sign in sign up
<<
Home , De Young Museum

De Young

Site : Park, Architects : Herzog & de Meuron, Fong & Chan, Walter Hood

HTS Final Exercise - Building Analysis Lim Song Jie, Lee Yoo Jin, Clara Gradinariu History : 1989 - Loma Prieta Earthquake damaged existing museum. 1993 - Seismic Assessment Problems with the building, 1988 + 1995: - a. seismically unsound. b. cramp interior spaces – no ability to expand the collection. c. poorly connected – poor circulation. d. minimally modernized with respect to fire and environmental codes. e. 80% of the complex lacked heating, cooling, or humidity control. 1994 - Exterior skeleton of steel I-beams attached to the perimeter of the museum. 1995 - Complete demolition of the old building. Considering underground parking lot. Proposition B. Lost 1997 - No longer receive federal indemnification for traveling art exhibits. Considering moving museum downtown. Poll shows 80% residents preferred that the museum stayed in the park. No move. 1998 - Proposition J failed. Museum trapped in limbo. Museum trustees forgo another ballot for bond issue and went for private funding. Raised $165 million for the new museum. 1999 - Competition. Selected Herzog & de Meuron for the museum, Walter Hood for the landscape, Fong & Chan for managing the cost, functional aspects, code specification of the design. 2002 - San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave their approval for the project. Construction of the new de Young began. 2005 - Completion.

16 years of planning (1989 – 2005). The planning process is constantly interrupted and stalled with disapprovals and lawsuits from specific groups of the public (environmentalists, special interest sport advocates – cyclists, skateboarders, roller skaters – and residents from surrounding neighbourhoods, such as the Inner Sunset and the Haight-Ashbury) (specifics - San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Coalition to Keep the de Young in the Park, Proposition A Cam- paigners, Scott Johnson, Ken Alexander, Philip Carleton, People for a New de Young Museum)

Supporters of the Herzog and de Meuron building ended to be experts, museum curators, architects, artists and academics. Opponents tended to be non-specialists devoting their free time to a cause in which they fervently believed. Intention and Ideology : Jacques Herzog on Architectural Aspect Accommodate the nostalgic features of the old de Young (pool, tower and court). Creating a new museum that is defined by function rather than form. Program based design to break through the rigid frameworks that usually contain art . Enhanced flexibility and suitability of various gallery types Better circulation and experience – people moving through the spaces and experience landscape and art. Better Network with Topographical Fix Points and Social Platforms – interaction / more diverse audience Blur of Inside and Outside Oversized wooded frames and vitrines as large windows same as those of the show cases. Garden wedges cutting into the building Large perforated canopy that opens up to the Japanese garden Fresh encounter between artwork and visitor, different possible ways artworks can be perceived and understood Blur the edges of the building volume Doubt rather than certainty Assimilation into the Northern Carolina landscape, its typography, vegetation, weather, light. “We want to make sensual architecture”, “An architecture that can’t be experienced by the intellect alone.” Jacques Herzog

Mostly Africa, Oceania, and the Americas are commonly made of natural materials. Sacred objects in their culture and were never intended to be displayed in a formal indoor area. “These objects belong to nature, we want to emphasize that.” The design derives from the given park. “Tradi- tion and Nature would be the foremost.” Jacques Herzog Walter Hood on Landscape Architectural Aspect

Creating a building that has a presence, both up close and from a distance Exploring the relationship between Landscape and Building Reinforced by exploiting the spatial openness Landscape form passes through the building and connects it to the park Integration among architecture, site, people – “bring the park into the building” Surface expression both on façade and ground (texture and scale) Color panel from the ground surfaces Dune Geography Recapitulating the park’s natural history Idea of grand movement of sand from west to east East and the West Selection of plants that has eastern origin but meets western edge Design Process :

1. MAP, study of the site.

Goals : relating and integrating the new de Young to the immediate context of , to the larger context of the skyline, street grid and regional landmarks.

2. PLAN:

Rectangular. ‘The site is too narrow, bounded by the , John. F. Kennedy Drive and the Japanese Tea Garden. Cost and the restricted site favoured a rectangular structure that is symmetrically aligned with the Music Concourse while balancing the Academy of Sciences. At 29300 square feet it has 2 times the floor area of the old museum but 20% smaller in its footprint. Program. 1. A band of alternating program and park is established. (3 bands of pro- gram, separated by gardens internalized as long, narrow, landscape court- yards that ran in between them) This design was guided by a document they have pre- pared, analyzing the number, type, scale and significance of the objects to be housed. 2. Galleries, public spaces, support spaces… are then assigned to the plan. Thus, developing a conceit of switches and contact points that indicates where the program intersect. The central distribution point where the visitor would cross all of the levels and wings of the building is identified.

Slit. The disposition of public spaces and circulation was informed by the philosophical goal of linking the outdoors and indoors, and the inherent challenge of admitting light into a building of this size. Major corridors where run alongside the glass walls of the interior courtyard. Skylights being introduced as well to admit more natural lighting into the building. Shape, Size. 1. Conventional rectangular spaces are used for the art of Western derivation, such as 21st century and contemporary galleries, which would be classically shaped. High ceilings. 2. Galleries for American art of the 17th century would have lower ceilings, the extra space allowing for skylights. 3. African and Oceanic art relates to nature, as such free form galleries, much like “‘sweeping passageways, with lofty ceilings and walls set at angles, and with generous windows giving onto the courtyards and the park.’ The shape of the display cases are the same with the shape of the windows to encourage confusion of looking inward or outward to the park, looking at the object, or the object looking at you.” Angle. 1. ‘Visitors will walk from the entry court alongside the glass wall of the interior courtyard. The glass is set at an angle. So they see reflections of the spaces they have just left, at the same time they have the actual views ahead toward the galleries and the garden.” 2. Much of the effects are achieved by layering glass, polycarbonate and joining windows and walls at acute and obtuse angles. 3. ELEVATION 1. Position of the tall freeform galleries informed the roofline. 2. The 2 story building was dictated by the height limitations in the park and the desire for overhead daylight in certain galleries. 4. ROOF a. The architects’ first notion was to immerse the objects in nature and creating a set of pavilions surrounded by gardens. The archi- tecture of each pavilion would express the regional origin of the art within. Yet they were worried. Project architect for H&dM Ascan Mergenthal- er, “We worried about how we would represent these regional cultures without the risk of Disney-like architectural clichés. b. So, we bracketed the pavilions under one roof. We came to prefer a prominent all embracing rood, under which these cultures are symbolically united, rather than emphasizing separateness. Pavilions are not created particularly due to the drawbacks on having multiple entrances, base isolating different building for seismic stability. c. The roof as the binding agent between the changing galleries. De Young as one building that integrates all the differences—variety in collections and cultural diversity 1. First, they considered a green roof. But that option was eventually eliminated because they were not comfortable with plac- ing art underneath dirt and water, just like the case of 1969 Oakland Museum, with its leaking roof garden. 2. Experimentation on the roof is carried out. o One model shows the roof scored by thin slices, dividing the building into 3 bands of program. o Another shows the 3 bands of roof undulating independently, further articulating the tripartite division. o In the last one, the roof have coalesced into a single sloping roof, but the open areas above the courtyards have grown larger and more distinct in shape, including a great slice out of the canopy that extends over the west terrace. 5. TOWER a. Tower was necessary to announce the presence of the museum, otherwise hidden in the park, on the SF skyline, making it a land- mark on par with the towers of , the downtown skyscrapers, and Ferry Building. b. Functioning as Education Tower. Education having a prominent place in the new de Young, physically and symbolically. 1. Top of the tower twists away from the rectangular outline of the building, to align itself with the city grid. 2. Tower models are made in wire, foil, acrylic, paper, metal as well as computer generated drawings and representation. 3. Enclosed pressurized exit stairs are moved from the core out to the edge of the tower, thus opening them to the exterior. This maximizes the useable area while still providing significant views out over the city.

6. SCALE 1. The building was scaled down when the initial design came in 20% over budget and over program. 2. Its footprint shrunk from 125000 to 91000 square feet, the length from 520 feet to 420 feet. The tower shortened from 160 feet to 144 feet. 7. MATERIALS 3 years of experimentation with cladding started with glass, cop- per, and redwood sliding, to open copper wire mesh, to em- bossed copper panels, to perforated copper panels and finally, to copper panels that are both dimpled and perforated. 1. Inspired by the use of redwood and copper on the Golden Gate Windmill. Redwood was considered as one of the building materials because it is conversant with the First Bay Region Style (eg. Bernard Maybeck’s Christian Science Church in Berkeley). 2. Poor public acceptance. Redwood being not suf- ficiently sturdy or permanent, not formal enough for civic building, and too tedious as the covering for a building of such immensity. 3. Rejected redwood mainly because of economic rea- sons. The cost of maintaining, resealing and supplying it. They wished to play out a larger definition of the natural that in- volved not only materials but process. “We were looking for materials that ages and one we could allow to age naturally.” - Jacques Herzog. The proposed wood and copper were materials that would soften in colour over time, creating a mottled rather than uniform surface and increasingly approximate the greenish-brown palate of the surroundings. Hence, measuring and expressing the impact and change of the climate (fog, humidity, sun). 4. Favoured copper because of its superiority in pro- tecting the galleries underneath as well as in maintenance and longevity (eg. copper screen in front of the windows of the Oce- anic galleries to protect the sensitive artworks from light damage). 5. The architects considered copper shingles, as in- spired by the windmill. But preferred copper panels in the end.

6. The embossed and perforated pattern derived from pixilated photographs of trees and bushes in Golden Gate Park taken by Herzog and de Meuron.

7. A. Company a family firm specialized in architectural metals, developed the façade. They devised the structural system for attach- ing, supporting, and cleaning the panels. A computerized engineering system enabled the 7200 panels to be individually cut, punched and embossed according to the architect’s directions. “We liked the softness of mesh facing the park, having a façade that moves. Then we realized that it was too risky and it reminded the public of a chain-link fence. If this was the connotation and the public didn’t want it, we didn’t want it either.”- Jacques Herzog Design Method : 1. Hands-on The design is done in what Pierre de Meuron calls ‘the old fashioned way’, with drawings and models (1:50, 1:25) with limited usage of computer aided design software. The design process also involved lots of experimentation of the form. (For the façades, they used plastic panels made to scale, painted metallic and then embossed manually with tools in the studio, everything without the assurance of being able to rely on computer production technologies.)

2. Program Unlike earlier Herzog and de Meuron buildings (Eberswalde Library, Signal Box, Dominus Winery) which started with a box for which the container is the basic structural unit. The space in the box being divided to accommodate program. De Young started with the pro- gram, working its way into the final polygonal form and irregularly angled interiors that encompass the utilities. Jacques Herzog, “Program and volume are one.”

Jan 2002, the design was approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Construction :

“Herzog & de Meuron’s free flowing cultural pavilions connected by linked stairs and hallways make for exciting dynamic spaces.” “They created particularly complex geometries. Our greatest challenge was to translate these geometries into 2d drawings that could be readily understood and built.” “We are also responsible for the American building codes and building a seismically stable museum on sandy soil.” Chiu Lin Tse-Chan

“The building is like a jigsaw puzzle. The interlocking parts can be displaced and disconnected during seismic event, but eventually all the parts come back together in their original static state.” “To create this appearance, we buried the surface of the moat underneath the landscaping. Dur- ing a seismic event, the concrete moat covers will free themselves. Styrofoam panels and landscape materials will ‘pop up’, giving the building the ‘breathing space’ it needs to properly absorb horizontal seismic movements.” Duno Lopes, Project Manager 1. Seismically Stable Building 1. Base isolation as the preferred foundation system for achieving seismic safety. (The foundation is separated from the building. 76 elastomeric bearings and 76 sliders absorb vibrations so they are not transmitted to the structure, allowing the base to move independently, a total horizontal movement of 3 feet in any direction.) 2. The building is surrounded by a moat of 3.5 feet wide at its minimum. 3. This will accommodate the displacement. The same moat separates the 3 story building from the 9 story tower as well as the adja- cent parking lot which are conventional fixed base buildings.

2. Glass Walls. Glass walls result in structural engineers designing multi-story trusses to eliminate the need for columns and provide uninterrupted views. 3. Roof. The roof as the fifth façade meant that no mechanical units will be located there, un- like most conventional buildings. Functional elements such as the gutters, and exhaust ducts are cunningly disguised and incorpo- rated into the design features of the roof. Conclusion : This project is unique compared to other museums because you can see the struggle in the planning process. The project illustrates what hap- pens when as a country become more and more democratic. A public project for a community like this involves constant feedback from the public and alterations. It is a reinvention of the old.

Prospect and Impact: 1. Expansion of the museum’s collection. 2. Broadened public appeal. 3. Great improvements in visitor services (especially for the disabled). 4. Enhanced facilities attracted more art donors and more acquisition of important pieces a. Dorothy and George Saxe Collection of Contemporary Craft in 1994, Marcia and John Friede’s collection of New Guinea art, Friede Jolika’s Collection of Oceanic Art making de Young the biggest collection of New Guinea art in the United States). There is also the addition of the previously neglected art of post WWII. b. Acquisition of major American works (Ed Ruscha, , de Kooning) and c. by international artists (David Smith, Barbara Hepworth, Isamu Noguchi, Claes Oldenburg, Coosje van Bruggen) d. Introduction of state-of-the-art facilities encouraged expansion of the textile collection. e. Large scale installations are incorporated into the museum’s vast open spaces. (Among them are the works of Gerhard Richter, Andy Goldsworthy, James Turrell, Kiki Smith. 5. All of these, enriches the museum’s collection and the visitor’s experience. The museum is better than ever. 6. The material for the façade made de Young the largest copper clad building in the world with 950,000pounds of copper. 7. San Francisco finally has an architectural icon.