One Golden Gate with a Twist of Copper...
SFAD
critique on the way, what better way to launch the new SFAD discussion
group than with the new de Young museum? Set to open October 15th, this
copper clad beast has caught the attention of just about every design
enthusiast in the Bay Area. With its contortionist tower and an
overhang that redefines the word cantilever, will it be the big candy
sniff that HERZOG & DE MEURON is hoping for? Does a tower have a place
in this meticulously coiffed historical landmark? What will the
neighbors think? More importantly - what do YOU think?
SF Geof
review. Not in the Chron, the AP (via the Merc), The NYT, or anywhere
else I've searched.
Like many other H&dM works I've seen (caveat: in photos only), the de
Young can be critiqued for it's materials and skin separately from it's
form. To me the copper works on an intellectual level only -- you
have to be informed of the foliage inspiration (I originally thought it
was a Lichtenstein-like cloudscape). By intellectual, I mean it's like
the grids in Meier's Atheneum: you never get the sense of aligning with
the river or the town while wandering through; you have to be told of
the connection by the docents there.
As far as the overall form, it seems to belong to a new category of
haphazardly-trapezoidally-prismic buildings, along with the new library
in Seattle. It doesn't convey any meaning to me. This could be
because I'm simply not familiar with the language, but I'm
pre-supposing there's a language to be read. Note how Gehry's Bilbao
Guggenheim feels ebulient, whereas his Experience Music Project seems
downright frumpy. These qualities can be conveyed even though no one
ever saw that curvaceous vocabulary before. Do the forms of the de
Young express anything in particular to the average visitor?
This building strikes me like a well laid-out and nicely detailed
sophmore architecture student's project. If the style grows, and
architects employ the forms and elements meaningfully, my understanding
may expand, but for now I'm mystified. Even Herbert Muschamp, one of
the most lucid and enlightening critics I've read recently, couldn't
get across what it was that made Koolhaas' library in Seattle so worth
gushing over.
Henry
intended. It certainly does not block neighbors views or light. It
remains the most popular element of the museum's collection. Granted
that's not hard to achieve. The light wells or trapezoids are a
pleasure to look into when wandering around and if you need a sense of
place just go outside. Its very difficult to produce a museum that
prevents viewing fatigue as most exhibits require little or no outside
light. I still think it looks a little like boxcars pieced together but
I lost that feeling when I entered the entry court. San Francisco is
too fussy about it's Victorian style image so I say hooray for breaking
the mold.
CitizenCAD
Francisco of over 40 ft. shall not cast shadows into city parks,
EXCEPT in Golden Gate Park. 1988 City Charter, well before the 92
earthquake.
Initially, a tower consisting of a square transforming into a triangle
at the top was presented to the public. Roth Osawa cast small ceramic
"piggy banks" in the shape and school children put change in these
to help fund the tower. In a true example of Design by Committee, the
board of directors felt this shape did not provide enough space and the
tower 'morphed' into a rectangle which twisted 37.5° to the grid
of the closest city streets and was reported to be 160 ft tall.
Enter CitizenCAD, a name given me by Metropolis magazine. I rendered
the design on file with the Planning Department, using VectorWorks, and
placed it into photographs, rendering the existing tower and trees for
exact reference. Ouch! My images varied considerably from those
presented in the Environmental Impact Report and the SF Board of Sups
called a hearing to discuss the discrepancy.
The museum folks claimed the consultants who created the EIR had been
mistakenly told to use 144 ft. for the height. (EIP Associates also
didn't read the Chronicle or look at the plans, which clearly stated
160 ft.) At this point the museum could either redo the EIR and start
over or lop off the tower, which they did. Rather then just squeeze
down the shape, the form was changed such that the front and back faces
of the tower remained flat but the sides twist and the shape actually
grows by about 150% as it becomes a parallelogram. Additionally the
overall twist was reduced to 30°. The observation level does NOT
align with the Richmond district streets at 37.5° or true north at
41.5°. That all the reviewers repeat this claim reflects spin over
reality; not new in America.
Why does the amount of twist matter? Pierre de Meuron in justifying the
twist, calmed that the museum should be the bridge between a sylvan,
pastoral park and the city surrounding it; anyone in the park seeing
the tower would be drawn back into the city. This is where I have a
problem! Most city dwellers don't have estates in the country to go
to on the weekend. Large urban parks were created to provide this
"reconnecting with nature" for transit bound urbanites. Certainly,
Golden Gate Park provides this experience along with a hundred of other
unique recreational opportunities. The park, for the 90% of visitors
not going to the Museum(s), should not be diminished for the 10% that
do.
Personally, in the abstract, the new deYoung Museum has features I like
and features I hate. Practically, the fragile copper will be a
nightmare for the city to maintain. The mild steel structure
supporting the copper is already showing the effects of being at the
bottom of the galvanic food chain. The garage that drew me into this
whole debate in the first place has wreaked havoc with what was the
oldest remaining public gathering place on the west coast, the 105 year
old Music Concourse.
Any discussion of architecture should consider it impacts on its
surroundings, not just the surrounds impacts on it.
AmyM
Well, I'm a fan of the new museum. I think it is amazingly well
designed and I'm so impressed with the details: everything seems done
just right. (Well, to me, anyway!)
Thanks for the information about why the tower isn't taller. Very
interesting :)
I found this gallery of wonderful images of the De Young. Not sure if
they're photographs or watercolors or what but they are very nice:
Amy