* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Good Old-Fashioned Modernism
Georgian architecture wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of Bermuda wikipedia , lookup
Sustainable architecture wikipedia , lookup
Neoclassical architecture wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of the United Kingdom wikipedia , lookup
Green building wikipedia , lookup
Constructivist architecture wikipedia , lookup
Green building on college campuses wikipedia , lookup
Sacred architecture wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of Germany wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of Canada wikipedia , lookup
Stalinist architecture wikipedia , lookup
Women in architecture wikipedia , lookup
Bernhard Hoesli wikipedia , lookup
International Style (architecture) wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of the Philippines wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of Italy wikipedia , lookup
Architectural theory wikipedia , lookup
Philip Johnson wikipedia , lookup
Russian architecture wikipedia , lookup
Modern furniture wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of England wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of Chennai wikipedia , lookup
Modern architecture wikipedia , lookup
Mathematics and architecture wikipedia , lookup
Postmodern architecture wikipedia , lookup
Architecture of the United States wikipedia , lookup
Architecture wikipedia , lookup
blueprints Volume XXVI, No. 1 National Building Museum in this issue: The New Face of Preservation An Interview with Richard Moe Good Old-Fashioned Modernism Federal Modern Assessing and Preserving a Legacy Renewing Urban Renewal Silo Point: An Industrial-Strength Renovation Winter 2007–08 in this issue Is Modern the New Victorian? from the executive director British novelist L.P. Hartley wrote: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” If we accept this maxim, we might assume that proximity matters—in other words, that the recent past is likely to be less foreign than the distant past, in much the same way that Canada is more familiar to the typical American than, say, Cambodia. When it comes to history, however, that assumption may be illusory. We all remember the recent past—or at least we think we do—and having lived through it, we have inevitably formed biases and emotional associations that color our perceptions of that history. With respect to our built heritage, it is often difficult for us to appreciate the true significance of relatively recent works of architecture—buildings that we may have seen under construction; buildings that may have replaced earlier ones that we remember fondly; buildings that are, perhaps, all too familiar. So how do we assess the aesthetic, cultural, and material value of structures that have not been around very long? In architecture, the term “modern” tends to evoke images of rational, unornamented structures fabricated of human-made materials such as steel or concrete—in short, the antithesis of “historic” architecture. Nonetheless, there are numerous indisputably modern buildings that are now 50, 75, or even—by some people’s reckoning—100 years old. Many of those buildings are unquestionably significant, whether aesthetically, technologically, or historically. They are now as much a part of our cultural heritage as log cabins, corner stores, and brownstones. Preservation groups are taking notice of the growing body of “historic modern” architecture, and there is increasing public debate about which buildings from the (relatively) recent past are worthy of keeping. Meanwhile, design and building professionals are grappling with the technical challenges of preserving or reusing modern structures, which often employed experimental materials and construction methods. The preservation of modernism is also becoming central to the sustainability movement, as proponents of green development argue that even very mundane structures should be at least partially preserved in order to reduce waste. It seems, then, that our fundamental assumptions about the purpose, practice, and politics of preservation are likely to change dramatically in the near future. Is Modern the new Victorian? Perhaps not, but it clearly represents a rich and varied legacy that we are just beginning to understand. Chase W. Rynd Executive Director 2 6 10 14 18 25 20 Good Old-Fashioned Modernism Currently on view at the National Building Museum is Marcel Breuer: Design and Architecture, an exhibition organized by the Vitra Design Museum that explores the diverse career of one of the modern movement’s most influential figures. This is the first component of a broad Museum initiative intended to encourage reconsideration of the legacy of 20thcentury modernism, which is all too easily taken for granted by virtue of its ubiquity. As part of the initiative, this issue of Blueprints focuses on the preservation and reuse of aging modernist structures. shop NBM! Paris on the Potomac: The French Influence on the Architecture and Art of Washington, D.C. Edited by Cynthia R. Field, Isabelle Gournay, and Thomas P. Somma 2 6 10 14 18 24 25 The New Face of Preservation Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and recipient of the ninth Vincent Scully Prize, reflects on the evolution of the American preservation movement. Federal Modern The nation’s biggest landlord celebrates the jewels in its portfolio while freshening up the ugly ducklings. Renewing Urban Renewal In Southwest Washington, D.C., an icon of the “urban renewal” revolution in the 1950s and ’60s is now undergoing a transformation of its own. Silo Point: An Industrial-Strength Renovation A seemingly obsolete industrial facility finds a new career as hip urban housing. Museum News • For the Greener Good Part II • Breuer exhibition member opening • 2007 Turner Prize recognizes Gehry and colleagues • Furniture designer lends expertise to Museum outreach program • Festival of the Building Arts draws thousands • Hardy headlines Builders event • Spotlight on DeGarmo • Raffle winners enjoy Chihuly sculpture • NBM/Kreeger Museum tour of Bauhaus architecture Contributors • Donor Profile: U.S. Department of Energy • Grateful applause to our recent donors Mystery Building “Step Right Up!” Released in November 2007, Paris on the Potomac is a compilation of essays that explores aspects of the French influence on the artistic and architectural environment of Washington, D.C. which continued long after the well known contributions of Pierre (Peter) Charles L’Enfant, the transplanted French military officer who designed the city’s plan. Cynthia R. Field, one of the book’s editors, is a founding trustee of the National Building Museum and is an architectural historian who recently retired from the Smithsonian Institution. Marcel Breuer: Design and Architecture is made possible by the National Endowment for the Arts; Vitra, Inc.; and other generous contributors. Available in the Museum Shop. $44.96 Members / $49.95 Public opposite right and cover: Church of St. Francis de Sales, Muskegon, MI, by Marcel Breuer, 1964–6. Photo by Hedrich Blessing. Courtesy of Chicago Historical Society / Hedrich Blessing left: Cover of Paris on the Potomac by Cynthia R. Field, Isabelle Gournay, and Thomas P. Somma. Courtesy of Ohio University Press and Swallow Press. Winter 2007–08 blueprints An Interview with Richard Moe The New Face of Preservation by Martin Moeller On December 13, 2007, the National Building Museum presented the ninth Vincent Scully Prize to Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The award recognized Moe’s leadership in moving preservation into the mainstream of American society and expanding the public’s understanding of the significance of our built heritage. In accepting the prize, he joined a prestigious roster of past recipients including Jane Jacobs, Phyllis Lambert, His Highness the Aga Khan, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. fo- blueprints Winter 2007–08 In an interview excerpted here, Moe discussed some of the ways in which the National Trust and the preservation movement in general have evolved. Particularly noteworthy are the Trust’s growing commitment to the preservation of modernist buildings, many of which are now more than 50 years old, and the organization’s explicit focus on environmental sustainability. Martin Moeller: In 1949, the same year that the National Trust was established, Philip Johnson completed his famous Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut. Do you think any of the Trust’s founders could have imagined a day when such a quintessentially modern building would be designated a National Trust Historic Site? Richard Moe: It’s interesting to think back on what the leaders of the then-new Trust would have thought of a modernist structure like that being historic. I think the more far-reaching and visionary of those men and women would have foreseen that perhaps this iconic structure would someday be historic—many others would not. But the answer, I think, really lies in the history of the preservation movement. Different styles of architecture have become historic at different periods, and usually over some public resistance. For example, Victorian architecture was very unpopular with a lot of people—nobody could imagine saving that stuff. Now, of course, we prize it. Same thing with Art Deco. Well, the time of modernism has arrived, and the iconic Glass House, of course, just represents the very best of modernism, and it is historic, even in a literal and legal sense—it’s [more than] 50 years old. Moeller: Have the Trust’s forays into the preservation of modernism led to any general changes in the organization’s strategies or policies? Moe: Modernist architecture, by definition, hasn’t been with us that long, so our biggest obstacle is persuading the public that much of this is great architecture and deserves to be saved. We’re losing great modernist structures all the time. For example, in New Canaan, where Johnson’s Glass House is located, there have been a lot of tear-downs. Great, iconic modernist structures have been torn down and replaced with McMansions. We are going to take steps in the very near future to set up a Recent Past Initiative in our Western Office in California and a Center for Modernism based at the Glass House in New Canaan, to give specific focus to these styles of architecture. In terms of the recent past, something need not be historic to have value and to be worthy of being preserved. So we are breaking the mold a little bit here. Some of our predecessors in the preservation movement didn’t think that we should preserve anything before its time came. Well, unfortunately, we lose a lot in the first 50 years, and sometimes we have to intervene and save the best of the recent past, which is what we are trying to do. Moeller: A burgeoning interest in modernism is just one aspect of what the Trust calls “the new face of preservation in America.” Another is the growing participation of diverse ethnic groups and communities. What is the Trust doing to reach new constituencies? Moe: We have really tried hard in recent years to expand the constituency for preservation and to make it clear that preservation is relevant to everyone in this country regardless of where they are, or what they do, or what their income level is. I think we have to concede candidly that 50 years ago preservation appealed to very few people—it was mostly people who cared about great old houses, and that was fine and still a lot of us do that. But preservation’s evolved enormously over the last 50 years, and it really has become relevant to more and more people. ONLINE VIDEO! To see a video of the interview with Richard Moe, visit www.nbm.org. bottom: In June 2007, the National Trust opened Philip Johnson’s iconic Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut to the public. Photo by Paul Warchol. bottom right: Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, speaking at the organization’s 2007 annual conference in St. Paul, Minnesota. Photo by Tony Nelson. We’re broadening the definition of what preservation really is. And in doing that, we’ve undertaken a very serious and far-reaching effort to diversify not just the National Trust, but the preservation movement. At my very first National Preservation Conference in Miami 16 years ago, we initiated a Diversity Scholarship Program, which Winter 2007–08 blueprints literally changed the face of our annual conference. These were largely minority students, people from lower-income neighborhoods, whom we brought to the conference as diversity scholars. We’ve continued to do that. Moeller: Another aspect of the “new face of preservation” is the Trust’s explicit focus on sustainability. How are you promoting preservation as an environmental imperative? Moe: We have long maintained that preservation of older buildings is inherently a sustainable activity. The restoration and reuse of older buildings is the ultimate recycling. We’re saving enormous energy, we’re saving natural resources, we’re filling fewer landfills. above right: In collaboration with the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans, the National Trust developed the “HOME AGAIN!” program, which provides funding to help residents who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina to restore their homes. Here a group of volunteers works on a house in the city. Photo by Mary Fitzpatrick. below: The Hampton Hotels “Save-a-Landmark” program was created in 2000 to foster recognition and preservation of the historic—and sometimes quirky—places that enliven the American road. Here a volunteer works at Carousel Gardens in New Orleans, which boasts one of only 100 remaining antique wooden carousels in the country. Photo courtesy of the Hampton Hotels “Save-a-Landmark” We are now undertaking a program at the Trust to research these factors quantitatively. In this time of trying to combat climate change and CO2 emissions, we think preservation has a lot to contribute in this area, and [we will be taking] these data and converting them into public policy proposals. Should there be new tax credits? Should there be changes in the Secretary [of the Interior’s] Standards [for the Treatment of Historic Properties]? In the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] standards, should preservation get more credit? The other thing we’re doing—on our new website—is trying to help owners of historic homes and other older buildings learn how they can retrofit their existing buildings and make them more energy-efficient and greener. Moeller: One of the Trust’s most widely known initiatives is its annual list of the 11 Most Endangered Places. How are the sites selected each year, and how exactly does the Trust use this list to advance its advocacy efforts? Moe: The criteria are quite broad: it’s a historic site that’s threatened by some cause. I like to say that [it] is a list of different kinds of significant historic sites, in different parts of the country, coming under different kinds of threats. So it’s really an educational device in that sense. It’s by far the most effective public vehicle we have for bringing attention to endangered sites. We’ve lost a few that have been on the list, but very few. Anybody can nominate a site, and then our regional offices recommend them and we make the final decision in Washington. But, you know, people love lists, and the media love lists, and it’s just a great vehicle and we’re very pleased with its effect. We take very seriously the listing of a site, because we don’t just believe in putting out a press release saying, “This is an endangered site.” Our regional offices and other departments at the Trust put together a strategic plan for trying to address the threat to each specific site that’s listed, and then they spend as long as it takes to try to remove that threat. blueprints Winter 2007–08 Moeller: Clearly, one of the most endangered places in the country today is the city of New Orleans. What are the latest developments in the Trust’s efforts to protect the city’s built heritage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Moe: Hurricane Katrina, in my view, represented not just a great human tragedy but also. . . probably the greatest cultural disaster in the history of our country. There were more historic properties lost or threatened than at any other time in our history. In the city of New Orleans itself, there are some 20 National Register [historic] districts. They encompass physically half of the city. They contain 39,000 historic structures, most of them shotgun houses, Creole cottages, corner stores, and so forth, but great historic buildings. And most of those were flooded. Most of them can be saved. We opened an office right away in New Orleans, and we’ve worked with our partners with shared field staff in Mississippi and we’re still doing that, and we’ve said we’ll do it as long as it takes. We’ve raised several million dollars, we’ve done a lot of advocacy, we’ve persuaded Congress to appropriate $50 million so far just for historic properties in the Gulf Coast. We have worked with our partners in New Orleans to stop the demolition—the unnecessary demolition—of historic sites, and this is all coming to a head now because FEMA has established deadlines for compensating homeowners for demolition. So far we think we’ve helped save over 600 homes, and I hope we can save many more. Moeller: How have the economics of preservation changed over the past couple of decades? Moe: If you take a look back over the history of preservation in America, there have been different themes underlying it—different reasons why preservation’s been regarded as important. If you go back to the very earliest days when Mount Vernon was saved by Ann Pamela Cunningham and a group of courageous, effective women, they were trying to save a great architectural and historic icon, and that’s what preservation was for a hundred years. Then in the middle of the 20th century, that started to change, and people started seeing the economic value of preservation, and they started setting up revolving funds, and they saw the value of adaptive reuse—using a building for a purpose other than that for which it was designed. And then came the adoption of federal tax credits, which were a great incentive. The whole theory behind historic tax credits was that the public gets to enjoy the continued historic value of the exterior of a building, and that’s a great public benefit, which now, happily, has expanded to 29 states. Moeller: One of your fellow Scully Prize recipients was Jane Jacobs, who argued that healthy communities need a variety of buildings in terms of age, use, and size. How have her views influenced your work? Moe: We owe a lot to Jane Jacobs and I think we owe especially a debt of gratitude for her really making us understand the value of eclectic neighborhoods, with different kinds of buildings, different eras of buildings, different uses. She was a great advocate of mixed uses, as am I. This is what makes vibrant communities, really lively communities, interesting communities that attract people. I think the most vibrant downtowns, for example, in America, are those that have saved their great iconic historic buildings, but they’ve also built great new buildings. . . it’s really a blending of the old and the new together that makes for a great city. Moeller: In what areas is the United States at the forefront of preservation compared to other countries around the world? Moe: The United States is clearly in the lead on the Main Street program, [which] is probably the most successful program the Trust has ever had. We’ve been in over 2,000 communities revitalizing downtowns with the business communities that are there, and it’s basically trying to make downtown a more attractive place to come and a more successful place to do business. And it’s not just preservation—fixing up the old storefronts and putting in public amenities—but it’s also organizing the business community, marketing it effectively, filling in the vacancies, and making it possible to compete with the big-box retailers. Every dollar that we put into a Main Street program leverages $40 of public and private money brought to the community. Now we’ve brought the program to larger cities—not the downtowns of larger cities, but neighborhood commercial districts—and the same principles have applied. It’s very important for communities to have viable commercial districts so not everybody has to go out to the strip mall or the big boxes to do their shopping. And this is a program that doesn’t really exist anywhere else in the world, and there’s a lot of interest in it. Moeller: Where do you think the preservation movement is headed in the near future? Moe: I wouldn’t be surprised if preservation expanded its wings sometime soon and got into contemporary design issues. In other words, if we’re being asked to preserve what’s important, why shouldn’t we contribute to making new buildings important and significant? That’s a bit of a reach now, but I can foresee the day when that might be seriously discussed. It’s really intriguing to try to look forward. Obviously, we’ll have different styles of architecture—that will continue to evolve—and they will eventually become historic, and the best of those styles of architecture will deserve to be preserved. So just as we’ve experienced this with Victorian architecture and Art Deco and modernism, we’ll experience it with whatever is yet to come. And something else will come for sure. • above: The preservation of the Socorro Mission in El Paso, Texas, was recognized with the National Trust’s Honor Award in 2006. Photo courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. below: Hilliard Homes in Chicago, Illinois, was recognized with a 2007 National Trust / HUD Secretary’s Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation for its recently completed, $99 million rehabilitation. Photo courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Similarly, with tax credits—although every country’s tax system is different—the fact that we give tax credits for investing in historic buildings is very interesting to those who have tax systems that lend themselves to this. Winter 2007–08 blueprints Federal Modern Assessing and Preserving a Legacy by Susan Piedmont-Palladino Susan Piedmont-Palladino is a curator at the National Building Museum and a professor of architecture at Virginia Tech’s WashingtonAlexandria Architecture Center. blueprints Winter 2007–08 “ I t was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Charles Dickens was referring to the period just before the French Revolution, but could just as easily have been describing the architecture commissioned by the U.S. government after the Second World War, with its decidedly mixed legacy of buildings and cityscapes. The decades from the 1950s to the ’70s gave us the architecture of the post-war economic boom and then the Great Society, with the promise of an efficient and transparent government ensconced in buildings to match. But during that time old buildings were regularly razed in the name of progress and too often replaced by banal boxes indistinguishable from typical office buildings of the time. Now, what was once new is old, and one of the largest landlords and property managers in the country, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), finds itself with a huge portfolio of buildings and landscapes, the majority of which were built in the last 50 years. The frequently used, catch-all descriptors “mid-century modern” and “post-war” embody in shorthand just how much the architecture after World War II differed in scale, style, and philosophy from that which came before. These differences pose unique challenges for the caretakers of that architectural legacy, and for the citizens in whose name these buildings were designed and constructed. In the United States, true modernism really arrived with the end of the war: literally, with the immigration of a generation of modern masters from Europe, and metaphorically, in that the end of the war marked the beginning of a more optimistic and prosperous era. Modern architecture was the symbol of that beginning. Changing Attitudes Toward Governmental Architecture There are hidden forces that shape the built environment, and they are at work before the architect and client ever draw the first line. In the case of federal construction, these hidden forces have often taken the form of executive orders and legislative acts, successively strengthening, enforcing, or even undoing various preceding directives. With so many contemporary design firms actively specializing in civic projects today, it is difficult to imagine that the appropriateness of the federal government’s procurement of design services from the private sector was once hotly debated. The Tarsney Act of 1893 opened the doors to private firms like McKim, Mead and White, D.H. Burnham & Company, and the office of Cass Gilbert, but the act was repealed in 1912 over concerns that the private sector might be overcharging the government, proving that, while architectural tastes may change, friction over budgets is timeless. The biggest federal building boom started about two decades later, beginning with the Public Works Administration during the Great Depression, accelerating during the mobilization for World War II and escalating in the years following the war. The construction program even before the war more than doubled the total number of buildings under government ownership. In 1949, President Harry Truman established the GSA, recognizing the exponential increase in the responsibilities for designing and constructing the buildings that the larger central government would need, not to mention managing those that already existed. Indeed, in its first decade, the agency focused on simply bringing order to the diverse portfolio it had inherited. By the early 1960s, a series of Executive Orders and Congressional legislation cemented attitudes that were already changing regarding federal building. Several attempted to remedy the perceived aloofness and insularity of the first modern buildings. Among the most influential was a set of principles issued in 1962 that came from a committee convened by President John F. Kennedy to take stock of the state of federal architecture. Written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a lifelong champion of excellence in building and city design, the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture encouraged the “finest contemporary American architectural thought.” They urged architects to be sensitive to context, treat the site and landscape as equally important as the building, and warned against any official “style” of architecture. As with all guidelines, the generalities are unassailable, but the details are wicked. What is the “finest contemporary American architectural thought” and who decides? At the time, it wasn’t entirely clear. The twin forces of economic growth and the desire for newness threatened buildings and landscapes throughout the 1950s and ’60s. Iconic single acts of destruction, such as the demolition of Penn Station in New York City, as well the Federal Highway Administration’s inexorable paving of city and countryside, were among the forces that motivated the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. Recognizing that the “spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic below: The U.S. Tax Court in Washington, D.C., was designed by Victor Lundy and completed in 1974. The building won a GSA Honor Award in the agency’s first Design Awards program in 1972. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith Photography, Inc., courtesy of GSA. Winter 2007–08 blueprints heritage,” the language of the act expressed a sense of urgency: “Historic properties significant to the Nation’s heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency.” Preserving these properties in the “face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments” was clearly in the national interest. Just three years later, the National Environmental Policy Act was passed, extending similar protections to the natural environmental, in recognition of the “profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment.” The same threats were cited: “influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation”; and the same motivations: to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.” above top: The Federal Building in Des Moines, Iowa, after its completion in 1968. Photo by Wetherell Harrison Wagner and McKleeven, courtesy of GSA. above bottom: The Federal Building after recladding. Courtesy GSA. below: Designed by Marcel Breuer and Associates and constructed from 1965 to 1968, the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building in Washington, D.C., was the first federal building in the country to use precast concrete as the primary structural and exterior finish material. Photo by Ben Schnall, courtesy of GSA. opposite right: The four-story central public hall, also called the Hall of Justice, in the U.S. Tax Court in Washington, D.C. The hall is crowned by a clerestory roof that admits light into the space. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith Photography, Inc., courtesy of GSA blueprints Winter 2007–08 A Campaign to Preserve Modern Landmarks Today the complex interplay between environmental conservation and historic preservation is being brought to bear on the very buildings and landscapes that were young then. The irony is inescapable: The National Historic Preservation Act set out to protect the familiar, often beloved, yet arguably inefficient and old-fashioned buildings of previous centuries from demolition by the forces of progress. Now, the very buildings that were once the enemies of history may enjoy the generous embrace of preservation…if they can pass the test. The 1966 act fundamentally changed the way the government, the public, and the design community saw older buildings, but seeing the work of the recent past in the same light still poses a challenge. “In many people’s minds,” explains Rolando Rivas-Camp, FAIA, director of GSA’s Center for Historic Buildings, “‘historic’ equals ‘traditional,’ so making the case to preserve modern buildings is a challenge.” To address that challenge, the center issued Growth, Efficiency and Modernism: GSA Buildings from the 50s, 60s and 70s. The study includes a rigorous set of criteria for assessing the merit of modern federal properties. “In evaluating these properties,” notes David L. Winstead, commissioner of GSA’s Public Buildings Service, “we must consider not only the building’s architecture, but its potential historical significance, and the significance it may have to the community.” In some cases, being able to connect a building to a specific architect is sufficient to save it, or at least forestall its demolition. Such was the case with the Strom Thurmond Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, in Columbia, South Carolina. Completed in 1979, the exposed rough concrete, or béton brut, building expressed its divided functions with the courthouse in a horizontal wing and the office space in a tower, both connected by a plaza. In 2003 the federal courts left for new quarters, leaving the fate of the structure in doubt. Not well-loved even when new, it had few champions and the circumstances of its construction were not well known. Through the efforts of Jeffrey Jensen, a historic preservation specialist with GSA’s Southeast Sunbelt Region, however, it was revealed to be one of the very last works by the Bauhaus master Marcel Breuer, in partnership with Herbert Beckhard. The building’s attribution to Breuer raised its value, even as questions about his actual contribution to the design fueled the debate. While the office tower still houses federal workers, the courthouse wing now sits vacant. With the original modern interiors for the major spaces still intact, this late work of Marcel Breuer awaits another use. Federal construction has been influenced by all of the same movements and counter-movements that have swept through architecture and design as a whole in the last century, each seemingly convinced of the errors of its immediate predecessors. The ethos of preservation has given us a more generous perspective on the past, including the recent past. “We have a responsibility to the evolution of architecture,” says Rivas-Camp. “We can’t cut out a part of it and still claim to tell a true or complete story.” Modernism itself is more eclectic than we often think, encompassing stripped classicism, New Deal murals and heroic sculpture, streamlined Art Deco, béton brut, and the muchmaligned glass box. Each building and landscape in GSA’s portfolio reflects some aspect of the relationship between the government and the citizens at the time the project was built. The Center for Historic Buildings is marshalling the spirit of the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture with the principles of stewardship in the National Historic Preservation Act to ensure that the “finest contemporary American architectural thought” is represented from every era of our history. • What’s in a Word? “Brutalism” What began as a bi-lingual pun, usually attributed to influential architecture critic Reyner Banham, the label “brutalism” became the common name for a whole body of modern building. Literally translated from the French, béton brut means “raw concrete” and describes a style of modern architecture that expresses the truth of its own construction. Unfortunately, thanks to Banham’s quip, it became an apt mistranslation, worn as a badge of honor by some architects, but leveled as a rebuke by those who preferred their buildings finished and refined. Even the most cursory stroll down K Street or Pennsylvania Avenue, however, will only confirm the truth of the double meaning. Some buildings deserve the epithet “brutalist,” but others are just raw. Determining the Fate of Less Important Structures Clearly, not everything warrants preservation. Deciding among the alternatives—renovate, re-clad, reuse, or demolish—involves evaluating the relative merits of the structure itself and its potential for other uses. The reuse of the Strom Thurmond Courthouse is difficult precisely because of the orthodox modernism of its architects; the more faithfully form follows function the more resistant the building is to new functions. And function isn’t the only issue that makes evaluating mid-20th-century modern architecture difficult. While conservation techniques for pre-modern buildings are well-developed, they are just being developed for modern materials and methods, many of which were still experimental when first used. The Federal Building in Des Moines, Iowa, was beset by technical problems almost immediately after it was completed in 1968. GSA assessed its architectural significance and found little. With the support of the local architectural community the decision was made to give the building a makeover. In this case, being both modern and architecturally unremarkable allowed the Des Moines building to avoid demolition and instead have its technology and appearance upgraded. Environmental conservation took precedence over historic preservation: less material for the landfill, and much of the embodied energy in the structure and infrastructure was re-used. Winter 2007–08 blueprints A Case Study in Southwest D.C. by Amanda Murphy Amanda Murphy is a development coordinator at the National Building Museum. She is currently pursuing a master’s in Historic Preservation from Goucher College. below: Rendering of Fairfield at Marina View Towers, showing two existing towers at I.M. Pei’s Town Center (left and right center) and two proposed towers by Esocoff & Associates/Architects (far left and far right). Courtesy of Esocoff & Associates/Architects. opposite right: One of the towers at I.M. Pei’s Town Center, as it appears today. Photo by Amanda Murphy. 10 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Renewing Urban Renewal T he innermost part of Washington, D.C.’s Southwest quadrant is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the District of Columbia, pre-dating the establishment of the federal city. Few remnants of these early days remain, however, thanks to the sweeping, post-World War II urban renewal initiatives that erased much of the area’s architectural heritage. Today, despite its proximity to the capital’s monumental core, this precinct is largely overlooked by tourists and locals alike. Given its relative obscurity, coupled with the fact that most of its buildings are barely 50 years old, Southwest D.C. would seem an unlikely focus of a historic preservation campaign; yet it is becoming just that. Like other post-war urban renewal zones that are now coming of age, the area is increasingly recognized as a site of historical and architectural significance. Recently, due to rising real estate pressures in D.C., planners, developers, and architects have begun to consider opportunities to restore and enhance some of the defining characteristics of this modernist neighborhood while fixing obvious urbanistic errors of the past. The Urban Renewal Era Between 1950 and 1965, more than 550 acres of small businesses, working-class row houses, and slum dwellings in Southwest were cleared in the name of remaking D.C.—as President Harry Truman put it—“the best-planned city in the world.” A vibrant if decrepit old neighborhood was soon replaced by coolly rational high-rise apartment blocks, Brutalist federal office buildings, modern town houses and churches, open green space, and parking lots. Such ambitious redevelopment schemes were common throughout the country during that time despite controversy over their disproportionate impact on African American families. The new Southwest reflected a desire for rebirth as well as a rejection of traditional attitudes about urban living—sentiments that were deeply rooted in the ideals of modernism. Although popular in Europe for several decades, modernist urban design principles were just beginning to take hold in the United States, largely due to the influence of European émigré architects such as Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer. Southwest Washington became a major testing ground for such new design paradigms, not to mention the largest single urban renewal site in the world at that time. Breuer himself designed two government buildings in Southwest and some of Gropius and Breuer’s students, including I.M. Pei, would also have an influence on the new modern landscape in a city that had been, until that time, emphatically traditional. The result of their efforts was one of the first truly modern urban neighborhoods—and one of the most successful urban renewal efforts—anywhere in the country. Unlike many similar projects in other cities, Southwest ultimately managed to attract and retain solidly middle-class individuals and families. A half-century after many of its constituent developments were completed, it is now a well-maintained, leafy, quiet enclave with much to offer both residents and visitors. Nonetheless, the original Southwest plan had serious flaws that were typical of large-scale urban renewal schemes of the period. Inward facing superblocks diminished street activity; cul-de-sacs confused traffic circulation; high fences isolated residents from one another; and unrealized projects such as a town center and a grand mall on 10th Street showed the dangers of attempting to start over from scratch. Such fundamental design decisions have prevented the neighborhood from becoming a truly vital, modern community. A Second Rebirth Today, Southwest is on the brink of its most significant redevelopment since the initial urban renewal period. Residents, preservationists, planners, architects, and developers are once again actively exploring possibilities for radical changes to the neighborhood, while this time acknowledging the need to preserve existing architectural resources. David Maloney, the state historic preservation officer for D.C., is optimistic that a proposed development called Fairfield at Marina View will serve as a model for the reconsideration of Southwest—one in which existing modernist buildings are gently renovated while new structures are added into the mix. This project, led by the Washington architecture firm of Esocoff & Associates, involves the rehabilitation of two apartment buildings in the Town Center complex designed by I.M. Pei and completed in 1962. Importantly, however, Fairfield at Marina View will also entail the construction of two new residential buildings; restoration and rejuvenation of public open spaces; and a plan for reconnecting the complex with the surrounding neighborhood. Although the Pei buildings are not registered landmarks, the architects and the developer, Fairfield Residential, decided to work with the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, D.C. Preservation League, and other interested parties to devise a plan in which the two towers would be treated sensitively. Ultimately, there was agreement that, whatever alterations were made to Town Center, the property should retain sufficient historic and architectural integrity to remain Winter 2007–08 blueprints 11 eligible for inclusion in a potential historic district nomination for the entire Southwest urban renewal precinct. As Philip Esocoff, FAIA, principal of Esocoff & Associates, put it, the approach was a matter of “saving the baby and throwing out the bathwater.” background: Aerial view of Southwest Washington in 1959. Courtesy of the Washingtoniana Division, DC Public Library. below: I.M. Pei’s Town Center, completed in 1962. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University. opposite top right: View of Town Center today. Photo by Amanda Murphy. opposite bottom left: Site plan of Fairfield at Marina View. Courtesy of Esocoff & Associates/Architects. opposite bottom right: Rendering of proposed building for the Marina View project as seen from the intersection of 6th & M Streets. Rendering courtesy of Esocoff & Associates/Architects. 12 blueprints Winter 2007–08 In rehabilitating the Pei buildings, Esocoff’s firm went to great lengths to apply the nationally recognized preservation guidelines known as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which provide direction for even the most minute details of a project. For example, hairline cracks in Pei’s concrete structure are being cleared of the mismatched grout that was applied in a haphazard fashion over the years. They will be re-patched with grout of a more compatible color, and then sealed with a clear coat. This method will allow the original texture and color of the concrete—as well as the natural patina it has acquired over time—to remain visible. Windows posed a bigger problem. The original single-glazed units were energy-inefficient, and their thin aluminum frames were not structurally capable of supporting new insulated glass panels. It was therefore unavoidable that the old windows would need to be replaced. However, a thoughtful way to preserve Pei’s design intent was devised. First, the characteristic dimensions of the existing windows—7 feet by 7 feet—will be retained. While the new window frames are thicker than the originals, they will be two-toned, with an outer silver band similar in scale to the full width of Pei’s originals. The inner, dark bronze band of the new frames will visually recede and be subsumed into the varying window treatments and lighting conditions of individual apartment units inside. Esocoff noted that the window problem raises philosophical questions that preservationists will need to address in order for other modernist buildings to be eligible for historic preservation tax credits, since so many buildings of this era feature exteriors almost entirely of glass. Would removal of these original features compromise a structure’s architectural integrity? Can 80% or more of a building’s exterior be removed without running afoul of generally accepted historic preservation standards? If those standards do not allow full replacement, how can the buildings conform to even minimal standards for thermal efficiency? Such questions illuminate the delicate— and sometimes difficult—balance that architects and preservationists must pursue when trying to figure out how best to adapt older structures to current standards. New Design Based on Neighborhood Precedent Repairing the Modernist Breach of the Streetscape In designing the two new towers for Fairfield at Marina View, Esocoff and senior associate Linda Palmer, Associate AIA, wanted them to complement, rather than match, the Pei buildings. They decided to survey other urban renewal-era buildings in the area for inspiration. Noting that even the mid-20thcentury modernists often looked to classical antiquity and other periods for ideas, Esocoff said, “The built environment is a book you can open and read.” As part of the Marina View project, much of the original Town Center landscape will also be restored, though the high walls and fences that currently separate the complex and from the street will be removed, and pedestrian walkways, public garden areas, and refreshment stands will be added. This aspect of the project is being directed by the landscape architecture firm of Zion Breen Richardson; partner Don Richardson worked on the original design of Town Center while an associate with the firm, then known as Zion Breen, in the 1960s. The design for the new construction is largely inspired by Chloethiel Woodard Smith’s nearby Capitol Park apartment towers, which date from the late 1950s and early ’60s and were the first Southwest urban renewal-era buildings to receive a historic landmark designation. Esocoff’s buildings will feature undulating curved walls of glass and concrete, cantilevered metal balconies, and obvious “nonsupporting” decorative brick features—all elements that Smith used in the design of her buildings. Esocoff feels the new buildings reflect the essential elements of both Pei’s and Smith’s buildings without actually copying their specific motifs. In a sense, the construction of two new residential buildings just outboard of the original Town Center towers may be viewed as a historic restoration of sorts. After all, the modest buildings that the Town Center towers replaced would have come right up to the sidewalk, thus creating a strong street edge as was typical in 19th-century cities. By contrast, the post-war buildings were sited in the modernist fashion as “towers in the park,” allowing for more green space and parking lots, but also destroying the clear sense of the streetscape. By placing buildings along the street lines once again, Esocoff is undoing one of the urban design blunders common in Southwest. Moreover, the residential building facing M Street will have retail and restaurants on the first floor, reinforcing the character of that street as a commercial corridor. Another way in which the Marina View project will improve upon the mid-20th-century urban pattern is through environmentally conscious design strategies. The Pei towers, for instance, will be retrofitted with green roofs, while the new buildings will be topped with green roofs from the start. The landscape design also incorporates multimodal planning that will encourage walking and bicycling, while still accommodating cars in an appropriate way. If Fairfield at Marina View proves successful, the D.C. Historic Preservation Office is likely to consider using the project as an explicit model for guidelines for future redevelopment of urban renewal-era structures in Southwest. Like everyone involved in this endeavor, Maloney, the D.C. preservation officer, is hopeful that the project will demonstrate that modernist buildings can be both meaningfully preserved and carefully updated to meet the needs of present-day living. • Fall Winter 2007–08 blueprints 13 Silo Point An Industrial-Strength Renovation By Christopher Pfaeffle, AIA, NCARB Preservation of modern-era buildings is not limited to landmarks designed by famous architects. As this article about a project called Silo Point makes clear, the American landscape includes industrial buildings and other essentially modern structures that could easily be forgotten or dismissed, but in fact can be handsomely and profitably transformed to serve new purposes. While such projects are likely to entail substantial changes to the existing structures rather than pure restoration, they nonetheless can serve to preserve important aspects of a community’s historic character while also minimizing expenditures for entirely new resources. Christopher Pfaeffle, AIA NCARB, is principal and founder of Parameter Inc. in Baltimore, and is the architect for Silo Point. D uring the winter of 2003, Patrick Turner, president of Turner Development Group, and I meandered through one of his company’s recent acquisitions: the towering shell of what was once the world’s largest and fastest grain elevator. The Locust Point Grain Terminal Elevator, built by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 1923 on the southernmost peninsula in the city of Baltimore, stood hauntingly quiet except for the sound of faraway seagulls and the occasional train passing through on the tracks below. While the concrete was damp and the windows squeaky and tilted, our tour provoked the kind of raw wonder that any five-year-old might experience when seeing such an astonishing sight for the first time. Our ambition was to transform the iconic structure—along with portions of the adjacent array of 187 silos—into a sleek, modern residential complex while still respecting the original building’s industrial character. 14 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Sign Me Up! Silo Point was the subject of one of the Museum’s popular Construction Watch Tours, which are open to members. If you are not a member and would like to sign up in order to participate in the tours, contact the Membership Department at 202.272.2448, ext. 3200, or [email protected]. Pat and I never once considered demolishing the elevator tower, despite the naysayers who insisted that the only sensible approach was to take it down and build from scratch. While starting with a blank slate is often easier, it was just not an option in this case as we came to admire the grittily elegant structure. We were convinced that saving the building was worth the effort, and four years after our initial visit, the complex that we now call Silo Point is finally being transformed from an archaic industrial facility into a stylish condominium with 228 airy apartments. entire spread: Rendering of Silo Point project superimposed on panoramic view of Baltimore. Courtesy of Parameter Inc. Winter 2007–08 blueprints 15 above: Historic photo of Locust Point Grain Terminal Elevator. Photo provided by Parameter Inc. above right: Rendering of the lobby of Silo Point. Courtesy of Parameter Inc. below: Photo of the Locust Point Grain Terminal Elevator in 1926. Photo provided by Parameter Inc. 16 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Old Dog, New Tricks A Striking Model for Urban Living We wanted to create a cutting-edge work of architecture that would reveal much of its past without expressing it too literally. Our adaptive reuse strategy involved coming to an understanding of how the building was designed and how it worked, and then translating that into a modern use. For example, one of the most important aspects of the grain elevator structure was the sense of vastness one felt when walking around both the interior and exterior. We wanted to preserve that aspect of the elevator building’s character while taking advantage of every opportunity to let the building tell its own story. Any new residential development must stand out from its competitors, of course. Fortunately for Silo Point, the site’s vivid history, awe-inspiring structures, and waterside setting make for an inherently interesting and attractive living environment. When approaching any adaptive reuse project, the design team must decide which elements of the existing structure to retain and which to remove. In the case of the B&O grain elevator, the extant concrete tower was tall, narrow, and long, with views of the harbor and city skyline. It was easy to see how that arrangement could translate very well into a modern residential project. In contrast, the windowless, virtually impenetrable storage silos would not lend themselves readily to any other uses. It quickly became clear that keeping the entire silo farm was not possible, so we devised an alternative strategy to maintain a small number of the silos and to incorporate them into the new complex. The retained silos will serve as visual anchors, as well as highly evocative relics of the site’s industrial past. The new architectural elements will snake around the remnants, creating a dialogue between historic and contemporary materials and forms. In many cases, existing footings and piles are being reused to accommodate the new structure. Another challenge was the 16-foot-by-16-foot structural grid that was used throughout the original elevator and silos. Although such a grid bears no relationship to typical modern dimensions for residential construction, we felt compelled to retain it and integrate it into the new construction to preserve the project’s historical continuity. In the end, original beams and columns remained in place, as we found ways to make the contemporary apartments conform to the unusual structural dimensions. Ultimately, as we came to understand the ramifications of this decision, it helped us to design better living units. The incorporation of elevators—for people, that is, rather than grain—also posed quite a problem. In a typical new construction project, stock elevators are placed in shafts designed specifically to accommodate them. At Silo Point, elevators had to be custom made to fit in the building’s existing silos on that unusual 16-foot-by-16-foot grid. Moreover, we had to design special platforms in adjacent silos to access the elevators’ counterweights, and had to “suspend” elevator pits in the basement. Additionally, new elevators were placed at the perimeter of the project. The public spaces of the complex are designed to celebrate the project’s origins. Robust, octagonal columns march through the main lobby, emphasizing the great weight of the structure above and creating dramatic perspectives. The basilica-like quality of this space will serve as a powerful reminder of the vastness of the original structure that so impressed us on our initial visit. Visitors will be able to look up and see the lit interiors of the grain silos rising 10 stories overhead. The lobby itself—aside from the columns— will remain practically empty. The columns in the lobby extend into the lower level, which will house a fitness club, a business center, a billiards room, a wine club, and a gallery. The lowerlevel spaces will feature exposed pile caps, which will further enhance the visitor’s appreciation of the massive structure. The additions to the building, including the elements interwoven with the remaining silos and a multistory block on top of the existing tower, are being constructed out of concrete, glass, and various forms of corrugated metal. A 550-car parking garage, capped by two- and three-level townhouse-like structures, will be linked to the tower by a three-story glass bridge. In a project of this type, a cookiecutter approach to apartment layout would be impossible, and Silo Point will therefore offer a broad range of unit options. To pay homage to the site’s history, we decided to call the residential units “bins.” Each “bin” number will be illuminated on the floor in front of the apartment door—an allusion to the original system in which a plate in the floor identified the number of each storage bin. Some condo units will have ceilings as high as 18 feet, most with floor-to-ceiling windows. Units near the top of the skyscraper will have glass on two or three sides, and since no nearby buildings approach the complex’s 22-story height—and current zoning prevents any other high-rise construction in the area—Silo Point’s residents will enjoy spectacular views for years to come. above: Rendering of an apartment in the Silo Point project. Courtesy of Parameter Inc. Another important design consideration was the provision of outdoor space for residents. Every bin at Silo Point has access to some kind of outdoor area—be it a private balcony, the lushly landscaped common terrace on the roof, or the walking trails that surround the property. The landscape design will allude to the complex’s original use by incorporating mounds representing the volume of grain that would fit in one silo, as well as grain-like plantings. In the end, we expect that Silo Point will be an exciting and dynamic marriage of seemingly disparate histories, uses, materials, and forms. The project also serves as a compelling reminder that our landscape is dotted with many structures—some abandoned, others merely underutilized— that may be ripe for new functions. By preserving and adapting elements of a structure that could easily be dismissed as a white elephant, we hope to create a unique and vibrant residential community that will serve as a model for urban revitalization in Baltimore and elsewhere. • Winter 2007–08 blueprints 17 museum news for the GREENERGOOD Sixth Turner Prize Recognizes Gehry and Colleagues Conversations that Will Change the World, Part 2 by Scott Kratz, Vice President for Education by Scott Kratz, Vice President for Education T he National Building Museum’s sustainability program series goes global, with a second slate of programs scheduled from January through April 2008. Building on the success of last fall’s events, which focused on domestic issues, we will once again convene leaders in the field of architecture, planning, economics, history, and environmental causes to discuss paths to a more sustainable future. Engage in a conversation with the past research chief of the United Nations Center for Human Settlements. Talk with world-renowned planners and architects on what one billion people living in slums means for the environment. Hear representatives from Abu Dhabi discuss plans to create a carbon-neutral city in the middle of the Arabian desert. Watch as historians debate if planned utopias ever develop according to plan. Listen to California Assemblywoman Fran Pavley describe how her state is tackling greenhouse gases. Witness journalists, planners, and environmentalists from China discussing the master plan of the Beijing Olympics and how to balance historic preservation with the most modern new green building standards. • For more information and to watch/hear the first four programs in the series, go to the Museum’s website at www.nbm.org. For the Greener Good Lecture series is presented by The Home Depot Foundation. PARTNERS IN SUSTAINABILITY On October 3, 2007, more than 1,200 people gathered in the National Building Museum’s Great Hall to celebrate the sixth recipient of the Henry C. Turner Award for Innovation in Construction Technology: Gehry Partners and Gehry Technologies. Accepting the award were founder and principal architect Frank Gehry on behalf of Gehry Partners and chief technology officer Dennis Shelden on behalf of Gehry Technologies. Gehry is known around the world for his sinuous buildings that push the boundaries of construction and engineering technology. Such cutting-edge work has been made possible by continuous advances in computer-aided design by Gehry’s affiliated digital technology firm. The Henry C. Turner Prize, named after the founder of Turner Construction Company, recognizes an invention, an innovative methodology, and/or exceptional leadership by an individual or team of individuals in construction technology. Jury chair Norbert Young, president of McGraw-Hill Construction, said that Gehry “challenged the industry to innovate new construction methods.” He added that Gehry Partners and Gehry Technologies leveraged software and digital design to create some of the world’s most recognizable structures. Thomas R. Turner, vice president of Turner Construction Company, commended the selection, saying, “The Turner Prize recognizes achievements that have had a transformative impact on the built environment and the jury’s choice of Gehry Partners and Gehry Technologies strongly reflects this criterion.” Since its inception in 2002, the Turner Prize has been awarded to structural engineer Leslie E. Robertson, architect I.M. Pei, engineer and builder Charles A. DeBenedittis, the U.S. Green Building Council, and, most recently, Stanford professor Paul Teicholz. The prize carries a cash award of $25,000 from an endowment established by Turner Construction Company. • above: Coordinating curator Susan Piedmont-Palladino speaks to the group about Breuer’s furniture designs. Photo by Peter Cutts. opposite left: An audience member asks a question of a panelist during the program Gone Fission: Can the Nuclear Industry Help Save the Environment? Photo by Peter Cutts. above: (from R to L)Norbert Young, president of McGraw-Hill Construction, and 2007 Henry C. Turner Prize recipients Dennis Shelden and Frank Gehry discuss the future of innovation in the construction industry. Photo by Paul Morigi. below: Frank Gehry accepts the 2007 Henry C. Turner Prize during an award ceremony at the Museum. Photo by Paul Morigi. ONLINE VIDEO! To see a video from the October award ceremony, visit the Museum’s website at www.nbm.org. Museum Friends explore Marcel Breuer: Design and Architecture By Tasha Passarelle, Development Events Manager Marcel Breuer was among the most important and prolific designers of the 20th century. On October 30, the Museum celebrated Breuer’s diverse career during a private preview of the retrospective exhibition Marcel Breuer: Design and Architecture with the exhibition’s sponsors and the Museum’s Corinthian-, Professional Circleand Builder-level members. Developed by the Vitra Design Museum in Germany, the exhibition presents Breuer’s extraordinary achievements in furniture and interior design and reintroduces his often overlooked, but historically significant architectural work. Vitra’s director, Alexander von Vegesack, and curator, Mathias Remele, traveled from Europe to partake in this exclusive opening and to lead private, behind-the-scenes tours for the 200 guests. Exhibition sponsors, many of whom attended the opening event, include the National Endowment for the Arts; Vitra, Inc.; Deborah Berke & Partners Architects LLP; Gensler; Perkins + Will; Henry and Jessica Townsend; I.M. Pei; The Honorable Nancy G. Brinker; and Mr. and Mrs. Richard England, Sr. The National Building Museum is the only North American venue to present this exhibition, which will be open until February 17, 2008. • 18 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Winter 2007–08 blueprints 19 F BA museum news ! n u F l a v i t s e Fall F IN E BUILD L OF TH A IV T S E F Modernist Mentor: An Interview with Daniel Donnelly by Ellen Jacknain, Festival of the Building Arts Coordinator by Jamee Telford, Associate Outreach Programs Coordinator T his year’s Festival of the Building Arts took place under sunny autumn skies as visitors and exhibitors alike focused on the many different aspects of our built environment. On October 13, more than 2400 children and adults participated in interactive displays presented by more than 20 groups of professional craftspeople. Both inside and outside the Museum, youngsters in yellow plastic hard hats— gifts from the festival’s sponsor Associated General Contractors of America—were hammering nails, sawing wood, drilling, creating, building, surveying, and climbing on shiny new construction vehicles. Growing up in the antiques industry, his father an estate auctioneer and his mother an interior designer, Daniel Donnelly learned at a young age how to cultivate, collect, and create quality furniture. Twenty-one years ago, he established an antique and custom furniture shop in Old Town Alexandria and has seen it grow into a full-fledged modern design studio. He produces his own line of furniture, sells classic pieces from the likes of Marcel Breuer and Charles and Ray Eames, and restores vintage furniture. This fall, Donnelly collaborated with the Museum’s Design Apprenticeship Program (DAP) to offer guidance to area high school students as they constructed furniture for donation to a local organization called the Dinner Program for Homeless Women. In the interview excerpted below, he talked about his design work and experiences with the DAP kids. top circle: This moveable bench—designed by students in DAP 16: Furnishing Forward—can be reconfigured to fit any space. Photo by Museum Staff. middle circle: A DAP design team deconstructs a piece of furniture to see how it works. Photo by Museum staff. above top: One of the DAP 16’s designed a cube bookshelf to be used in a local community center. Photo by Museum Staff. below: Isokon Nesting Tables, designed by Marcel Breuer. Photo courtesy of Daniel Donnelly. Jamee Telford: What is your design philosophy? Daniel Donnelly: It varies—most times the solution is just a slight shift in approach or different angle of attack. Some designers tend to over-think a problem. You just need to keep it simple. Let your materials do the work. Let your materials serve their original purpose. When envisioning a space, I start as a minimalist, then layer details—work on functionality first, then let the contents work themselves in. I try not to manipulate materials too much. Telford: What led to the resurgence of interest in mid-20th-century furniture? Donnelly: I think it is a generational thing. Appreciation of popular styles tends to skip a generation. In our case, this happened to coincide with a generation that produced an enormous output of inspired design. Mid-century design embodies a functional approach to living spaces and is a good fit with our technology culture today. Herman Miller realized the groundswell in the early ’90s and re-released its classic collection. Since then others have followed, including me. You no longer have to search through antique shops or family estates to find the work of Eames, Nelson, or Noguchi. G ARTS Telford: What was the DAP students’ biggest challenge in creating furniture for the Dinner Program for Homeless Women? Donnelly: Comfort. The students are creating seating for this organization, seating that will be used quite often. The challenge is, how can they make it comfortable and durable? How can they create seat cushions that will last a long period of time? What materials are available to do this? If they choose not to use seat cushions, how will the materials they use to construct the furniture create a comfortable design? These are the questions they have to answer. Telford: What did you learn from your experience with the students? Visitors of all ages were able to talk to architects, masons, roofers, thatchers, plumbers, drywall finishers, and timberwrights, and explore different materials and processes—both traditional and sustainable—used in construction. Woodworkers, art glass designers, stone carvers, gilders, and interior designers were on hand to give insight into creative home improvement ideas. Landscape architects educated the public on the advantages of, and creative processes behind, green roofs; and young visitors also had the opportunity to make their own model green roofs to take home. Debuting at this year’s festival was a life-size custom playhouse constructed with sustainable materials by Pardee Homes as part of HomeAid’s National Project Playhouse. Children explored the new playhouse and then designed their own miniature versions to take home. The playhouse will remain at the Museum as a permanent part of the Building Zone exhibition. • The 2007 Festival of the Building Arts was presented by the Associated General Contractors of America. The National Building Museum thanks all organizations, as well as the many individual and company exhibitors, for participating in this successful festival. Through this signature event, the Museum aims to introduce visitors of all ages to the building trades and building arts by offering demonstrations of crafts and skills, many of which include hands-on components; special children’s activities; and displays of construction machinery. The National Building Museum wishes to thank all the individuals and organizations demonstrating their crafts and skills at the 2007 Festival of the Building Arts: American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) ASID, Washington Metro Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects Blacksmiths’ Guild of the Potomac Blue Ridge Timberwrights The Clark Construction Group Capitol Greenroofs, L.L.C. COTEdc: American Institute of Architects, DC Committee on the Environment Covenant House Washington, Artisans Program Workshop DC Association of Land Surveyors Gold Leaf Studios International Masonry Institute and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Lafarge Colin McGhee, Master Thatcher Metropolitan Washington PlumbingHeating-Cooling Contractors Miller and Long National Capital Art Glass Guild (NCAGG) Potomac Antique Tool and Industries Association (PATINA) Andy Seferlis and John Sonnier: Stone Carving Superior Concrete Materials, Inc. Wagner Roofing Washington Woodworkers Guild far left: The new Project Playhouse in The Building Zone. Photo by Peter Cutts. left: A volunteer at the Festival of the Building Arts teaches a builder-in-training how to hammer. Photo by Peter Cutts. below right: A young attendee participates in a surveying demonstration at the Festival of the Building Arts. Photo by Marshall Cohen. Donnelly: I am extremely impressed with the quality of questions the students asked during our initial meeting. They were thinking like designers. It was so refreshing to be in conversation with them. They wanted to know everything about the space, what the constraints were, and how to solve the problem. It was apparent the students wanted to meet the needs of their clients. I would continue to encourage their problem-solving skills. A good designer is an excellent problem solver. If they continue the cultivation of the skills I have seen so far, these students will be on the right track. • 20 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Winter 2007–08 blueprints 21 museum news Hardy Headlines Members’ Event by Mark Davis, Membership Manager Late last summer, members of the Museum’s Builders and Professional Circle groups enjoyed an evening reception and presentation by Hugh Hardy, FAIA, principal of H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture LLC based in New York. Hardy is known for high-profile public projects including the restoration of Radio City Music Hall and the design of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York. His lively remarks provided insights into H3’s creative endeavors, including the firm’s contribution to the Museum’s recent exhibition Reinventing the Globe: A Shakespearean Theater for the 21st Century—a hypothetical theater in the middle of Times Square that could be adapted to travel to all of New York City’s five boroughs. The entertaining evening included a special surprise: a cake in honor of Hardy’s birthday, which he happily shared with members. To join The Builders or The Professional Circle and receive invitations for programs and events like these, please contact Mark Davis, Membership Manager, at 202.272.2448, ext. 3200, or [email protected]. • above: Architect Hugh Hardy speaks with a Museum member during The Builder’s and Professional Circle reception in August 2007. Photo by Museum Staff. right: The Museum presents Hugh Hardy with a cake in celebration of his birthday. Photo by Museum Staff. National Building Museum and Kreeger Museum to Offer Joint Study Tour “Cradle of Modernism: The Bauhaus Legacy in Four German Cities” by Martin Moeller, Senior Vice President and Curator The National Building Museum and the Kreeger Museum are cooperating to offer an unprecedented tour tracing the legacy of the Bauhaus, the groundbreaking school that changed the course of modern design history. Scheduled for September 12–22, 2008, the tour will feature the three cities that successively served as home to the school—Weimar, Dessau, and Berlin—as well as Stuttgart.The itinerary includes visits to architectural landmarks designed by Bauhaus faculty, museums that contain works by Bauhaus masters, and other sites of historic or architectural importance. The tour will begin in Stuttgart, site of the Weissenhof housing complex, which was one of the largest works by Bauhaus architects, and two important art museums— the Kunstmuseum and the Staatsgalerie. In Weimar, stops will include the Art Nouveau house of Henry van de Velde, who headed the predecessor institution to the Bauhaus, as well the historic homes of major literary figures such as Goethe and Nietsche. The highlight of the stay in Dessau will be the famous Bauhaus itself—the only entirely new structure ever built for the school—and the houses of Bauhaus founder Walter Gropius and other leading teachers. The tour concludes in Berlin, where participants will visit the Bauhaus Archives, the National Gallery designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and the contemporary Jewish Museum by Daniel Libeskind. The total cost of the tour including airfare from Washington, luxurious hotel accommodations, and numerous meals is $5,995. For more information contact Martin Moeller, at 202.272.2448, ext. 3451 or [email protected]. • 22 blueprints Winter 2007–08 above: The Museum’s executive director, Chase Rynd, presents the Dale Chihuly sculpture Cobalt Basket set with Red Poppy Lips (2001) to the raffle winners. Photo by Museum staff. Spotlight on DeGarmo by Melinda Hungerman, Corporate and Association Relations Manager On September 24, a crowd of more than 250 people attended a lecture by Todd DeGarmo of STUDIOS architecture presented by the Museum as part of its prestigious Spotlight on Design series. As CEO of STUDIOS architecture and founder of the firm’s New York office, DeGarmo has had a profound influence on the design of base buildings, renovations, historic preservation, and interior architecture. In his lecture, he discussed how the Washington, DC office’s expertise has informed national and international projects, including the interiors of the IAC/InterActiveCorp headquarters by Frank Gehry, the Bloomberg LP headquarters, and the Kingman Island Environmental Education Center. After the lecture, the Museum and STUDIOS architecture hosted a reception in the Pension Commissioner’s Suite, with nearly 100 guests including Corinthian and Professional Circle members, and STUDIOS architecture staff and clients. • above: Todd DeGarmo, CEO and founder of STUDIOS architecture’s New York office. Photo by Ron Solomon, courtesy STUDIOS architecture. And the Winner is… by Mary Zehe, Assistant Director of Development This past summer, the Museum held a raffle for the chance to win the elegant sculpture Cobalt Basket Set with Poppy Red Lip Wraps (2001) created by world-renowned glass artist Dale Chihuly. Chihuly generously donated this piece as a salute to his former classmate at the Rhode Island School of Design, David Macaulay, and to support the Museum’s exhibition: David Macaulay: The Art of Drawing Architecture. After being open for more than three months, the raffle was held on September 14th. The lucky winners were Museum members Michael D. Blau and Jacqueline A. Moore, who is also a member of the Museum’s Teacher Advisory Board. Both glass artists in their own right, Michael and Jacqueline said they were thrilled to have won and are looking forward to enjoying this beautiful piece in their home. • left: Todd DeGarmo discusses STUDIOS architecture’s work in Washington, D.C. and beyond during a Spotlight on Design lecture at the Museum. Photo by Museum staff. Winter 2007–08 blueprints 23 contributors Board of Trustees donor profile The Museum thanks the following individuals, companies, associations and agencies for gifts of $250 or more received from August 1–October 31, 2007. These generous gifts provide essential support for the Museum’s exhibitions, education programs, and endowment funds. Some of the contributions listed below are in partial fulfillment of larger pledges. U.S. Department of Energy by Tim Carrigan, Donor Relations Coordinator $50,000 and above $2,500–$4,999 $250–$999 American Planning Association Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Aon Risk Services David C. Evans Esq. Fentress Architects Grunley Construction Co., Inc. Costas Kondylis & Associates, P.C. Linda B. Lyons and Jonathan S. Lyons Microdesk Musee des arts et metiers/ CNAM The New York Times Ann Satterthwaite, AICP STUDIOS Architecture Virginia Tech Leonard A. Zax Agnes Artemel Bob and Kathy Baer Thomas M. Ballentine Linna M. Barnes and Christian J. Mixter C. Kaya Biron, AIA A. R. Braunmuller and Christine L. Krueger Robert Bush William F. Clinger, Jr. Kim Coletta Jerome A. Conlon Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Joan Eisenstodt and Joel Levy Frances Ferguson Guardian Industries Corp. Delon Hampton, PhD, PE Patricia Harrison Joseph F. Horning, Jr. Craig Howie Mr. and Mrs. Joel Hunter Island Press Dudley Ives Kasteel Construction Keane Enterprises, LLC Joyce Kessler and Amy Kessler Pastan John P. Kyle Michael L. Marshall, AIA Randolph Q. McManus G. Martin Moeller, Jr. and Steven Dickens John E. Moyer, AIA Sakura Namioka National Association of Women in Construction Thomas E. O’Brien Lawrence O’Connor and Ashley Power O’Connor Joseph Palca and Kathy Hudson Laura Peebles Thorn L. Pozen Quadrangle Development Co. Edna R. Ranck and Martin Fleischer Susan A. Retz, AIA and Charles J. Lovett Edward T. and Dee Ann Revere Robert Silman Associates, PLLC SKB Architecture & Design Albert H. and Shirley Small George Stavropoulos Robert A. M. Stern Architects LLP Sustainable Design Consulting LLC Keene Taylor Shar Taylor Kristen and Christopher Ullman United Way of the National Capital Area Anna G. Wade and Nancy Laws Christine Wirkkala Marion E. Yeck $10,000–$24,999 Since 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Building Museum have worked together on numerous programs—such as the exhibitions Big and Green and The Green House, as well as the noontime lecture series Building for the 21st Century—which advance the agency’s mission of ensuring the ongoing availability of reliable, clean, efficient, and affordable energy. For the 30 years since it was established, DOE has provided the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan. The department is responsible for long-term research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing, energy conservation, military applications, energy regulatory programs, and a central energy data collection and analysis program. Today, DOE continues to ensure the nation’s energy security by maintaining the safety and reliability of nuclear stockpiles, cleaning up the environmental impact of the Cold War, and spearheading scientific and technological advances and research into viable energy alternatives. “The National Building Museum’s programs put a wonderful ‘shine’ on the often gritty research conducted in our national laboratories and on building sites all around the U.S.,” said Mark Ginsberg, board member of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “The U.S. Department of Energy is a proud partner with the National Building Museum. We look forward to a continued relationship where the results of building research—better, safer, and more energy efficient homes and buildings and building practices—can be showcased and shine on in such a wide variety of programs and exhibitions.” The Museum relies on the support of government and industry partners like the U.S. Department of Energy. The Board of Trustees and staff are grateful for the agency’s continued support. • 24 blueprints Winter 2007–08 Apollo Real Estate Management Mr. and Mrs. Thomas N. Armstrong, III Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. The Beech Street Foundation Bentley Systems, Incorporated The Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation BFC Partners Bloomberg Facchina-McGaughan, LLC Freddie Mac Gensler Robert W. Holleyman, II Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC Lafarge The Meltzer Group National Association of Home Builders Perkins + Will Reznick Group Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP $5,000–$9,999 American Society of Civil Engineers The Associated General Contractors of America Deborah Berke & Partners Architects LLP Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers Nancy B. and Howard K. Cohen Construction Industry Round Table Cushman & Wakefield D.C. Office of Property Management Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. DeBenedittis Cynthia R. and Charles G. Field Handel Architects, LLP Robb & Stucky Interiors Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. $1,000–$2,499 Sandy Apgar Atmosphere Inc. The Honorable Nancy G. Brinker Brownrigg Charitable Trust Champion Title and Settlements, Inc Christie’s America DeSimone Consulting Engineers Dewberry Mr. and Mrs. Richard England, Sr. Herb and Barbara Franklin Gilbane Building Company Elika Hemphill and Richard Confalone S. Kann Sons Company Foundation, Inc. Kishimoto.Gordon.Dalaya PC Jacqueline and Marc Leland Foundation Mortgage Bankers Association Charles A. and Diana R. Nathan National Society of Professional Engineers The National Trust for Historic Preservation Scott and Maggie Nelson Oehme, van Sweden & Associates Parsons Brinckerhoff Robert A. Peck I.M. Pei, FAIA Jillian Hanbury Poole Quite a Stir in Catering! Rathgeber/Goss Associates, P.C. Rippeteau Architects, P.C. RMJM Hillier David Rockwell, AIA and Rockwell Architecture, Planning, and Design, PC Stephen E. Sandherr Tompkins Builders, Inc. mystery building Readers Show Powers of “Observation” Perched at the edge of a dramatic precipice, its white walls gleaming in the sunlight (when it’s not too smoggy), its terraces commanding spectacular views of the Los Angeles Basin (when it’s not too smoggy), is the Fall 2007 Mystery Building, better known as the Griffith Observatory. Designed by John C. Austin and Frederick M. Ashley in an elegant Greco-Deco style, the observatory opened in 1935 and has long been a favorite backdrop for Hollywood films, ranging from the classic Rebel Without a Cause to the recent Transformers movie. The landmark building recently reopened after an extensive renovation and addition by Pfeiffer Partners Architects Inc., working in association with Levin & Associates Architects. The Mystery Photo was taken from the “promenade walkway,” looking up the side of the faceted, buttressed drum that supports the central planetarium dome. Six readers correctly identified the building. Each of the first five respondents received a National Building Museum coffee mug as a prize. The prize winners were: Carl Thomas Engel, Painesville, OH; Edward T. Revere, McLean, VA; and John Edwards, Nick Wafle, and David G. Wood, all of Washington, DC. The sixth correct respondent was Jan D. Carline of Seattle, WA. • Chair Honorary Trustees Michael J. Glosserman Harold L. Adams Howard M. Bender Carolyn Schwenker Brody David C. Evans M. Arthur Gensler Jr. Mike Goodrich Thomas J. Klutznick Frederick A. Kober Stuart A. McFarland Robert McLean III Elizabeth B. Moynihan Marilyn Perry James W. Todd Mallory Walker Leonard A. Zax Executive Director Chase W. Rynd Secretary Gilbert E. DeLorme Treasurer Robert H. Braunohler Elected and Voting Trustees William B. Alsup III Frank Anton Thomas N. Armstrong III David S. Bender Deborah Berke William M. Brennan Kelly Caffarelli Joan Baggett Calambokidis Donald A. Capoccia Dennis J. Cotter Christopher Dorval Delon Hampton Gary P. Haney Philippe Hardouin Robert W. Holleyman, II Joseph F. Horning, Jr. Gerald M. Howard Mercy Jiménez A. Eugene Kohn Deryl McKissack Hollis S. McLoughlin Melissa A. Moss Robert A. Peck Whayne S. Quin Stephen M. Ross Deborah Ratner Salzberg Stephen E. Sandherr Robert A.M. Stern Norbert W. Young, Jr. Founding Trustees Cynthia R. Field Herbert M. Franklin Edward T. Hall Nancy Stevenson Beverly Willis Ex Officio Trustees Secretary Dirk Kempthorne Department of the Interior Secretary Alphonso Jackson Department of Housing and Urban Development Senator Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Representative James Oberstar Chair, House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Lurita Doan Administrator General Services Administration Adrian M. Fenty Mayor of the District of Columbia David L. Winstead Comissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration Stephen T. Ayers Acting Architect of the Capitol Allen Weinstein Archivist of the United States James H. Billington The Librarian of Congress Cristián Samper Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian Richard Moe President National Trust for Historic Preservation Christine McEntee Executive Director and CEO The American Institute of Architects this issue’s mystery... National Building Museum Editorial Board ? Step Right Up! Something curious is going on with those doors. Can you identify the Mystery Building and its location? Responses will be accepted by e-mail or regular mail. To be eligible for a prize (reserved for the first five correct respondents only), send an e-mail to [email protected]. You may also respond by regular mail, though you will not be eligible for the prize. The mailing address is: Mystery Building National Building Museum 401 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Johanna Dunkel, Marketing and Communications Manager Catherine Crane Frankel, Vice President for Exhibitions and Collections Melissa Kennedy, Senior Graphic Designer Scott Kratz, Vice President for Education Bryna Lipper, Vice President for Marketing and Communications G. Martin Moeller, Jr., Senior Vice President and Curator Chase W. Rynd, Executive Director Shar Taylor, Vice President for Development Blueprints Editor-in-Chief, G. Martin Moeller, Jr. Managing Editor, Johanna Dunkel Designer, Jennifer Byrne Blueprints is the quarterly magazine of the National Building Museum. Subscriptions are a benefit of Museum membership. Blueprints ©2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 0742-0552 Paper contains 50% recycled content including 25% post-consumer waste. The National Building Museum explores the world we build for ourselves— from our homes, skyscrapers, and public buildings to our parks, bridges, and cities. Through exhibitions, education programs, and publications, the Museum seeks to educate the public about achievements in architecture, design, engineering, urban planning, and construction. The Museum is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, foundations, associations, and public agencies. Drawing the Museum Limited Edition Antoine Predock Print by Johanna Dunkel, Marketing Communications Manager In 2001, the National Building Museum commissioned renowned architect Cesar Pelli to create a portrait of our historic home. The result was an oil pastel of the Museum’s brick and terra cotta main façade. The limited-edition print of the drawing was very popular, and soon sold out. This year, the Museum once again commissioned a leading architect—2006 AIA Gold Medalist Antoine Predock—to draw the Museum. Predock’s drawing beautifully and evocatively depicts the Museum’s Great Hall and its famed Corinthian columns. Only 100 of the 18” x 24”, signed, and numbered prints were produced and they are available exclusively at the National Building Museum Shop. Be sure to pick one up today. The Pelli and Predock prints are the first two in a series of drawings that the Museum intends to commission. Stay tuned for information on the next drawing in the series. $270.00 Museum members / $300.00 Public Drawing of the Great Hall. © Antoine Predock. exhibitions on view Lasting Foundations: Marcel Breuer: The Art of Design and Architecture Architecture in Africa through February 17, 2008 through January 13, 2008 David Macaulay: The Art of Drawing Architecture extended through May 4, 2008 Washington: Symbol and City Long-term Cityscapes Revealed: Highlights from the Collection Long-term Investigating Where We Live extended through January 13, 2008 Building Zone Long-term Above from left to right: © Margaret Courtney-Clarke; © Hedrich Blessing; © David Macaulay, photo by Christopher Benson; Models by RAF Models and Displays, photo by Cary; National Building Museum collection; ©Amanda Barber; ©F.T. Eyre National Building Museum 401 F Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202.272.2448 / www.nbm.org Red Line Metro, Judiciary Square Nonprofit Organization U.S. Postage Paid Washington, D.C. Permit No. 488