Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transforming Historical Architecture: Case Studies From Renzo Piano
Transforming Historical Architecture: Case Studies From Renzo Piano
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.
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
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
of building types, sizes, and styles demonstrate the changing tastes and
often considered drafty, with their lack of insulation and outdated technical
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
considered.
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
the National Registry of Historic Places includes sites like Mary McLeod
Council of Negro Women; The Spanish San Antonio Missions in Texas; and
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
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
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
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
buildings relevant?
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
age, they often begin to lose their ability to fulfill necessary functions. Their
inhabitants outgrow the physical space. Once a building has been deemed
to the original structure that have occurred are retained, but no new
the building at a specific time, often its original state. Rehabilitation consists
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.
!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
Rehabilitation, “the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”6 This
addition that is different enough that it does not appear as a copy, while still
successful when the contemporary architects consider the form and style of
like Marcel Breuer’s proposal of a new skyscraper addition above the old
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
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
Carpenter Center at Harvard, and Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum. His
!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.
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
Morgan’s neoclassical limestone Library from 1906, and the Fogg’s brick
early 20th century America. The museums, each lacking the space necessary
style, have all been completed within the last ten years. In each of these
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
existing plans, elevations, and sections of each building as a base for a series
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
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
that make them successful and that could be implemented in other similar
projects.
Literary Review
Building Workshop and the museums, books on the theories and philosophy
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
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
Brent C. Brolin, and Paul Spencer Byard. These authors outline the various
chapter one:
Emerald Necklace
Fe
nw
ay
ad
Ro
ace
Pal
ay
sWn
Eva
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
!23
Palace Road
Tetlow Street
Fenway
Evans Way
Plan
!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
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
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
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
inspiring in her own exhibitions in the future. Arguably the most influential
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.
!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
Context Diagram
N
10’ 50’
20’ 100’
Fenway and Evans Way, across the street from the Emerald Necklace,
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
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
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
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
The director and trustee board were eager to transform the formerly
exclusive, private institution into a more accessible center for the community.
a cultural center for the public for yet another century.”12 The plan included
!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.
preservation efforts within the Palace Building; and the design and
spontaneously stated that “the new building must be a work of art, just as
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
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
that connects them; and in their common goal: creating a holistic experience
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
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
Figure 3
!31
by horizontal floor.
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
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
relationship between two building forms. (See figure 5). East Section
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
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
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
separation.
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
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
openings, lessening in height towards the upper floors and creating a grid of
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
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
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
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).
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.
large and grand, usually rising above the street with multiple stairs, a porch,
The 2012 alterations included moving the visitor’s entrance from its
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
hallways, and more spacious elevators that the original Palace entrance
lacked. The clear glass and accessibility of Piano’s entrance symbolize the
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
longer transition between the city outside and the interior galleries. (See
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
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
upper floors with views to the courtyard through the classical Venetian
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
Circulation Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
Figure 16
historical and contemporary wings. (See figure 16).
was to be a center of culture, education, arts, music, and nature. But her
were invited to Isabella’s dinners parties, and prominent artist and musicians
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
conversations and lecture series, artist talks, performances, open studio days,
the “Teens Behind the Scenes” educational program for local young adults,
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.
new accessible entrance of the Museum Building reflect the new relationship
the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum were generally favorable. This is likely
negative space between the original building and its addition, which creates
a visual distinction that honors the historic Fenway Court in itself while
The most common criticism of this addition is perhaps that Piano was
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
!15 Nicolai Ouroussoff, "An Architect Pays Respects to a Dowager,” The New York Times, last modified January 20,
2010.
the abstract nature of Piano’s design. The concept for the Museum, as
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
architecture critic John Tittmann argued, “the artistry of their work is platonic.
criticized the lack of definition the addition holds within the city block,
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.
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
relationship between the old and new wings. There are many ways to
chapter two:
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
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
th th th th th th th
e
e
St St St St St St St
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
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
!48
Section
10 50
Daylighting Diagram 5 20
!49
The Morgan Library and Museum in New York City was originally founded by
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
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
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
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
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
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
pilasters, arches and a stylized frieze, the basic design is fairly simple, and
easily passes the Vreeland elegance test [“Elegance is refusal”]: It’s a Beaux-
Figure 3
Arts version of Zen.”21
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
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 25.
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
marble rotunda ceiling heavily decorated with frescos, guided carvings, and
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,
Istrian marble fireplace, a 1545 tapestry from the Netherlands titled The
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
explorers, and poets. Between the lunettes are hexagonal images portraying
“play solitaire, meet friends, conduct business, and enjoy his great books and
for his family, friends, and scholars.”22 This concept was physically apparent
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 26.
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
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
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
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
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
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
architecture, as the main entrance was shifted from Pierpont Morgan’s grand
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,
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.,
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 29.
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
that a new connecting addition should be built between the Morgan house
and the 1928 Annex. The commission for this project was given to
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
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
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
th th th th th th th
e
St St St St St St St
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
rk Av
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
Pa
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
collections storage.”24
of a new addition to meet these goals. Renzo Piano was personally invited to
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
large and overpowering, lacking in usable space, and all were missing a
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
!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>.
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 40.
25
!56
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
construction lasted five years, until the grand opening in April of 2006.
Morgan Library and Museum. Not only did he need to design a performance
historical buildings. The Library, the Annex, and the Morgan House each have
their own character, relationship to their site, and a different function. Piano
buildings and his own contemporary addition through his material choice,
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 46.
26
!57
The footprint of Piano’s building fills the space between each of the
37th Street Elevation Madison Avenue Elevation 36th Street Elevation
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
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
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
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
bronze. The three historical buildings were right to display stone facades,
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
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 54.
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
E 37th St
E 36th St
that the Museum hoped to achieve through this project.
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
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 54.
28
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 57.
29
!59
The glass allows visitors to see into the interior of the addition even from the
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
opening architectural arms welcome a visitor into a sheltered but open space
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 87.
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
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,
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
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
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
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 58.
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
Figure 11
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 evening, the warm glow of light that can be seen through the glass
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.
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
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
glamorous. We're left with a subtly layered urban experience in which the
baffles and screens, allows a gentle natural light to filter through it as well.
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
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-
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 60.
36
!37 Charles Bloszies, Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations, (New York: Princeton Architectural,
2012).
!64
where people meet for any number of purposes and pleasures.”38 His
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
To the left from the entrance, two balconies project from the upper
right, a grand wood and glass staircase descends beneath the ground. The
performance hall descend sixty-five feet below the street level. This design
a tower that would appear out of place among the four-story historical
Jorge Luis Borges, Piano discussed his ideas with his friend, author Umberto
Eco,
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 47.
38
!65
The floors below ground now hold the most precious works, located in
Manhattan rock.40
By separating new and old with negative space and designing an atrium
miniature city within one building. While the buildings’ functions, time
periods, and styles vary greatly, they are drawn together by the repeating
! Paul Spencer Byard, The Making of the Morgan: From Charles McKim to Renzo Piano, 85.
39
! Renzo Piano and Fulvio Irace, Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Visible Cities (Milano: Triennale, 2007), 60.
40
!66
!67
chapter three:
Analytical Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
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’
!69
Hunt Hall Fogg Museum Naumburg Hall Werner Otto Hall Agnes Mongan Hall Piano’s Harvard Art Museums
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
!70
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
Prescott Street
ay
adw
Bro
Quincy Street
Plan
!73
!74
Prescott Street
ay
adw
Bro
Quincy Street
N
Circulation Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
!75
higher education in the United States. Two and a half centuries later, a few
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
sciences at Harvard and their laboratory system. This influence resulted in the
the “concept that scholarship in he field of art was ideally shaped by the
space.”41 Rather than a focus on aesthetics or art theory, the Division of Fine
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,
!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
The Fogg Museum and the studies that centered around its
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
Revival brick facades, making Hunt’s limestone Classicism seem out of place.
Many believed that Hunt was “more attentive to Beaux-Arts symmetry and
hesitant to allocate funds to this new department for a new building. They
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
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
procure funding. As the Division of Fine Arts grew in size and reputation, the
Cambridge
setts Ave
Massachu
Br
oa
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’
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
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
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-
well as representative of New England’s colonial history, and hence most able
Forbes, Rogers, and Coolidge combined resulted in the new Fogg Museum
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
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
of Fine Arts developed two more art museums with more specialized
warrant their own museum as well. The Arthur M. Sackler Museum was
! Kathryn Brush, Vastly More than Brick & Mortar, 74, 76, 95.
50
!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
East Wing was added to the rear of the building, dedicated the Naumburg
galleries and social functions. 53 The Naumburg wing was a small boxy brick
1991, the collections of the Busch-Reisinger Museum were moved into Figure 3
the rear of the 1925 Fogg, beside the Naumburg wing. This new wing,
and a larger, curving three story volume rising behind. (See figure 4). Werner
new reading room, an archival storage room, and additional galleries.54 Yet
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
Hunt Hall Fogg Museum Naumburg Hall Werner Otto Hall Agnes Mongan Hall Piano’s Harvard Art Museums
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
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
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,
!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
Piano was hired in 1997 to design the structure but the project was scrapped
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
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
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,
the historic Georgian brick facade, the Fogg also sits next to the 1963
Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, a concrete Brutalist building designed
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation
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,
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,
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
winter gardens corresponds to the horizontal line of the heavy cornice on the
Prescott Street
the height of the rectangular cedar volume. (See figure 12). Unfortunately,
ay
adw
Bro
Plan
Prescott Street N
Figure 12
ay
adw
Bro
these corresponding relationships are not visible from the east facade,
Quincy Street
Plan
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
Sangallo the Elder around 1534.61 (See figure 13). The use of Classical Figure 13
United States, especially in higher education and the arts. Even more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
gallery on the fifth floor, referred to as the “Lightbox Gallery.” In this room, a
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
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
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
Circulation Diagram 5’
10’
20’
50’
signifies a big change in the attitude of the museum. Like many older Figure 18
needs of students, and their collections seemed secluded from the public.
One reviewer said that at the Fogg, “The public was tolerated more than
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
! 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
flourish. Piano and his new addition, while somewhat heavy and clunky from
the Prescott Street facade, is more appealing from the north and south
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
as central themes in his designs. While some of his works have been more
between the two architectural styles. The sleek, reflective tower appears
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
across the United States, the architects have implemented the same design
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
in New York City. The original structure is a historic bathhouse built in 1906,
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
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
the Morgan. The use of these elements has had a positive influence on the
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
Hubbell & Benes in 1916. The museum was doubled in size with the first
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
the Morgan. The Breuer addition stands at the rear, a two toned, horizontally
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
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
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
1902.
designs. The exemplary work of Renzo Piano can be a model for future
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.”
Selected Sources
Introduction Bibliography
“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.
Stott, Rory. ”Spotlight: Renzo Piano.” ArchDaily. Last modified September 14,
2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/273403/happy-birthday-renzo-piano/>.
Shand-Tucci, Douglass. The art of scandal: the life and times of Isabella
Stewart Gardner. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
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>.
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>.
Brush, Kathryn. Vastly More than Brick & Mortar: Reinventing the Fogg Art
Museum in the 1920s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums,
2003.
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.
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>.
000/000/007/ original/01%20Harvard%20Art%20Museums_Press
%20Release_Opening
%20Date_04.15.14%20Update.pdf>.
Conclusion Bibliography
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>.