The Icing on the Cake: Large-Scale Museum Extensions to Historic Buildings

AR 597: Dissertation

Kent School of Architecture

University of Kent

March 2015

IOANNIS MEXIS

Supervisors: Dr. Manolo Guerci, Dr Timothy Brittain- Catlin.

Word Count: 8789

ACKNOWLEGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Manolo Guerci and Dr. Timothy Brittain- Catlin for the valuable assistance in writing this essay.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation investigates how historic buildings are conserved and revitalized by extension projects. More specifically, it is about large scale contemporary museum extensions to historic compositions. The investigation of the topic is achieved through a series of case studies based on three different types of extension projects: “Juxtaposing free- standing extensions”, “Weaving extensions” and “Homogenous free-standing extensions”.

Through the first category we will investigate: the by Daniel Libeskind (2007), MAXXI Museum by Zaha Hadid (2010) and Stedelijk Museum by Benthem Crouwel Architects (2012). All three of these extensions, are examples of bold interventions that contrasts both the historic building and their context and have become landmarks in the cities they are located in.

In the second category, we will examine: the by (2009) and Tate Modern by Herzog and de Meuron (2000). Both extensions are in direct relation with the existing building. The architects’ interventions are respectful towards the existing composites, giving the existing building a refreshed appearance.

In the last category we will explore: the second extension project to Tate Modern by Herzog and de Meuron (2016) and the by David Chipperfield (2017). Both of these free standing extensions are cases of interventions that respect the existing building and their context but still manage to stand out of their context on a deferential manner.

In the last part of this thesis, assumptions will be provided, according to the following questions, asked within this essay: what are the main themes that emerge in extension projects; what is the importance of historic buildings; finally, what are the reasons for their conservation and revitalization.

0.0. TABLE OF CONTECTS

1.0. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….……. 2.

2.0. JUXTAPOSITIONING FREE-STANDING EXTENSIONS…………………………………………………………………………….…….…………… 4.

2.1. ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM ………………………………………………………………………………………………...... …….… 5.

2.2. MAXXI MUSEUM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..……….… 11.

2.3. STEDELIJK MUSEUM……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….....……….. 15.

3.0. WEAVING EXTENSIONS……………..………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………….………… 19.

3.1. NEUES MUSEUM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………....……….. 20.

3.2. TATE MODERN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………. 24.

4.0. HOMOGENOUS FREE-STANDING EXTENSIONS……………..………………………………………………………………..…….……..……… 27.

4.1. TATE MODERN…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…. 28.

4.2. JAMES SIMON GALLERY……….……………………………………………...…………………………………….…….……….……………. 30.

5.0. MAIN THEMES THAT EMERGE ON EXTENSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 33.

6.0. THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND THEIR CONSERVATION……………………………………….………..………… 35.

7.0. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………...………………. 38.

8.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….……………………..… 40.

1

1.0. INTRODUCTION.

“This recovered time comes back to life again, healed, as Debenedetti points out, redeemed from a malignant self- destructiveness. Clearly, this relation between the past and the present is a revision, a reconstruction of a dialogue of processes that are not only mental but also sensory. The memory lives again in virtue of a previous time.”1

Architects have been dealing with historic buildings since the 19th century, when the idea of restoration and preservation of such buildings emerged. After Carlo Scarpa’s first major breakthrough on restoration projects (with the connotation given to this term today), with a radical, for the time, extension to the Castelvecchio Museum in Verona; the past two decades, architects have redefined the architectural relationship between present and past. The reuse of historic buildings, especially as exhibition spaces has nowadays increased dramatically. As a result, historic values are preserved and there is a positive impact on the context itself as a result of this preservation. When it comes to reusing old buildings, apart from renovations, extension projects quite often take place as well. These historic buildings are of great value. Thus, designers must respect them, and should try not to overshadow them with their contemporary extension. The extension’s purpose should be to revitalize and enhance the existing building. When looking at large- scale extension projects, one can see a motif emerging: in many cases, these buildings house museums.

1 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 207.

2

Through research on museum renovations and extensions internationally, one can see many different approaches by architects. This intrigues the spectator to ask questions like: Why is conservation of historic heritage important? Why do architects undertake extension projects on historic buildings as a preservation technique? The Sharp Center for Design, in Toronto, by Alsop Architects2, was one of the extensions that increased my interest on this topic, because of the bold approach by the architects towards historic buildings (Figure 1).

The aim of this essay is to identify techniques used by architects in such projects and to determine which of these Figure 1: Sharp Center for Design (2004), Toronto, techniques are justified. To arrive to a successful conclusion, a broad range of museum extension needs to be Canada, Alsop Architects in association with Robbie, Young+ Wright, Architects. investigated. These interventions will be categorized depending on their relation with the existing building as,

“Juxtaposing free-standing extensions”, “weaving extensions” and “Homogenous free-standing extensions”. Through the analysis of these case studies, the following will be explained: the importance of historic buildings; the beneficial influence of these extensions (both to the existing building and to its context); and the reasons behind the wide use of extensions as a revitalization method.

2 Architectural Review, “RIBA Worldwide Awards 2004”, 36-37. 3

2.0. JUXTAPOSING FREE-STANDING EXTENSIONS.

Free-standing extensions can usually be described as “parasites” which are attached to the existing building. In these types of projects the extension can wrap around the existing building, emerge from it, or just sit aside it. The extension can be clearly legible, due to the differences in materiality, form, scale and colour. The existing building becomes the generator of the extension, and despite their contrast there usually is a symbolic relationship between the two. In these cases, architects can be creative and design elements juxtaposing towards the existing building. The contrast between the two structures is celebrated, with the existing building usually benefiting from it. 3

In this chapter, we will investigate the extension strategies used in the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) by Daniel

Libeskind, the MAXXI Museum by Zaha Hadid and the Stedelijk Museum by Benthem Crouwel Architects. ROM, was chosen in order to explore Libeskind’s bold design, which despite being too dominant towards the existing building, benefits both the composition and the city. In this case study we can also see the development of the four extension projects that have taken place. MAXXI was selected for being one of the finest museums built in the 21st century.

Despite its contrast with the existing building, we can see how its architect has symbolically adapted it, to its wider context. Stedelijk will be studied for it is a highly controversial extension, where the architect has managed to create a new landmark for Amsterdam by designing a building that seems to have no clear relation with its existing composition.

3 Bollack, Old buildings, New Forms, 65- 66. 4

2.1. Royal Ontario Museum.

“The City of Toronto needs cultural monuments as most cities do, to create an aura of civic dignity and to act as a magnet for tourists.” 4

That was the concept behind the design of the Royal Ontario Museum’s (ROM) latest extension by Daniel Libeskind in

2007. ROM was designed by Darling and Pearson and built in 1914. Since then it has been renovated and extended four Figure 2: J.N.L. Durand’s museum plan, 1802. times. Each of these extensions, influenced by their era’s museum trends, have moulded the current museum’s form.

ROM was initially designed by architectural firm Darling and Pearson, influenced by a French architectural theoretician

J.N.L. Durand. Durand developed the “ideal” museum plan using the Louvre as a precedent (Figure 2). His plan was forming a square with small exhibition spaces on its perimeter that were connected by long corridors. Inside the square Figure 3: ROM plan by Darling and Pearson, 1909, with the 1914 section shaded. there were more rooms and corridors forming a Greek Cross with a dome on its centre.5 The first design for ROM utilized only half of Durand’s prototype plan.

After the first part of the museum was built, in 1914, a T-shaped extension was designed by the architectural firm

Chapman and Oxylen. It was aimed to double the museum’s size and relocate the main entrance, forming an H-shaped

Figure 4: ROM 1914.

4 Browne, Bold Visions, 47. 5 Browne, Bold Visions, 28. 5 building. Although Durand’s prototype was followed, the extension did not include galleries on the north and south façades. As a result, the building did not feature peripheral circulation as it was initially planned to.6 (Figure 5)

In 1970s and 1980s, symmetry and order were obsolete ideas and informality was a widespread trend at the time, and that is why the 1914 symmetric plan of ROM was abandoned (Figure 6). In 1968 a planetarium was added to the south side of the building leaving behind the idea of courtyards. In 1978 a reconstruction project began by Moffat & Kinoshita, Figure 5: 1993s Extension by Chapman and Oxley. filling the north side of the building with laboratories, working areas, collection storage areas; a new gallery space was also added, although it was not connected to the east and west galleries as designed in the initial plan idea of 1914. 7

In 2000 Daniel Libeskind designed the latest extension of the Royal Ontario Museum. In this design he introduced new public facilities and exhibition spaces and demolished the 1984’s extension to the north façade (Figure 7). Although the Figure 6: 1968 & 1984 extensions on North and building itself was not symmetrical, the original central axis and the symmetry in many gallery routes was restored, as South facades. suggested in the Beaux Arts plan by Darlin and Pearson. This created a promenade for the visitors through carefully planned spaces forming a full circle to where they initiated from. One of the main issues was the circulation between the old and the new composites. Utilizing symmetrical planning, Libeskind managed to arrange the exhibition spaces in a way in which the visitors would easily understand space and seamlessly navigate through it.8

Figure 7: 2007 Daniel Libeskind’s extension (2007).

6 Browne, Bold Visions, 30. 7 Browne, Bold Visions, 30. 8 Futagawa, Contemporary Architecture Museum 2, 270. 6

“The best way to reveal an existing building’s qualities, and to honor them, Libeskind would argue, is to build an addition that challenges them or at least does not pander .To copy an existing structure, to be compatible in an obvious manner is subtle ridicule, not reverence”.9

We could say that the quotation above summarises one of Libeskind’s main ideas, not only for ROM but for most of his designs. There are many other architects that would agree with Libeskind’s approach on historic buildings when extended. On the other hand there are critics (both architects and of the general public) that characterize Libeskind’s intervention as disrespectful, arguing that Liebskind’s extensions overshadows the existing building in terms of materiality, form and scale.10 Before it was even built, the public seemed to dislike it, and that is because it was completely new for Toronto, a bold design, hard to ignore. That negative initial reaction by the public was also seen in the Eiffel Tower (built in 1889), which has now become a landmark of Paris. Considering this, the Crystal extension could be one of Toronto’s unique landmarks and the first steps towards making Toronto into a more contemporary city.11

Figure 8: Royal Ontario Museum.

9 Browne, Bold Visions, p.46. 10 Browne, Bold Visions, p.46. 11http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/how_the_royal_ontario_museum_represents_100_years_of_architecture.ht ml (Accessed on 12/12/2014). 7

The contrast between the two buildings is obvious in terms of form, scale and materiality (Image 9). Starting with scale we could say that the contrast between the two is balanced, as Liebeskind’s Crystal-shaped building covers only a small part of the scheme. The bold form and materiality of the extension contrasts the rigidity of the historic building, making the composition stand out in its setting. The materials used on the façades, also have purpose beyond the enhancement of contrast. The aluminium is used for the skin and windows, for its reflecting properties, allowing the Crystal to reflect the sun’s movement, the Museum’s context and finally the existing building, incorporating the composite in its Figure 9: Aerial view of ROM. environment (Figures 10-11). A small gap has been intentionally left between the existing and the new parts of the building, allowing for a smoother transition between the two and balancing their architectural dialogue.12

The symbolic adaptation techniques used on the extension’s exterior are more visible in its interior. Libeskind has related the two buildings by aligning their floors, exposing some parts of the old building’s interior (Figures 12-14). In this way the two buildings achieve a successful connection, and create an interesting environment combining the history of the existing composite and contemporary architecture.

Figure 10: The windows reflect the context making the building part of its environment.

12 Browne, Bold Visions, 46. 8

“If you build it, they will come.” 13

This Statement is very relevant to the idea behind the design of ROM. One of the main goals of this project was to create something new in the city of Toronto, in order for it to become a new attraction for people. This would generate economic growth and upgrade the Museum’s close vicinity14

Figure 11: Façade reflections. Before the Crystal was built, the future of the museum was doubtful. During the 1990s, the public had started to lose interest for the museum and it was attracting less and less visitors. This called for a strategic revitalization. The idea was to create something iconic, which would make the building a civic and tourist attraction for once more. Also, it would create a new landmark for the city.15 All these characteristics relate to the “Bilbao Effect” which is about iconic Figure 12: Interior view showing the old building architecture, whose name was derived from ’s Guggenhaim Bilbao, for its ability to draw visitors, which has penetrating into the new. become dominant in the minds of civic boosters (Figure 15). It is about creating a captivating building that would make visitors want to visit it. William Thorsell, ROM’s director and CEO, believed in this effect, and he supported that ROM could only be revitalized by a bold and dynamic design, which would also have a similar effect on Toronto’s urban

16 Figure 13: Interior view showing the floor fabric. alignment between the new and old buildings.

13 Browne, Bold Visions, 49. 14 http://www.e-architect.co.uk/toronto/royal-ontario-museum (Accessed on 13/10/2014). 15 http://www.dezeen.com/2007/05/14/daniel-libeskind-at-royal-ontario-musem/ (Accessed on 13/10/2014). 16 Browne, Bold Visions, 139. 9

ROM needed to be an iconic building and become a worldwide destination. The building was developed to attract visitors with its design, even if some of them might not be interested in the exhibits. This meant that certain individuals would still remember the museum as a whole, even if that is not because of its collections. According to Libeskind this is another main difference between the concerns of the 19th and of 21st century when designing a museum. At the present Figure 14: ROM’s entrance foyer. time, the main aim is to bring the visitors in the museum, while in the past what mattered was the content of the museums itself.

Nevertheless even those who do not like ROM cannot deny the successfulness of the museum to attract people, making architecture the destination. From this intervention, we can see that sometimes being too bold and dominant over a historic building and even overshadowing it might have positive impact on both the latter and its context.

Figure 15: Guggenhaim Bilbao (1997)

10

2.2. MAXXI MUSEUM

“The museum expands in the city, the city enters the museum”17,

This is what MAXXI Museum’s architect, Zaha Hadid said in an interview for the book “Museums in the 21st century”.

Through this we can understand one of her main concepts when designing the museum. MAXXI, the centre of Figure16: MAXXI Museum view from the courtyard.

Contemporary Arts in Rome, is a 2010 projects which turned an army barrack into a museum complex, through renovation and extension.

In mid 1990s, the local government was trying to alter the city’s mainly classical architectural landscape by promoting Figure 17: View of the site in 2004. contemporary architecture. The path was led by the MAXXI museum. It would express the need for the creation of a new contemporary building and the desire for innovation and international acknowledgment.18 This effort could be related to the Bilbao effect, which is about the desire of attracting people to a building for its aesthetics and not for its contents. Hadid’s design was the one to fulfil these requirements, while at the same time adapt to its context. Figure 18: View of the site in 2003.

The site used to be a military compound of barracks, located on the suburbs of Rome, outside the city walls. The area around the site was mainly late nineteenth and early twentieth century modernist apartment blocks. The architect decided to preserve only one of the abandoned barracks. It is the one located on MAXXI’s façade along Via Guido Reni,

Figure 19: View from Via Guido Reni. 17 Greub and Greub, Museums in the 21st century, 134. 18 Greub and Greub, Museums in the 21st century, 132. 11 where the entrance to the site is also located. The barrack helps Hadid’s extension integration into the old fabric of the area. When one approaches the site from Via Guido Reni, the extension is designed so that visitors cannot understand the scale of it, as they can only see a very small part of it wrapping the existing barrack. This is an effort to not interrupt its setting (Figure 19). Only when one enters the site and walks in the courtyard, or approaches the site from its back side, can understand the scale and boldness of this extension. It is only when visitors enter the courtyard that the cantilevered part of the extension is visible. On its windows, one can see the reflections of the surrounding buildings

(Figure 20). Glass is one of the materials that architects use for adapting and extending buildings, taking advantage its reflective and transparent properties.

Instead of adapting the building to its context following by the principles of postmodernist contextualism, i.e. copying Figure 20: Reflections on cantilever’s window. the style of the surrounding buildings, Hadid decided to adapt the building to its setting by following the axes of the main streets around the site. MAXXI is a succession of overlapping volumes, each of them either aligned to the surrounding routes or perpendicular to them, creating a building whose form is adapted to its context and becomes part of it. (Figure 21)

Figure 21: Aerial view of MAXXI.

12

“There are so many ways of interpreting context. It’s not only the adjacent buildings, but learning from other contexts and bringing them into the design”19

Hadid, apart from adapting the building to the existing barrack and its context by following the context’s axes, also adapted it to Rome’s seventeenth and eighteenth century buildings, of Baroque style. In MAXXI, Hadid used the curves and counter curves that are found in Roman buildings, after re-interpreting them in a contemporary manner. In Baroque

Figure 22: MAXXI’S curved volumes. architecture the buildings seem to have movement. The same effect is seen in MAXXI, by the way the walls are curved

(Figures 22-23). Apart from Baroque architecture, the curved walls also relate to illusionism characteristic of the Italian

Renaissance architecture, where architects transported the perspective of their drawings to their designs.20 Taking into consideration all the characteristics, which Hadid has adapted to her design in a contemporary manner, we can say that she created an extension whose concept is derived from the Roman style. This is seen as an element of success. Despite its scale, it manages to refresh the old barrack, making it stand out of its context after many years of abandonment.

Apart from the positive impact it has on the barrack and on the immediate context, the city benefits from this design too. With MAXXI, Hadid has managed to create a contemporary building that has become a landmark for Rome, a

Figure 23: MAXXI’S curved volumes.

19 Racana and Janssens. Maxxi, 12. 20 Racana and Janssens. Maxxi, 12-14. 13 worldwide attraction and a breakthrough in the architectural landscape of Rome, which is dominated by Classical,

Baroque and Renaissance buildings21.

After all, Catherine Slessor, editor of the “Architectural Review” states, “…in some ways it is the perfect Roman building.

In a city marked by doubts of megalomania and fits of braggadocio, in historic thrall to mad popes and scheming politicians, shaped by radical architects, the forces of religion and the mark ecstasies of the baroque, MAXXI somehow feels right at home.”22

21 http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/stirling-prize-2010/maxxi-by-zaha-hadid-architects/8606437.article (Accessed on 03/11/2014). 22 Catherine Slessor, “139 MAXXI,” 50. 14

2.3. Stedelijk Museum

“In the last decade, just about every museum of some stature has at least once renovated, rebuilt, extended or added to its extension building patrimony. No museum seems to be able to resist the pervasive urge to expand, grow and renew its architectural premises. The option to preserve a museum in a fixed state has little or no charm, and gains no important media attention.”23

As Wouter Davidts said, in the last decade we have experienced a tendency to alter museums, as historic buildings need to be revitalized. Stedelijk Museum is one of the museums with the most significant contemporary art collections Figure 24: Stedelijk Museum. equivalent to, Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Tate Modern in London, the Modern Museum of Modern Art in New York, and the Guggenhaim in Bilbao. But the great difference between Stedelijk and the aforementioned museums is the lack of architectural expansions and extravaganza that do not help the building advance. The fact that such a significant museum had started to lose the public’s interest resulted to a competition for an extension that would bring the museum “Back on the Top”24, as the museum committee requested.

23 Davidts, “Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture and the new Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam∗,” 97. 24 Davidts, “Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture and the new Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam∗,” 99. 15

The demanding project aimed to make the museum into a landmark for Amsterdam, which would attract the public once again. It was designed by Benthem Crouwel Architekten in 2004 and opened in 2012. The extension lies next to a

Dutch Neo- Renaissance style building designed by Adriaan Willem Weissman in 1895. The main goal for the architect and the museum’s director was to create an iconic building (Bilbao effect) that would become a world-class cultural destination, but would also have positive impact to both the museum and Amsterdam. For that reason, Benthem

Crouwel Architekten designed a powerful scheme with a striking presence that no one could forget after seeing it. The Figure 25: Stedelijk Museum. design firm themselves call it “the bathtub”, for obvious reasons. 25

Although many believe that this extension is disrespectful towards the historic building and ridiculous because of its bathtub shape, the architect has achieved his aim: to design a building that would become a landmark for Amsterdam.

Despite appearing to be in an absolute contrast with the existing building, we can identify some of the techniques used Figure 26: Stedelijk Museum. Ground floor interior. by the architect to adapt to the existing.

In terms of scale, the two buildings are in proportion and the extension’s roof is aligned with the 1985 building’s cornice ribbon (Figures 24-25). The most controversial characteristic of the building is its form and façade materials. The white elevated oblong volume hosts exhibition spaces and the roof shelters the outdoor plaza around the building. The fibre- enforced composite white façade is a technological novelty and is one of the main features that make the extension stand out of its context. While appearing to have no relation with the existing building, it actually does. The colour is Figure 27: Stedelijk Museum. Ground floor interior.

25 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/arts/design/amsterdams-new-stedelijk-museum.html?_r=2& (Accessed on 22/11/2014). 16 symbolically related to the interior of the gallery spaces of the 19th century building. When Willem Sandberg was the director of the museum, he removed all ornaments from the interior and painted the walls and ceilings white, creating a neutral space for art. This alternation made the museum famous at the time of its completion. Crouwel wanted to highlight the historic significance of the white rendered galleries by continuing the white interior on the extension’s façades. The symbolic choice of this material makes the building look like a piece of art itself and makes it clear to the Figure 28: Stedelijk Museum. Interior view public that it is a modern art museum (Figures 24-29).26 showing the junction point between the historic building and the extension.

The extension hosts part of the exhibition spaces on the white volume and part of them underground, joined by a large, covered escalator which connects the two exhibition spaces by passing the ground floor. That is where public facilities such as the café and shops are located (Figures 26-27). The white volume is elevated by four large columns leaving a gap between the ground and the first floor, sealed by glass. By using glass on the ground floor and on the junction point between the two buildings (Figure 28), the existing building is left almost intact and in full view. The transparency of the Figure 29: Stedelijk Museum. New entrance. ground floor’s façade, as well as the ground floor’s alignment with the external ground level, give it a sense of an “open” museum, making the building inviting to the public. To make public access easier, the main entrance is relocated on the part of the museum that faces the Museumplein, a cultural complex formed by a public park and surrounded by three major museums (Figures 29-30).

Figure 30: Stedelijk Museum aerial view.

26 http://www.archdaily.com/350843/stedelijk-museum-amsterdam-benthem-crouwel-architects/ (Accessed on 22/11/2014). 17

Although there is a clear distinction between the existing building and the extension on their exterior, in the interior one cannot tell the difference between the existing and new as the floors are aligned (Figure 31) and the same materials on the floors, ceilings and walls are used throughout.

Having explored Crouwels’s design we have seen that by following the principles of the Bilbao effect, Benthem Crouwel Figure 31: Stedelijk Museum. Section. Architekten. Have designed a controversial building which, although being inspired and from being in relation to the existing building, it overshadows it. This is due to their contrast in form, materiality and colours. It is though hard to deny that the nineteenth-century existing building has managed to become a landmark for Amsterdam once again due to its controversial extension. The architect has designed a building with an invasive and dominant attitude towards its historic setting. This resulted in it receiving negative criticism by both the public and other architects; this criticism is, though, what made it known worldwide.

18

3.0. WEAVING EXTENSIONS

Weaving interventions on historic buildings are considered to be complex works, where “the architect weaves the new work in and out of the original building fabric”27. In these projects, the architect intervenes on the existing structure by preserving some of its elements, by making some other elements the most prominent features of the final composition and by expunging some other elements while shaping the addition over and into the existing fabric. One of the finest examples of weaving extensions, which stigmatized the approach on historic buildings, was the Castelvecchio, by Carlo

Scarpa (Figure 32). Scarpa’s philosophy of how history and contemporary style could coherently work together triggered later designers’ mindsets on how to deal with historic buildings28. An example of this strategy is the Ashmolean Museum Figure 32: Castelvecchio, Verona (1973). Extension (Figure 33), which weaved in an existing Greek revival building, while completely renovated its interior.29

In this chapter, we will investigate the extension strategies used in Tate Modern by Herzog and de Meuron, and in the

Neues Museum by David Chipperfield. The Neues Museum, was selected to investigate the coherency prevailed by the architect, between the bombed museum and modern subtle interventions that effectively highlight the historic building.

Tate Modern was chosen as it is one of the most successful projects of industrial structure transformations, where the Figure 33: Ashmolean Museum, (2009), Oxford. different techniques used twice by the same architects on the same building can be explored. Sectional perspective by the architect, showing the Greek revival (in the front part) and the extension at the back.

27 Bollack, Old buildings, New Forms, 179. 28 Powell, Architecture Reborn, 11. 29 Penny Lewis, “Best British buildings of the 21st century,” 56-57. 19

3.2 NEUES MUSEUM

“…create a building from the remains of the old, a new building that neither celebrates nor hides its history but includes it.” 30

According to David Chipperfield, the architect of the weaving extension to the Neues Museum in , the main idea behind this project was to renovate the existing building and design a museum where the history of the historic structure is in direct relation with the new addition. The museum was initially built in 1855 but was abandoned for Figure 34: Neues Museum after the bombing. many years after being heavily bombed during the Second World War (Figure 34). In 1997 an extension- reconstruction project was planned, and appointed to Chipperfield; the museum reopened in 2009.

The Neues Museum is considered to be a weaving type of extension as the new structure weaves in and out of the existing building’s fabric (Figure 35). Overall, the two structures are coherent together, making it hard to imagine how the building would look without the latest addition.

The concept behind Chipperfield’s design came from William Morris, whose ideas on restorations and extensions are still followed by many architects. Morris linked conservation with modernity; he was against the imitation of the past, which he considered to be an insult towards the historic building. He argued that every generation should design Figure 35: Chipperfield’s concept sketches for the Neues Museum’s extension.

30 Bollack, Old buildings, New Forms, 214. 20 according to the needs of their era. Following Morris’s ideas, Chipperfield replaced ruins with contemporary elements, inspired by the existing fabric but translated in a modern language.31

Studying the extension’s form we can see that Chipperfield has chosen to follow the form of the building before it was destroyed in the War, as we can see from both the plan and the elevations (Figures 36-40). In this way, the new extension does not challenge the building or its context, in terms of form. As for proportion it is exactly the same as the Figure 36: Neues Museum. New plan, where red indicates the extensions by David Chipperfield. building’s original design.

Chipperfield wanted both the on exterior and the interior to highlight the historic building, aiming to make them yet another type of exhibit due to their historic value. Chipperfield wanted to make it easy for visitors to identify the old parts which survived both the bombing and the physical erosion while the building was abandoned, as well as the Figure 37: Neues Museum, Northeast façade. extension parts. To do this he followed the facades’ pattern and articulation, translated in a contemporary language. We could also say that the new extension is an abstract version of the old facades.32 In “Figures 37-40” we can see that the lines and the rhythm of the original facades are preserved in the extension parts as well, showing the appropriate respect to the historic building. As we can see the window patterns is also followed on the new design, after being re- Figure 38: Neues Museum. Orthographic drawing of Northwest façade. Red lines indicate the interpreted in a contemporary style, once again maintaining strong relation to the existing ones. extension parts by David Chipperfield.

31 Powell, Architecture Reborn, 10. 32 Bollack, Old buildings, New Forms, 214-215.

21

Another key element of adaptation with the existing building and technique of revitalization lies in the use of materials.

The use of brick, plaster and stone relates to the old building both in terms of materiality and colours, Chipperfield’s design is in direct relation with it. Also, it is easy for visitors to distinguish between the existing and added elements of the building (Figures 37-42). Figure 39: Neues Museum, Southwest façade.

When designing an extension apart from the care that architects need to show to the existing structure, they need to be considerate to their context as well. As we can see in “Figure 42”, Chipperflied’s extension does not challenge the Figure 40: Neues Museum. Orthographic drawing of Southwest façade. Red lines indicate the extension existing building or its context, fitting well into the latter. Chipperfield’s interventions on the Neues Museum are not parts by David Chipperfield. distinguishable from a distance unlike when in close proximity to the building- as they blend in to their context so well.

Unlike previous examples in this essay, Chipperfield does not follow the Bilbao Effect. Had he done so, he would have designed something that would be easily distinguishable, by contrasting the existing building, aiming to attract visitors.

In this case the architect choses not to interrupt Neues’ historic and architectural value and the let the content of the museum be the element to attract visitors. Figure 41: Junction point between the historic building (left) and Chipperfield’s extension (right). The most obvious interventions are in the interior of the building. The interior interference included both restoration of the destroyed spaces and additions of exhibition spaces, and generally of contemporary elements which give the building a refreshed charm, examples of which, we can see on “Figures 43-44”. Chipperfield’s staircase design is located at the same position as it was before being destroyed. Both the redesigned staircase and the roof structure are directly Figure 42: Neues Museum in context.

22 related with the original designs for these parts of the building. In “Figure 44” we can see one of the two extensions that were added on the two former courtyards of the building. In these extensions the materials used are plaster and glass.

As a result of the respectfully modern character of these interventions, we can see the combination of old and new in the creation of an aesthetically pleasing result.33 The architect has taken advantage of the existing structure some of which in ruins and has tried to create something new out of them; something that combines modern style and remains, creating interesting exhibition spaces that carry emotions and memories of the past. Even spaces without any displays become exhibition spaces themselves as visitors admire the prestige of the historic building.34

Figure 43: Neues Museum. Interior sketch of the Looking back on this analysis, we can see that Chipperfield’s extension and renovation design is revitalizing the bombed restored staircase. building by adding modern elements, which follow the existing forms, articulation and ornamentation of the building.

His design adapts well to both the context and the historic building, while at the same time bringing it back to life and highlighting its historic and architectural value and beauty. The combination of the building’s great historic value and content makes the building a public attraction. The aim of the architect was to highlight the ruins and the history of the existing building with his modern extension, without overshadowing the original design. As we saw, this aim has been achieved in a quite unique way.

Figure 44: Neues Museum. New exhibition space.

33 http://www.dw.de/reconstruction-of-berlins-neues-museum-vexes-traditionalists/a-4796877 (Accessed on 13/12/2014). 34 Nys, Form matters, 7-8.

23

3.1 TATE MODERN

“This is kind of Aikido strategy where you see your enemy’s energy for your own purpose. Instead of fighting it you take all the energy and shape it in an unexpected and new way.”35

Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron are the architects responsible for both extensions to the Tate Modern Their plan for the first extension adapts to the existing building in a way similar to the Aikido strategy. Tate Modern, located on the banks of the River Thames in London, is one of the most visited museums in the world. Initially the building was an oil- Figure 45: Bankside Power Station. fired power station (Bankside Power Station- Figure 45) and although it was planned to be demolished in 1993, after being abandoned for many years, it announced in 1994 that it would house the new Tate Modern.36

The first restoration and extension project finished in 2000. Since then, Tate Modern has become the most popular modern art gallery in the world with over 5 million annual visitors (Figure 46)37. As a result, the formerly undeveloped and “undiscovered” South Bank area, where Tate is located; has hugely benefited from the gallery. The Power Station was designed in 1947 by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. The building itself, even before Herzog and de Meuron’s additions,

Figure 46: Tate Modern.

35http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/126-150/126-tate-modern.html (Accessed on 06/01/2015). 36 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 205-206.

37 http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projects/tate-modern-project/vision (Accessed on 06/01/2015). 24 contrasted its context. The massive, solid, brick structure, along with its tall chimney did not match the surrounding building in terms of materiality and scale.

The architects took advantage of the existing structure and the large spaces for the renovation of the plenty of interior spaces. The machinery was initially removed from the interior. Although their removal might be considered as negative altering, as they indicate the building’s original use, the maintenance of the materials and the exposed steel structure in the interior preserve the building’s original use and industrial character as we can see in the Turbine Hall (Figure 47), used as exhibition space. The original structure was replaced by new steel structure and glass boxes were also added

(these are similar to the light beam which is placed on top of the existing building) which refresh the interior spaces and Figure 47: Turbine Hall. enrich them with a subtle contemporary character.38 With their interior intervention, Herzog and de Meuron have proven Antonello Marotta’s sayings as true; because of the “melancholy charm in their quality of having experienced life”39, recovered industrial spaces can become ideal museum venues.

Glass is commonly used in extension projects for its trancparency and neutrality. Here a two story glass volume was added on top of the building, known as the “Light beam”, highlighting the preserved reminiscent Art Deco façade.40 Figure 48: Tate Modern. Night time view (At the During daytime, the glass box allows daylight to enter the galleries on the top floor, as well as the other facilities located back of the museum we can see the latest extension by Herzog and de Meuron which is still in under construction. on the two top floors. During night time, the artificial lights would reverse the light to the sky, making the building shine

38 Mack, Herzog & de Meuron, 1992-1996, 96-100. 39 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 202. 40 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 205-206. 25 in London’s skyline (Figure 48). The lights are visible from a distance, creating a luminous connection with the city, a technique architects use to attract visitors, also making the building stand out of its environment.41Despite its contemporary style, and the contrast in materiality and “visual heaviness” between the glass beam and the existing building, the two structures are an aesthetically pleasing composition. This is heavily due to their relation in terms of proportion and form-balance, the materiality contrast between the two structures (Figure 49).

In this extension- renovation project, the Swiss architects revitalized the former power plant with interventions respectful towards the existing structure. The steel and glass elements added in the interior “break” its strict and brutal style creating a pleasant environment for visitors. The contrast created on the exterior between the existing and the added parts respects both the context and the existing structure. It also makes the new museum stand out of its context and become a worldwide attraction.

Figure 49: Tate Modern.

41 http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/126-150/126-tate-modern.html (Accessed on 06/01/2015). 26

4.0. HOMOGENOUS FREE-STANDING EXTENSIONS.

When dealing with extensions, architects’ designs can either contrast the existing building or follow its form. Compared to the type of free-standing extensions, which we saw in a previous chapter, there are cases where architects do not challenge the existing building and its setting. This type of free-standing extensions engage in an obvious dialogue with the existing structure, in terms of scale, form, materiality or colour. Example of this type of free-standing extensions is the New World Conservation and Exhibitions Centre, extension of the , designed by Rogers Stirk Harbour

+ Partners (RSHP) (Figure 50). RSHP have designed a modern extension by translating elements of the existing building in a modern language, and relating the two structures in terms of form, scale and colour.

In this chapter, we will investigate the extension strategies used in the second extension project by Herzog and de Figure 50: The New World Conservation and Exhibitions Centre, (2013). Meuron for the Tate Modern and the James Simon Gallery extension by David Chipperfield. Tate Modern, will be studied as we can see the different way the same architects have extended twice a building, and how each time they have adapted their design to the former power station and the context. James Simon Gallery, was selected for being an extension located in an environment of great historic value, and was chosen in order to discover how the architected has intervened on it.

27

4.1. TATE MODERN

The second extension project on TATE Modern, again designed by Herzog and de Meuron, is a free-standing extension that will be completed in 2016 (Figure 51). The purpose of this extension is to accommodate the unexpectedly large amount of annual visitors, which resulted in the need for space, to house exhibitions, public uses and utilities.

In contrast to the first extension project, the architects decided to relate this extension to the existing building in terms of materiality and not form. Their pyramid-like shaped building would be visible from the north but would not challenge the chimney, which is one of Tate’s main distinguishing elements as well as an urban landmark. Furthermore the chimney is in dialogue with St. Paul’s dome on the opposite bank of Thames. Thus it would not be the right approach to not consider this relationship and build a new tower of such height that would inevitably compete the iconic chimney.

The height of the tower is appropriate for the surrounding buildings as well (Figures 52). Taking into account the fact Figure 51: Tate Modern extension.

that London’s skyline gradually rises, but also the number of tall buildings that were built around Tate Modern in the latest years, we can tell that the latest extension would compete its surrounding buildings and Tate Modern would stand out of its context in a respectful manner.42̛ 43

Figure 52: Tate Modern extension. 42 http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/251-275/263-the-tate-modern-project.html (Accessed on

10/01/2015). 43 Hannes Mayer, “Tate Modern, London (Herzog & de Meuron),“ 66-69. 28

Apart from the height relation between the new extension, its context and the existing building, there is also relation in terms of form and materiality. The sloped facades of the pyramid are in dialogue with, the site, the geometries of the site and the former power station. Quite similar to the existing building’s brick taupe walls, the architects utilized brick in the extension as well, but in an alternative technique. The perforated brick walls used for the pyramid adapt it successfully to the former Bankside building. One of the greatest features of the facades is that they change appearance depending on the observer’s point of view, not only from opaque to solid but in terms of pattern and orientation as well. The dynamic, horizontal, thin windows break the opaque facades to allow views and provide sunlight in the interior. During night time the perforated brick façade allows artificial light to pass through the bricks and illuminate the Figure 53: Tate Modern extension. Night time view exterior of the building, making it visible from distance (Figures 53-54).44̛ 45

In their 2000 extension, where the Swiss architects chose to create contrast in terms of materiality and proportion. This time, they designed a tall, pyramid-shaped tower with proportion to its context and the existing building’s chimney, while using similar materials but in contemporary ways. These adaptation techniques balance the contrast between the existing building and its addition’s pyramid shape.

The contrasting techniques used in both extension projects were respectful towards their setting, but to a point that Figure 54: Tate Modern. Detail of the perforated they would refresh the building and make it stand out of its context, making it a world- class landmark. brick facade.

44 http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/251-275/263-the-tate-modern-project.html (Accessed on 10/01/2015). 45http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projectd/tate-modern-project/design (Accessed on 17/01/2015). 29

4.2. James Simon Gallery

“The purpose of the implantation of present time into a past context is to keep the old building alive and put it back into the service of the greater community.”46

Berlin’s is a worldwide known landmark. As Antonello Marotta says, implantations are needed in historic contexts; in order to make them part of the community. That was one of the main aims of the design of the James

Simon Gallery; an extension building of the Neues and Pergamon Museums in Museum Island in Berlin, designed by

David Chipperfield and due for completion in 2017. When completed, it will become the new entrance building for the Figure 55: Initial design for James Simon Gallery.

Museum Island, giving the museum complex a rather contemporary character, linked to the modern revitalization of

Berlin, which has been taking place the last decades. Apart from this purpose, it will also accommodate exhibition spaces, an auditorium and seminar rooms aiming to alleviate the burden of public services that, will remain in the Neues

Museum, until the extension is completed.47

When designing in a location of great historical and architectural value, architects need to be considerate towards the context. Especially in this case where the new extension would be located in front of the Neues Museum, the design techniques need to be well thought and the building needs to fit well in its setting. The first proposal for the new Figure 56: Final design for James Simon Gallery.

46 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 153. 47 Nys, Form matters, 130.

30 extension by Chipperfield (Figure 55) was negatively criticized by the public because of its great contrast with the context. For that reason, the architect revised his design and came up with an alternative which despite its modern style, maintains a strong relation with the existing buildings and their wider context (Figure 56).

Chipperfield’s new extension is placed on a plinth, and consists of three levels. The new entrance provides overground access to the and is linked through an “Architectural Promenade” with the Neues, Altes and Bode Figure 57: Section of James Simon Gallery. Museum, all located in Museum Island. Thus, although the entrance building is considered as an extension of the

Pergamon and Neues Museums, we could say that it is an extension to all the museums located in the Island, because of their underground connection.48

As a visitor, one would ascend to the entrance foyer of the Pergamon Museum through a long external staircase

(Figures 56 & 58). At the same level the café and the foyer are located on top of the plinth, and the plinth itself houses the new exhibition spaces. From the lower level, the architectural promenade takes visitors to the other museums of the complex. A series of slender columns that are located above the plinth enclose the space creating a public courtyard between James Simon Gallery and Neues Museum (Figure 58).

Chipperfield’s extension has a strong relation to both the direct and wider context (Figures 59-60). His aim was not to Figure 58: James Simon Gallery. View of the imitate any characteristics or ornaments of the existing buildings, but rather reinterpret the style used on the buildings entrance grand staircase.

48 http://www.davidchipperfield.co.uk/downloads/projects/19/jamessimongallery_dca.pdf (Accessed on 29/01/2015). 31 of the complex, designed by Schinkel, Stüler and the other architects, in a contemporary manner. The use of columns is one of the main adapting features used by the architect. The colonnade by Stüler, wrapping the Neues, is now continued on the new entrance building. The strong vertical rhythm that is used on the new extension is echoed from the pilasters on the Pergamon Museum. By using columns instead of a solid wall and by placing the exhibition spaces and most facilities underground, James Simon Gallery does not block the views to and from the Neues Museum. This goes to show the consideration that the architect shows towards the historic building. The grand exterior staircase of Figure 59: James Simon Gallery. Southwest façade. the extension relates to the ones found in the entrances of the Museums. In terms of materiality, Chipperfield has used reconstituted natural stones which blend with the colour and material pallet of the Museum Island’s limestone, sandstone and rendered facades.49

Much like in the extension and reconstruction of the Neues Museum, Chipperfield has used characteristics of the historic buildings and their context, re-interpreted by this contemporary language, refreshing both the building and its setting. This extension project shows the appropriate admiration to the value of the existing building, in terms of scale, materiality and style is related to them. Although the new addition can be distinguished clearly from its setting (Figure

60), it still echoes its connection with its historic context, while at the same point revitalizes and gives a contemporary touch to the entire complex thorough its role as the new entrance to the Island. Figure 60: James Simon gallery in context.

49 http://www.dezeen.com/2007/06/29/the-james-simon-gallery-by-david-chipperfield-architects/ (29/01/2015). 32

5.0.- MAIN THEMES THAT EMERGE ON EXTENSIONS.

Reflecting back at these case studies, we can see that despite each project being unique, there are some common themes that emerge. This goes to show that when dealing with extension projects there are some principles that most architects follow.

As a general rule, extensions should try to take into consideration both the historic building including the wider context they belong to and their programmatic needs. The architect is asked to design according to these parameters, as they define scale, form and materials. They also define whether the extension should be bold (ROM, MAXXI Museum, Figure 61: Daniel Libeskind’s extension proposal for Victoria and Albert Museum (2004). Stedelijk Museum) or more subtle (James Simon Gallery, Tate Modern, Neues Museum). In both cases, the extension should not overshadow the existing building; architects need to respect historic compositions, because of their value. In examples such as Liebeskind’s Victoria and Albert Museum extension, and Chieperfield’s initial design for James Simon

Gallery, the architect’s bold design initiated a negative public reaction, which resulted in the prevention of proposal’s realization (Figures 55 & 61)50. We also saw that ROM, MAXXI Museum and Stedelijk Museum, despite being too bold and dominant over the existing building, had positive impact on both the historic buildings and the cities. This shows that how architects interfere on historic structures really depend on the needs of both the existing building, as well as the immediate and wider context.

50 http://www.thegua/rdian.com/society/2004/sep/18/urbandesign.arts (Accessed on 10/02/2015).

33

There are also occasions where, due to the perfection of the existing building, architects could not intervene directly on it by adding an extension which touches it. An example of this is Renzo Piano’s extension to the Kimbell Museum (Figure

62), where even though Piano’s design followed the existing building in terms of form and scale, a gap space between the two was required, in order to not disturb the existing building.51

As a general rule, there must be a relation between the existing and the new design in every extension project, whether Figure 62: Kimbell Art Museum extension (2013, Piano’s extension is the one on the bottom and this is obvious (Neues Museum, Tate Modern, James Simon Gallery) or symbolic (MAXXI Museum, ROM, Stedelijk the one on the top is the existing building).

Museum). In any case, imitation of an existing building would not be considered as the right approach. Each period has its own architectural style, and the chronological difference between the two designs should be easily identified. As

Scarpa says: “Buildings that imitate look like humbugs and that’s just what they are”52.

51 http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/2010/100528piano_kimbell.asp (Accessed on 12/02/2015). 52 Bollack, Old buildings, New Forms, 15. 34

6.0. The Importance of Historic Buildings and their Conservation.

As we already discovered through the examination of case studies, a lot of consideration is required when dealing with historic buildings. Historic structures are defined by developed relationship between the latter and their context over time, making them part of the community’s collective memory. This comes as a result of a series of interactions between the building and these three elements: users, society and the environment. Buildings tend to outline humans and the fluid state of our societies and provide us with historical evidence and memories. By investigating historic compositions, one can study, the past of these buildings and of their settings, as well as the architectural, cultural and political values of their time. All these characteristics constitute historic buildings as carriers of national identity and a significant part of the historic heritage of their context. 53 These monuments are deeply local elements which contain the true character of the community that highlight cultural diversity in the context of a globalized time, making their preservation a matter of vital importance54.

Conservation has been one of the greatest issues when dealing with historic buildings. Since approximately the mid- twentieth century, people started taking systematic action to secure their roots and to retain their cultural identity. This

53 Feilden, Conservation of historic buildings, 1-2. 54 Orbasli, Architectural conservation, 209. 35 led to the composition of treaties for the preservation of historic sites, such as “The Venice Charter: International

Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (1964)”55.

“‘Saving’ old buildings is no longer enough. The aim is not preservation but transformation, an architectural, rather than a sentimental or historical approach to creating new form out of old fabric”56

As Keneth Powell says, in the 21st century, conservation is no longer enough. That is why recently extensions have become a common and rather successful way of dealing with historic buildings. The main purpose of revitalizing old buildings is to keep them “alive”, adapt them to the climatic changes57, give them new use and give them back to the greater community so they can continue their contribution.58 As seen earlier, all the extensions we investigated had a common purpose. A contemporary extension, bold or not, added to historic buildings in an attempt to connect the past and the present. For example, MAXXI, in Rome, was designed in such way to address the city’s lack of contemporary architecture. The contemporary extension to the old barrack would become the starting point for the emersion of contemporary architecture in Rome. Apart from adapting the city to the worldwide “mainstream”, MAXXI also became an international landmark.

55 http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter12.html (Accessed on 20/02/2015). 56 Powell, Architecture reborn, 10. 57 Orbasli, Architectural conservation, 209. 58 Marotta, Contemporary museums, 153. 36

Public attraction is another common motive for revitalizing- extending historic buildings. Landmarks result in economic growth both for the immediate and wider context. It also assists the dissemination of the architectural heritage and cultural values of a given location. In addition, re-using existing buildings has financial and environmental advantages, as less energy and mater are required to achieve the same result.59

Revitalizing and extending historic buildings in the 21st century can be approached in different ways, as we saw earlier. It is then up to the architect to consider the possible deterioration to a historic composite in his effort to fulfil the needs of both the existing building and the area it belong to.

59 Orbasli, Architectural conservation, 3-4. 37

7.0. Conclusion.

Historic buildings constitute an important part of modern cities, making their conservation one of the most significant tasks within the responsibilities of an architect. In our day and time, the mere conservation of historic buildings is not enough; people are amused by iconic buildings, and that is why extensions have become a “trend” of preservation techniques of historic buildings.

In this essay we investigated extensions by examining cases studies of three different types of extensions. The Royal

Ontario Museum, Stedelijk Museum and MAXXI museum are examples of free-standing extensions that contrast their historic building. Despite ROM and Stedelijk being invasive interventions, and overshadowing the historic building, they satisfy the needs of both the existing composite and the city they belong to. They achieve this by becoming landmarks and transforming them into public attractions. In the case of MAXXI, Hadid’s bold design introduced contemporary architecture to an architecturally classical capital city as asked of her. In contrast to the previous examples, David

Chipperfield’s intervention, James Simon Gallery and Neues Museum; follow the form of the existing building and the museum complex they are located. By re-interpreting elements found on the Museum Island, he designed two extensions that adapt well to their context while at the same time add a contemporary touch. This allows the Museum

Island to follow the modern revitalization that has been taking place in Berlin the last decades. Finally, Herzog and de

Meuron’s extensions on the Tate Modern illustrate two different approaches, dependent on the museum’s current (at

38 the time of the design needs). In both interventions, the architects respected the existing building and at the same time both followed and contrasted with it. The resulting landmark had a direct impact on London’s economy.

Through these case studies we understand the great significance of preserving historic buildings, due to their values, historic importance and their role as carriers of national identity and culture. On the other hand, conservation is no longer enough, these buildings need to be revitalized, so that they can acquire a new life; and extensions have proven to be a successful way to achieve this. Naturally, the way in which the architect decides to intervene and extend a historic building varies, depending on the needs of the building and its location. Although doing designing boldly and overshadowing the existing building, is generally perceived as the wrong way of intervening with historic structures, we saw cases in which such gestures can have a positive impact. Every extension project should be treated individually as there is no definite right or wrong when it comes to extending historic compositions. The historic building becomes a mould of the extension, shaping the “icing on the cake”!

39

8.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Antonello Marotta, (Contemporary museums. Milan: Skira, 2010). 2. Aylin Orbasli, Architectural conservation (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 2008). 3. Bernard Feilden, Conservation of historic buildings (London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982). 4. David Nys, Form matters (Köln: König, 2009). 5. Dirk Meyhöfer, Made in Germany (Berlin: Braun, 2008). 6. Françoise Astorg. Bollack, Old buildings, new forms (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2013). 7. Fred Scott, On altering architecture (London: Routledge, 2008). 8. Georg Giebeler, Refurbishment manual (London: Springer, 2009). 9. Gerhard Mack, Herzog & de Meuron, 1992-1996 (Basel: Birkhäuse, 2004). 10. Gianluca Racana and Manon Janssens, Maxxi (New York: Skira, 2010). 11. Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008). 12. Ken Powell, Architecture reborn (London: Laurence King, 1999). 13. Ken Powell, New London architecture revised and expanded edition (London: Merrell, 2005). 14. Michael Forsyth, Understanding historic building conservation (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2007). 15. Miles Glendinning, Architecture’s Evil Empire? (London: Reaktio, 2010). 16. Miles Glendinning, The conservation movement a history of architectural preservation: antiquity to modernity (London: Routledge, 2013). 17. Mimi Zeiger, New museum architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 2005). 18. Raul A. Barreneche, New museums (London: Phaidon Press, 2005). 19. Suzanne Greub and Thierry Greub, Museums in the 21st century (Munich: Prestel, 2006). 20. William J. R. Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900 (London: Phaidon, 1996). 21. Yukio Futagawa, Contemporary Architecture Museum 2 (Tokyo: ADA Edita, 2008).

40

JOURNALS

1. Wouter Davidts, “Nostalgia and Pragmatism: Architecture And the new Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam*,” Architectural Theory Review 13 (2008):97-111, accessed January 15, 2015, doi: 10.1080/13264820801918314.

ARTICLES

1. Catherine Slessor, “139 MAXXI,” The architectural Review, 1361, July, 2010, 44-50. 2. Hannes Mayer, “Tate Modern, London (Herzog & de Meuron), Architese, 2013, 66-69. 3. Michael Webb, “Dragging Rome into the 21st century: MAXXI and macro showcase of contemporary art in a city that prefers to look to the past”, The Plan, 2010, 30-45. 4. Michael Webb, “MAXXI,” THE PLAN- 040 Architecture in Italy, March, 2010, 33-37. 5. “RIBA Worldwide Awards 2004,” Architectural Review, 2004, 36-37. 6. Penny Lewis, “Best British buildings of the 21st century”, Blueprint, 2011, 56-57. 7. Witold Rybczynski and Thomas de Monchaux, “Kimbell Art Museum; Architects for extension: Renzo Piano Building Workshop”, Architect (Washington, DC), January, 2014, 118-135.

WEBSITES

1. Herzog & de Meuron, “126 TATE MODERN,” Herzog & de Meuron, http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/126-150/126-tate-modern.html (Accessed on 06/01/2015). 2. Herzog & de Meuron, “263 THE TATE MODERN PROJECT,” Herzog & de Meuron, http://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/251-275/263-the-tate-modern-project.html (Accessed on 10/01/2015). 3. ArchDaily, “Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam/ Benthme Crouwel Architects,” Archdaily, http://www.archdaily.com/350843/stedelijk-museum-amsterdam-benthem-crouwel-architects/ (Accessed on 22/11/2014). 4. Christopher Hume, “How the Royal Ontario Museum Represents 100 Years of Architecture,”Thestar.com, http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/how_the_royal_ontario_museum_represents_100_years_o f_architecture.html (Accessed on 12/12/2014). 41

5. Chantelle Lue, “James Simon Gallery by David Chipperfield,” Dezeen, http://www.dezeen.com/2007/06/29/the- james-simon-gallery-by-david-chipperfield-architects/ (29/01/2015). 6. Christopg Richter, “Reconstruction of Berlin’s Neues Museum vexes traditionalists,” DW, http://www.dw.de/reconstruction-of-berlins-neues-museum-vexes-traditionalists/a-4796877 (Accessed on 13/12/2014). 7. David Chipperfield, “James Simon Gallery”, David Chipperfield, http://www.davidchipperfield.co.uk/downloads/projects/19/jamessimongallery_dca.pdf (Accessed on 29/01/2015). 8. David Dillon, “Piano Conceives a Respectful Addition to Kahn’s Kimbell Masterpiece,” Architectural Record, http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/2010/100528piano_kimbell.asp (Accessed on 12/02/2015). 9. Felix Mara, “Maxxi by Zaha Hadid Architects,” Architects Journal, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/stirling-prize-2010/maxxi-by-zaha-hadid-architects/8606437.article (Accessed on 03/11/2014). 10. I. Lomholt, “Royal Ontario Museum: Toronto Architecture,” e-architect, http://www.e- architect.co.uk/toronto/royal-ontario-museum (Accessed on 13/10/2014). 11. Jonathan Glancey, “V&A design wing nosedives in a downward Spiral,” The Guardian, http://www.thegua/rdian.com/society/2004/sep/18/urbandesign.arts (Accessed on 10/02/2015). 12. Marcus Fairs, “Daniel Libeskind at Royal Ontario Museum,” Dezeen, http://www.dezeen.com/2007/05/14/daniel- libeskind-at-royal-ontario-musem/ (Accessed on 13/10/2014). 13. Michael Kimmelman, “Why Is This Museum Shapep Like a Tub?,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/arts/design/amsterdams-new-stedelijk-museum.html?_r=2& (Accessed on 22/11/2014). 14. Tate “Design,” TATE, http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projects/tate-modern-project/design (Accessed on 17/01/2015). 15. Tate “Vision,” TATE, http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projects/tate-modern-project/vision (Accessed on 06/01/2015). 16. The Getty Conservation Institute, “Cultural Heritage Policy Documents,” The Getty Conservation Institute, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter12.html (Accessed on 20/02/2015). 42

FILMS

1. 12 X NOBEL: David Chipperfield Architects. 2013. Video. YouTube: Stockholm Association of Architects. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPNbzBC-3lQ) (Accessed on 13/12/2015). 2. Amsterdam's Stedelijk Museum Tour | Travel + Leisure. 2013. Video. YouTube: Travel + Leisure. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TJjO73FVFA) (Accessed on 22/11/2015). 3. Architectural Evolution of the ROM over 100 years. 2014. Video. TheStar.com: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/how_the_royal_ontario_museum_represents_100_years_o f_architecture.html (Accessed on 15/10/2014). 4. Teijin Uses Twaron for New Annex Of The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. 2012. Video. YouTube: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk4msg2Uj1Y) (Accessed on 22/11/2015). 5. Zaha Hadid, MAXXI National Museum Of XXI Century Arts, Rome. 2014. Video. YouTube: Smarthistory, Art History at Khan Academy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv3feYibIUk) (Accessed on 05/11/2014).

43

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1: https://emilycarrrecruit.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ocadu_sharpcentre_dayview.jpg (Accessed on: 15/10/2014).

Figure 2: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 29.

Figure 3: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 29.

Figure 4: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 144.

Figure 5: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 145.

Figure 6: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 146.

Figure 7: Kelvin Browne, Bold visions (Toronto: ROM, 2008), 147.

Figure 8: Sketch by the Author.

Figure 9: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZRMZgupGOg4/TaEXV0ZSauI/AAAAAAAAAEE/RuknFfrSwhI/s1600/150.jpg (Accessed on 02/11/2014).

Figure 10: http://cdn.archinect.net/images/1200x/7q/7q7em8npepgm2jtj.jpg (Accessed on 20/10/2014).

Figure 11: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/- Gs_5sEQQcr8/UaVeInScYGI/AAAAAAAABk4/WP6mKYjLnwc/s320/Royal_Ontario_museum_interior_Studio_Daniel_Libeskind_worldofarchi_09.jpg (Accessed on 20/10/2014).

Figure 12: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1339/861587456_c46f0ddb70.jpg (Accessed on 21/10/2014).

Figure 13: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/View_of_Bloor_Street_reflected_in_Royal_Ontario_Museum.jpg (Accessed on 01/11/2014).

Figure 14: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qmgTKYbnhpw/UG4phrbhYuI/AAAAAAAACbs/Enru3VwYgkk/s1600/ROMReflection.jpg (Accessed on 02/11/2014).

Figure 15: http://images.guggenheim-bilbao.es/src/uploads/2012/05/ennocturnaluna1.jpeg (Accessed on 03/11/2014).

44

Figure 16: Author’s own.

Figure 17: Gianluca Racana and Manon Janssens, Maxxi (New York: Skira, 2010), 62.

Figure 18: Gianluca Racana and Manon Janssens, Maxxi (New York: Skira, 2010), 62.

Figure 19: http://traditional-building.com/Steve_Semes/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Semes-26-Fig-1-MAXXI-from-street.jpg (Accessed on 15/11/2014).

Figure 20: Author’s own.

Figure 21: http://kolokyum.com/files/gallerythumbnails/45479a006154f938da657d0d26fedf73.jpg (Accessed on 16/11/2014).

Figure 22: http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/art-zaha-hadid167.jpg (Accessed on 16/11/2014).

Figure 23: Sketch by the Author.

Figure 24: http://www.mnque.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Stedelijk_Museum.jpg (Accessed on 10/01/2015).

Figure 25: http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/515274b8b3fc4b1872000049_stedelijk-museum-amsterdam- benthem-crouwel-architects_jhml1211-3444-1000x666.jpg (Accessed on 10/01/2015).

Figure 26: Sketch by the Author.

Figure 27: http://www.domusweb.it/content/dam/domusweb/en/architecture/2012/10/22/the-stedelijk-is- back/big_397306_2773_05_Stedelijk%20Museum%20new%20entrance%20hall.%20Photo%20John%20Lewis%20Marshall_original.jpg (Accessed on 12/01/2015).

Figure 28: http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/51527438b3fc4bd06600004f_stedelijk-museum-amsterdam- benthem-crouwel-architects_jhml1209-0259-1000x666.jpg (Accessed on 13/01/2015).

Figure 29: http://www.stedelijk.nl/upload/nieuws/pers/persbeeld/gebouw/2.%20Stedelijk%20Museum%20facade%20as%20seen%20from%20the%20Van%20Gogh%20Muse um.%20Photo%20John%20Lewis%20Marshall._original.jpg (Accessed on 12/01/2015).

Figure 30: http://www.azuremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-revamped-Stedelijk-Museum-makes-a-splash-02.jpg (Accessed on 13/01/2015).

45

Figure 31: http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/lauren/stedelijk/stedelijk39.jpg (Accessed on 14/01/2015).

Figure 32: http://www.christiankerber.de/images/architecture/05/download/architecture_5_13.jpg (Accessed on 22/01/2015).

Figure 33: http://www.rickmather.com/project/category/ashmolean_museum (Accessed on 20/02/2015).

Figure 34: http://www.germanicmythology.com/works/IMAGES7/neues_museum_berlin-old1.jpg (Accessed on 10/02/2015).

Figure 35: Françoise Astorg. Bollack, Old buildings, new forms (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2013), 212.

Figure 36: Françoise Astorg. Bollack, Old buildings, new forms (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2013), 214.

Figure 37: https://memphistours.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/neuesmuseum1j1.jpg (Accessed on 10/02/2015).

Figure 38: Françoise Astorg. Bollack, Old buildings, new forms (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2013), 215.

Figure 39: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Berlin_Neues_Museum_001.JPG (Accessed on 10/02/2015).

Figure 40: Françoise Astorg. Bollack, Old buildings, new forms (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2013), 215.

Figure 41: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/berlin/neues_museum_dca180608.jpg (Accessed on 12/02/2015).

Figure 42: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/berlin/neues_museum_dca090309_uz_3.jpg Accessed on 10/02/2015).

Figure 43: Author’s sketch.

Figure 44: Author’s own.

Figure 45: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Bankside_Power_Station.jpg (Accessed on 30/01/2015).

Figure 46: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Tate_Modern_et_Millennium_Bridge.jpg (Accessed on 30/01/2015).

Figure 47: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/21/26561421_d4f87664b8.jpg (Accessed on 01/02/2015).

Figure 48: http://www.neobankside.com/img/neighbourhood/Neighbourhood_01.jpg (Accessed on 01/02/2015).

46

Figure 49: Author’s sketch.

Figure 50: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/636xAny/8/3/6/1208836_British_Museum_Closer_view.jpg (Accessed on 10/02/2015).

Figure 51: Sketch by the Author.

Figure 52: http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TATE-modern-extension-by-herzog-de-meuron-moves-ahead-designboom-02.jpg (Accessed on 03/02/2015).

Figure 53: http://images.tate.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/grid-normal-8-cols/public/images/image/tate-modern-project-concept-view-new-building-tate- modern-south.jpg?itok=H5sAQKmu (Accessed on 03/02/2015).

Figure 54: http://images.tate.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/grid-normal-8-cols/public/images/image/tate-modern-project-detail-concept-view-brickwork-on- new-building.jpg?itok=YxGhZc_h (Accessed on 04/02/2015).

Figure 55: http://www.elcroquis.es/media/public/img/Reediciones/Chipperfield/24_NEW_ENTRANCE_big.jpg (Accessed on 03/12/2014).

Figure 56: Author’s sketch.

Figure 57: http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/25261/james_simon_3.jpg (Accessed on 03/12/2014).

Figure 58: http://www.berlinandout.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/start_tsr_jsg.jpg (Accessed on 04/12/2014).

Figure 59: http://www.davidchipperfield.co.uk/img/projects/315/b/444_08_d_ia_design2_v2_n2.jpg (Accessed on 04/12/2014).

Figure 60: http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2007/06/unknown.jpg (Accessed on 04/12/2014).

Figure 61: http://www.thecityreview.com/spiral.jpg (Accessed on 18/02/2015).

Figure 62: http://indiaartndesign.com/IAnD_images/content2014/Jan/Kimbell/Kimbell_Art_Museum_by-Renzo_Piano_Indiaartndesign.jpg (Accessed on 15/02/2015).

47

The Icing on the Cake: Large-Scale Museum Extensions to Historic Buildings

Ioannis Mexis

Canterbury, March 2015 48