, "Renzo Piano's Surprise Material for Harvard Art Museums,” Interior Design, last modified
April 23, 2014, <http://www.interiordesign.net/articles/8237-renzo-pianos-surprise-material-for-harvard-art-mus/>.
!88
galleries and conservation rooms. Indirect light is also filtered into the
galleries on the lower floors through Piano’s winter gardens on the north and
south facades. The cedar panels on the exterior can be moved seasonally in
order to adjust the amount of direct sunlight, closing it off in the hot summer
and opening the glass box to the sun in the winter. The winter gardens are
also used to display non-light sensitive works, like sculpture. Many visitors
find Piano’s design of the natural lighting to greatly enhance the viewing
experience, and one expert even referred to the winter garden gallery as a
“spectacular jewel box.” 66 The permanent galleries require a more controlled
source of light, so sunlight is carefully diffused before reaching those spaces.
The most delicately controlled lighting system is located in the
gallery on the fifth floor, referred to as the “Lightbox Gallery.” In this room, a
German-designed double-shade system can be adjusted based on the
weather and the light sensitivity of the collection to control the building’s
heat-gain and direct sunlight. Lentz refers to the Lightbox Gallery as a place
to “showcase the intersection of art and technology.”67
It is clear that the courtyard was central, both literally and figuratively,
to Piano’s design from the beginning. His initial sketch of the interior design
shows his plan for a circular flow through the different departments of the
museum, focusing around the courtyard. (See figure 17). Piano’s circulation Figure 17
!66 Edgers, Geoff Edgers, "For Prized Bernini Sculptures, a New ‘jewel Box’ at Harvard,” Boston Globe. last modified
November 1, 2014, https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/11/01/for-prized-bernini-sculptures-new-jewel-box-
harvard/feuo7nAE27jmaqwggPeVGL/story.html.
! Joseph P. Kahn, "An Ambitious Expansion Unveiled at Harvard Art Museums,” 2014.
67
!89
plans are also meant to encourage interaction between the three museums.
Although they each have their own designated area within the building, one
critic has commented that they “blend into one another so seamlessly that
they’re barely distinct. In the same way the galleries ringing the courtyard
have no single entrance, but rather multiple ways in.”68
The plan for circulation in the museum was also determined by
accessibility. While the new entrance does not appear as open or welcoming
as it could have from the exterior, the door on Prescott Street does have a
big impact on the layout of the museum. Because it is aligned with the
Quincy Street entrance, the new entrance encourages visitors and students Prescott Street
to pass directly through the museum and its iconic courtyard. (See figure 18).
ay
adw
Bro
This accessibility is further supported by the lack of entry fee, which is
Quincy Street
required to enter the galleries but not the courtyard, cafe, or shop. This N
10’
20’
50’
signifies a big change in the attitude of the museum. Like many older Figure 18
universities, the Harvard museum collection was mainly dedicated to the
needs of students, and their collections seemed secluded from the public.
One reviewer said that at the Fogg, “The public was tolerated more than
welcomed.”69 Chief curator Kao acknowledges the feeling, saying, “There
was a sense of those things being locked away…It was a core goal of this
project to open up the collection and create new platforms for their study by
both the university and the community generally.”70
! Jason Farago, "Renzo Piano Reboot of Harvard Art Museums Largely Triumphs,” 2014.
68
! James S. Russell, "After 17 Years, Piano's Overhauled Harvard Art Museums Open,” 2014.
69
! Michael Z Wise, "Confrontation at Harvard Art Museums,” 2014.

70
!90
The 2014 renovation and expansion was successful in creating a
more open environment for the neighboring community and providing a
space for galleries, study, conservation, lectures, and hands-on learning to
flourish. Piano and his new addition, while somewhat heavy and clunky from
the Prescott Street facade, is more appealing from the north and south
elevations, where he implemented the use of horizontal absolutes, a
recessed void, and a unifying glass canopied roof to create a relationship
between the historic Georgian facade and his contemporary cedar wing. 
!91
!92
conclusion
!93
In each of the three case study projects explored in this paper, Piano
used massing, materiality, voids, horizontal absolutes, and interior circulation
as central themes in his designs. While some of his works have been more
successful than others, Piano’s use of these elements creates a relationship
between the existing historical architecture and his contemporary additions.
After determining these strategies, it is now clear why the Grand
Central Terminal addition proposed by Marcel Breuer was clearly
inappropriate. The shocking contrast of materials and the heaviness of the
massing dominating the historical building resulted in no relationship
between the two architectural styles. The sleek, reflective tower appears
completely disproportional to the classical Beaux-Arts style structure below.
Support for historical preservation has been growing in recent years,
which has led to many design projects similar to the case studies discussed
here. Many historical buildings that house public institutions have become
worn with age. Their technical systems become obsolete, their style
outdated, and the programs that they hold outgrow them, just like the
Gardner, Morgan, and Fogg Museums. In many of these similar projects
across the United States, the architects have implemented the same design
elements found in Piano’s work. I’ve gathered the following examples to
demonstrate the ways that the architectural techniques explored in this paper
have been used in various projects. Each of these examples was chosen
because the historical building remains intact and the addition is adjacent to
!94
the existing structure, which allows them to be easily compared to the three
Piano case studies in this paper.
A similar project from 2013 is the Gertrude Ederle Recreation Center
in New York City. The original structure is a historic bathhouse built in 1906,
with a ornamented brick facade. When Belmont Freeman Architects were
commissioned to design an addition that more than doubled the size of the
original building, they applied many of the same elements as Piano in order
to create a dialogue between the contrasting styles. The massing of the new
addition is very similar but slightly smaller to not be overwhelming, just like
the massing of Piano’s wing at the Gardner. The new material is brick, to
reference the historical facade in color and texture, but is updated with an
elongated brick to modernize the appearance. A horizontal absolute is drawn
across the facade by the height of the new entrance to the belt cornice
above the historic entryway. Lastly, the link between the old and new
structures is formed by a recessed glass panel very similar to Piano’s voids at
the Morgan. The use of these elements has had a positive influence on the
design, as the Recreation Center has received multiple complimentary
architectural reviews and an honorable mention in the Historic Districts
Design Awards in 2014.
Another similar project is Rafael Viñoly’s addition to the Cleveland
Museum of Art. This design challenge was similar to the conflict Piano faced
!95
at the Morgan Library and Museum because the complex was made up of
multiple structures from different time periods and styles. The Cleveland
Museum of Art was first located in a Beaux-Arts building designed by
Hubbell & Benes in 1916. The museum was doubled in size with the first
addition in March of 1958, and expanded again by Marcel Breuer in 1971,
and once more in 1983. When Rafael Viñoly took the commission in 2002, he
removed the first and third additions, leaving only the original Beaux-Arts
building and the modernist Breuer addition, similar to Piano’s approach at
the Morgan. The Breuer addition stands at the rear, a two toned, horizontally
striped granite facade contrasting the classical historical building. Viñoly’s
addition, served to merge the two styles without overwhelming either one,
similar to Piano’s pavilions at the Morgan. Viñoly’s drew from the existing
buildings in his materials, Georgian marble like the Hubbell & Benes structure
with granite pinstripes referencing Breuer. The horizontal cornice of the
Beaux-Arts facade carries through Viñoly’s addition, establishing a strong
horizontal absolute. Viñoly also considered circulation throughout the three
wings, making a cohesive path for the visitor the way Piano did, especially in
the Fogg Museum. Critic Steven Litt said that Viñoly’s is central courtyard
“echoes the classical symmetry and straight-line sequences of galleries
organized around a large, central rotunda.”71
71Steven Litt, "The Architecture of the Cleveland Museum of Art's Expansion Puts Art First: CMA 2014,” Cleveland,
last modified March 27, 2014, <http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2014/03/
the_architecture_of_the_clevel.html>.
!96
The design elements discussed in this paper can also be seen in the
recent addition to the Holyoke Public Library in Holyoke, Massachusetts. The
addition, designed by Finegold Alexander Architects in 2013, used similar
toned materials, proportionate massing, and a recessed glass connector to
relate to the neoclassical limestone facade designed by James Clough in
1902.
Through these examples, it is clear that the elements used by Renzo
Piano are often used by other architects when designing successful
contemporary additions to historic public buildings. Design techniques like
corresponding materials, horizontal absolutes, proportional massing, and
voids or negative space can be adapted to any project in order to prolong
the use of historical buildings while simultaneously creating innovative new
designs. The exemplary work of Renzo Piano can be a model for future
projects in order to meet the needs of a growing institution while preserving
significant historical buildings.
As the need for sustainable buildings grows, the importance of
historical preservation will become increasingly apparent. As Richard Moe,
President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said, “We can’t build
our way out of the global warming crisis. We have to conserve our way out.
That means we have to make better, wiser use of what we’ve already built.”
Renzo Piano has demonstrated that preserving a historic structure can be
sustainable, functional, and beautiful. 

!97
!98
Selected Sources
Introduction Bibliography
Bloszies, Charles. Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations.

New York: Princeton Architectural, 2012.
“Historic District Brochure Text.” Riverside, CA. Last modified 2015. https://
www.riversideca.gov/historic/pdf/hpDistrictBrochureText.pdf
Moe, Richard. “The Greenest Building is one that Already Exists.” Vincent
Scully Prize Reception Speech, National Building Museum, Washington, D.C.,
December 12, 2007.
O'Hagan, Simon. "Renzo Piano: 'The Shard Is My Dream Building.’" The

Independent. Independent Digital News and Media. Last modified April 27,
2012. <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/renzo-
piano-the-shard-is-my- dream-building-7678862.html>.
Stott, Rory. ”Spotlight: Renzo Piano.” ArchDaily. Last modified September 14,
2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/273403/happy-birthday-renzo-piano/>.
Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles,

and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.
United States. National Park Service, "Rehabilitation Standards and

Guidelines—Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service,” National
Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016, <https://www.nps.gov/
tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm>.
Gardner Case Study Bibliography
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: Boston Landmarks Commission Study

Report. Boston: Boston Landmarks Commission, Environment Department,
2011.
Carter, Morris. Isabella Stewart Gardner and Fenway Court. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925.
Goldfarb, Hilliard T.. The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: a Companion

Guide and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Hawley, Anne, Robert Campbell, Alexander Wood, Barbara Hostetter, and

Nic Lehoux. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: Daring by Design. New York:
Skira Rizzoli, 2014.
!99
Iovine, Julie V. "Crit Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum." The Architect's

Newspaper. Last modified January 16, 2012.
Lambri, Luisa, Pieranna Cavalchini, and Amanda Esteves-Kraus. Portrait.

Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2012.
Ouroussoff, Nicolai. "An Architect Pays Respects to a Dowager." The New

York Times. Last modified January 20, 2010.
Shand-Tucci, Douglass. The art of scandal: the life and times of Isabella
Stewart Gardner. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Stephens, Suzanne. "Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Extension."

Architectural Record. Last modified February 10, 2012.
Tharp, Louise Hall. Mrs. Jack; a biography of Isabella Stewart Gardner.

Boston: Little, Brown, 1965.
Tittmann, John. "Distractions from Gardner's Visceral Mission?" The Boston

Musical Intelligencer. Last modified January 16, 2012.
Morgan Case Study Bibliography
Bloszies, Charles. Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations.

New York: Princeton Architectural, 2012.
Byard, Paul Spencer. The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to
Renzo Piano. New York: Morgan Library & Museum, 2008.
Cotter, Holland. ”Let There Be Light, and Elegance." The New York Times.
Last modified October 28, 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/arts/
design/29morgan.html?_r=0>.
Goldberger, Paul. "Molto Piano.” The New Yorker. Last modified May 26,
2006. <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/05/29/molto-piano>.
Ouroussoff, Nicolai. “Renzo Piano’s Expansion of the Morgan Library

Transforms a World of Robber Barons and Scholars.” New York Times. Last
modified April 10, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/arts/design/
10morg.html?_r=2&.
Piano, Renzo and Fulvio Irace. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Visible Cities.
Milano: Triennale, 2007.
!100
"2006: The Renzo Piano Expansion and Renovation.” The Morgan Library
and Museum. Accessed February 1, 2016. <http://www.themorgan.org/
about/architectural-history/14>.
Fogg Case Study Bibliography
"The Agnes Mongan Center." Samuel Anderson Architects. 1994.
Brush, Kathryn. Vastly More than Brick & Mortar: Reinventing the Fogg Art
Museum in the 1920s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums,
2003.
Edgers, Geoff. "After 6 Years, Harvard Art Museums Reemerging." Boston

Globe. Last modified April 13, 2014. <http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/
style/2014/04/12/after-years-harvard-art-museums-reemerging/
4QlaUg7h7tQoCVV3OXB8aM/story.html>.
Edgers, Geoff Edgers, "For Prized Bernini Sculptures, a New ‘jewel Box’ at
Harvard,” Boston Globe. last modified November 1, 2014, https://
www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/11/01/for-prized-bernini-sculptures-new-
jewel-box-harvard/feuo7nAE27jmaqwggPeVGL/story.html.
Campbell, Robert. "Cramming at Harvard - The Boston Globe." Boston

Globe. Last modified November 13, 2014. <https://www.bostonglobe.com/
arts/2014/11/13/cramming-harvard/
ufgDZVxxSqe60PhyWG2K6N/story.html>.
Cotter, Holland. "When Three Into One Equals More." The New York Times.
Last modified November 20, 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/
arts/design/harvard-art-museums-revamped-and-reopened.html?_r=0>.
Farago, Jason. "Renzo Piano Reboot of Harvard Art Museums Largely

Triumphs." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Last modified
November 14, 2014.
Frearson, Amy. "Renzo Piano Reorganises Harvard Art Museums around a

Courtyard Atrium." Dezeen. Last modified November 18, 2014.
"Harvard Art Museums Renovation and Expansion." Renzo Piano Building

Workshop. Accessed March 20, 2016.
Harvard University. The Harvard Art Museums. Harvard Art Museums’

Renovated and Expanded Facility to Open November 16, 2014.
HarvardMuseums.org. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Last
modified April 15, 2014. <https://s3.amazonaws.com/
media.harvardartmuseums.org/production/file_uploads/PressRelease/pdfs/
!101
000/000/007/ original/01%20Harvard%20Art%20Museums_Press
%20Release_Opening
%20Date_04.15.14%20Update.pdf>.
Kahn, Joseph P. "An Ambitious Expansion Unveiled at Harvard Art

Museums.” Boston Globe. Last modified November 1, 2014. <https://
www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/11/01/with-opening-expanded-harvard-art-
museums-complex-patience-rewardedDGhCKlNLxmBqwlvB3ZatMK/
story.html>.
Kumar, Gautam S. "Fogg Museum Renewal Continues." The Harvard

Crimson. Last modified March 11, 2011. <http://www.thecrimson.com/article/
2011/3/11/fogg-art-museum- harvard/>.
Minutillo, Josephine. "Renzo Piano's Surprise Material for Harvard Art

Museums." Interior Design. Last modified April 23, 2014.
President and Fellows of Harvard College. “History and The Three

Museums." Harvard Art Museums. Accessed March 1, 2016. <http://
www.harvardartmuseums.org/about/history-and-the-three-museums>.
Russell, James S. "After 17 Years, Piano's Overhauled Harvard Art Museums

Open." Architectural Record. Last modified November 19, 2014.
“Werner Otto Hall.” Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects. Cambridge:

1991. <http:// www.gwathmey-siegel.com/pdf/198804.pdf>.
Wise, Michael Z. "Confrontation at Harvard Art Museums." ARTnews. Last

modified October 29, 2014.
Conclusion Bibliography
Bollack, Françoise. "Design Awards." Historic Districts Council. Last modified

March 7, 2014. <http://hdc.org/designawards>.
"Gertrude Ederle Recreation Center." Belmont Freeman Architects. Last

modified 2013. Accessed April 8, 2016. <http://www.belmontfreeman.com/
projects-civic-gertrude.html>.
"Gertrude Ederle Recreation Center." Architizer. Last modified 2013. <http

%3A%2F%2Farchitizer.com%2Fprojects%2Fgertrude-ederle-recreation-
center-1%2F>.
"History of the Holyoke Public Library, 1870-2013." Holyoke Public Library.

Accessed April 8, 2016. <http://www.holyokelibrary.org/abouthistory.asp>.
!102
Litt, Steven. "The Architecture of the Cleveland Museum of Art's Expansion

Puts Art First: CMA 2014.” Cleveland. Last modified March 27, 2014. <http://
www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2014/03/
the_architecture_of_the_clevel.html>.
Murray, Mark M. ”Holyoke Public Library Reopens after Renovations."

MassLive. Last modified November 22, 2013. <http://photos.masslive.com/
republican/2013/11/
holyoke_public_library_reopens_after_renovations_7.html>.
"Project Milestones." Cleveland Museum of Art. Last modified November 21,

2012. <http://www.clevelandart.org/join-and-give/support-the-
transformation/renovation-and-expansion-project/project-milestones>.
Sutherland, Amy. "Second Edition: New Life for Holyoke Public Library |
National Trust for Historic Preservation." National Trust for Historic
Preservation. Last modified July 1, 2014. <https://savingplaces.org/stories/
second-edition#.VwL7WhIrKYV>.

Transforming Historical Architecture: Case Studies From Renzo Piano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transforming Historical Architecture: Case Studies From Renzo Piano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!

Transforming Historical Architecture:

A Division III Project by Blithe Archbald

School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies

Committee Chair: Naomi Darling

Finally, I am eternally grateful for my parents and their continued support in my

Chapter 1: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum . . . . . 18

Chapter 2: The Morgan Library and Museum . . . . . . . . .42

Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Chapter 3: Fogg Museum | Harvard Museums . . . . . . . . 67

Selected Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

This thesis is an investigation into the relationship between historical and

Why are historic buildings important?

Historical buildings represent a shared past. They are physical

manifestations of our cultural heritage. In traveling through a city, the variety

values of a city’s inhabitants. Old buildings provide comfort and foster

nostalgia, helping people feel a connection with their physical environment.

Their composition, massing, and balance are recognizable and

understandable, and their ornamentation adds a “richness of texture” that is

uncommon in modernist architecture.1

In addition to this emotional reasoning, the preservation of historical

buildings is an integral part of creating sustainable cities. Old buildings are

systems; but what they do have is embodied energy. A constructed building

holds all of the energy used in extraction, processing, manufacture,

transportation, and assembly. When an existing building is demolished in

favor of a new building—even one with modern, high-tech solutions for

sustainability—all of the embodied energy is lost. Because of this embodied

energy, the environmental footprint of constructing an entirely new building

years for a new, energy-efficient building to recover the energy lost in

demolishing the existing building.2

While historic architecture is an important element in our cities, not

every historical building can or should be preserved. Enacting preservation

laws on every historical building would result in a “museum city,” that is

unable to adapt to changing needs or experience necessary growth. In

determining the designation of a historic building, many factors are

What makes a building worth preserving?

There are a variety of reasons for which a building is deemed worthy

include a wider variety of locations, including the historical sites associated

with accomplished women and African-, Asian-, and Latino-Americans. Today

Bethune’s Washington DC townhouse, the headquarters of the National

multiple World War I Japanese Internment Camps like Manzanar.

Some buildings or districts are preserved because they represent a

prominent style or time period. This can be seen in the preservation of

Greene, or Prospect Heights; or Pueblo and Mission Revival in the Southwest

through the years.

Lastly, certain buildings in the United States are preserved because

influential in the architecture community and are recognizable as the work of

their architect or their time period.

How can interventions, especially contemporary additions keep historical

Any of the reasons above, or a combination, can explain the

architectural or historical significance of a building. Based on their location,

those are designated as National Historic Landmarks. 4 As these buildings

uses change, their technology becomes outdated, or the needs of

deserving of preservation, there are still varying degrees of possible

intervention. Based on their registration status, varying intervention strategies

can be implemented, including preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation.5

Preservation is the maintenance of a building in its current condition; changes

alterations can be made. Restoration refers to recreating the appearance of

of preserving the elements of the building that represent its historical,

cultural, or architectural significance while allowing changes to the rest of the

structure. The appropriate method of intervention varies based on the

building’s reason for preservation. The most significant, like St.

Bartholomew’s Church in NYC would be preserved as close to its original

consider why historical architecture is important and worthy of preservation.  