Architecture or Sculpture? Case Study of the Roof and Skylight Replacement on the Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY Dennis C. Spina, AIA Bell & Spina, P.C. Architects ­ Planners Syracuse, New York Roof Consultants Institute Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Baskaran and Ko ­ 139 ABSTRACT The Everson Museum of Art was designed by I.M. Pei in 1965 and occupied in 1968. When it opened it was (and still is) considered a work of art in itself. It is perceived as a piece of sculpture placed on a podium that one walks around. Indeed, one of the comments often heard is that it’s difficult to find the entrance – almost forcing visitors to walk around it to experience the structure. ( Architectural Forum ­ June 1969.) By 2002, the museum had a long history of water infiltration. Bell & Spina was retained to design the replacement of the roofing and skylight systems. What we thought would be a rather straightforward project turned into a two­ year study to “do the right thing” for this landmark building, the museum, and its collection. This is a case study of the technical exploration to solve a number of waterproofing issues, along with the aesthetic concerns that pre­ sented themselves. It is also a study of the process and the discussions of the various strongly­held points of view, and of the compromises made to solve both aesthetics and waterproofing issues. SPEAKER DENNIS SPINA is principal in charge of the project and senior roof consultant for Bell & Spina. He has spent a year with the building committee exploring options and facilitating the discussion on what the right thing is for the museum, its collection, its mission and the long­term integrity of the building's structure and the desire to retain the original design esthetic. Spina ­ 140 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Architecture or Sculpture? Case Study of the Roof and Skylight Replacement on the Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY INTRODUCTION The Everson Museum of Art was designed by I.M. Pei in 1965 and occupied in 1968. When it opened it was (and still is) consid­ ered a work of art in itself. It is perceived as a piece of sculpture placed on a podium that one walks around. Indeed, one of the comments often heard is that it is difficult to find the entrance – almost forcing visitors to walk around it to experience the struc­ ture. (Architectural Forum – June 1969.) By 2002, the museum had a long history of water infiltration. Bell & Spina was retained to de­ sign the replacement of the roof­ ing and skylight systems. What we thought would be a rather straightforward project turned into a two­year study to “do the right thing” for this landmark building, the museum, and its collection. This is a case study of the technical exploration to solve a number of waterproofing issues, along with the aesthetic concerns that presented themselves. It is also a study of the process and the discussions of the various strongly­held points of view, and of the compromises made to solve Photos by Ezra Stoller. both aesthetics and waterproofing issues. SETTING THE STAGE the administration wing. Each The skylights are divided by presented a different design chal­ mullions at 40 inches on center. Existing Conditions lenge. This skylight mullion grid match­ es the building's structural grid, There are ten separate roof The existing roof membrane which is designed on a ten­foot areas, four galleries, a central was a fully adhered EPDM, which module subdivided into 40­inch sculpture court, an administra­ was installed over tapered insula­ increments. tive wing, the auditorium, sepa­ tion on top of the original coal tar, rate stair tower, and two canopies. built­up membrane, which was All of the building's HVAC air There are five skylights – two at installed directly to a reinforced intakes and exhausts are at roof the sculpture court and three on concrete structural deck. level. Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Spina ­ 141 The Building Committee The museum had established a building committee of 14 people. Like a typical committee, the make­up consisted of representa­ tives from the museum, the muse­ um's board, and the community. It included the museum's direc­ tor, finance and facilities staff, six architects, two engineers, a con­ tractor, a developer, and the chairman: • Mark Robbins, dean of the School of Architecture at Syracuse University • Toby Nadel, AIA, a roof consultant • Manny Barbas, AIA, The In the initial meeting, October Existing configurations and deputy commissioner of 30, 2002, the building committee details of the skylights match the facilities for Onondaga directed that we make the build­ shop drawings. County ing watertight while respecting the original design intent. We also Design Conditions • Cal Bowne, AIA, principal consciously imposed constraints of the firm that was the Weather conditions in upstate upon ourselves not to impact the associated architect dur­ New York can be extreme. It original design. ing the original construc­ snows a lot. Last year (season), Syracuse received 181 inches of tion. Design Intent snow, which was not a record. It • David Nutting, AIA, princi­ The first thing we did was to is also cold, with a low design pal of VIP Structures, a review the existing conditions and temperature of minus 10 degrees large design/build firm. original construction documents. F in winter; and for the summer, The integration of the mechanical 90 degrees F, for a delta T of 100 • Bob Haley, AIA, Ashley­ systems with the structure is degrees. The freeze/thaw cycles McGraw Architects impressive, and the systems are are many over the course of a sin­ • Ravi Raman, PE, an elec­ well hidden. The detailing on the gle season. The American Associ­ trical engineer and princi­ skylights is also unique. To keep ation of Museums' recommenda­ pal of Ram Tech Engi­ the pure geometric form of the tion for interior climate conditions neers, a large engineering design, the skylights have mini­ is 75 degrees F and 50% relative firm. mal slope. For example, skylights humidity. These interior condi­ over the sculpture court are tions are set to protect paintings • Edgar Galson PE, a mech­ detailed at a slope of 1/2 inch and are a requirement in order to anical engineer and the re­ over a distance of 6'­8", or about receive some traveling exhibits. tired principal of Galson 1/16" per foot. Detailing on the Engineers, a large engi­ original contract documents indi­ PROCESS neering firm. cate no mullions were intended. Our analysis of existing condi­ • Jim Taylor, president of The triangular skylights in the tions found challenges that J.D. Taylor Construction administration wing (skylight #3) revolved around the lack of height Co. are the only skylights without to adequately flash and counter mullions and appear to closely flash the roof membrane and the • Gary Pickard, president of conform to the contract docu­ skylights. The single glazed sky­ a development company ments. With the skylights having lights had the potential for con­ such minimal slope, the caps • Ed Kochain, chairman of densation. All of the galleries and block the flow of water. The sky­ the committee and also the sculpture court lacked over­ light glass would have to be the deputy county execu­ flow protection. It was obvious cleaned five to six times a year, as tive of Onondaga County. that the key design element was dirt and algae would accumulate. Spina ­ 142 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Point load glazing examples. the skylights. Solve those issues found that the heat transfer CONSTRAINTS LIFTED and the rest should fall into place. through the concrete mass would Our office expressed confi­ keep the frame system from con­ We started to brainstorm dence in the design while sharing densating. We also found numer­ ideas to provide the original the concerns of the committee. We ous thermal shorts at the galleries design intent ­ i.e., a transparent, also stated that given the con­ that were outside our project weather­tight separation between straints it was a viable solution. scope to correct as it would re­ galleries. Our research lead us to The committee then decided to quire renovating the interior. Our contacting several glass manufac­ give us latitude to solve the design $1.2 million budget was approved turers. We settled on a point load problem without any constraints. and we proceeded to design devel­ glazing system for the following opment. Back to the drawing board. We reasons: came up with two possible solu­ A week after we presented the • Insulated laminated glass tions: design development (DD) report, was able to be provided. there was another meeting at Option 1 • Provided allowance for which the committee voiced its movement. (Glass moves concerns over a system that H a y d e n independent of frame sys­ would be custom designed for the Planetarium in tem.) museum by a firm from outside New York City the country. Their concerns gave us an idea • Proven track record. included that the museum may that on the sur­ • Single point responsibility. have difficulty getting timely response for • Ten­year watertight war­ replacement of broken rantee. glass or repair to any leaks or to problems Schematic design proceeded with the system. The with concept sketches and analy­ primary concern was sis. We applied for and were a great hesitancy to awarded a grant through SATOP, rely on gaskets and the NASA­sponsored “Space Alli­ sealant as a primary ance Technology Outreach Pro­ watertight compo­ gram,” to enlist the help of Syra­ nent. cuse University to determine the potential for condensation of the point­loaded frame system and glass under design conditions.