The Build Up

By Shawna Hammon

Lecture – “Staying Together: Complementary Architecture”

Real estate for iconic, stand-alone buildings is quickly becoming limited especially in older cities where the fabric is so tightly knit.  So more and more often we are renovating existing buildings by integrating new program into the existing shells of structures that are sometimes landmarks or icons for the cities in which they reside. 

Prentice Women’s Hospital by Bertrand Goldberg in Chicago is one example of this.  A long time battle has been waged over whether or not to tear this gem down to make way for new medical research facilities.  Northwestern University, which owns the building, believes demolition is the most economic solution and seems to be winning the battle.  Preservationists believe Goldberg’s landmark structure should be preserved and built around.  Architects from around the country have spoken up against this demolition, some even proposing alternatives.  Gang Architect’s went to the drawing board when demolition became a serious possibility.  What Jeanne Gang brought back was a floating, scalloped tower that showed opponents that it is possible to preserve this icon while still providing the much needed program.  This debate has demonstrated that preservation and renovation are going to become more common place in the coming generations of architectural development as we strive to protect some of our most distinct icons while making space for our increasingly urban population.

Prentice Women's Hospital & Gang Architects' Proposal

With this debate very much on my mind, I went to Amsterdam during independent travel.  It was here that I noticed a very distinct vernacular among the canal houses – they all possess roughly the same characteristics – narrow, tall facades crowned with a richly ornamented gable top with a hoist beam.  I thought it might be interesting to incorporate Cedric Price’s six strategies for existing buildings – reduction, addition, insertion, connection, demolition, and expansion - in this vernacular.  I wondered how each of these would change the function of the vernacular or enrich it.  These diagrams are the result of this study:

 

Six Strategies applied to Amsterdam Vernacular

Reduction – The canal house no longer relates to the adjacent façade.  Although one could argue that they didn’t share the same cornice lines or datum to begin with, so I’m not sure if much is lost or gained with this move.

Addition – This is a parasitic approach to finding additional program, but because of the compact site this move will change the feel of the street since it overhangs the sidewalk so significantly.

Insertion – This move is similar to reduction, except new program has been inserted into the vernacular.  In this case, a portico on the piano nobile was been added to engage privately with the street-scape.

Connection – This move attempts to maintain the façade, but allows for expansion between buildings or a simple connection for families that may own multiple houses on a block.

Demolition – The façade is completely change and is no longer a part of Amsterdam’s vernacular.  The major characteristics that identified it as part of this vernacular are completely lost; this move detracts from the neighborhood.  Preservation of these key characteristics is paramount for this vernacular.

Expansion – This is the reality we are facing as our population continues to grow and become more urban, our only choice is to grown upward while still respecting the historic fabric of our surroundings.  This move is reminiscent of Jeanne Gang’s proposal for the new medical research facility, a move I expect we will start to see more often as we preserve our past.

Cedric Price - Six Strategies

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/arts/design/adapting-prentice-womens-hospital-for-new-use-in-chicago.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.architecture.org/reconsidering-an-icon-solicited-entries

Critical Arguments: S.R. Crown Hall & the Neue Nationalgalerie

 Alessandro Giulio


INTRODUCTION

The work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe stands today as exceptional examples of modernity, construction, materiality and attention to detail. By 1940, Mies’s immigration to the United States had established his name as a globally prominent figure in architecture. He found himself director of the College of Architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology and by 1950, S.R. Crown Hall had begun to break ground. A decade of directorship at IIT passes before Mies returns to Germany in 1962 to build one last project in Berlin, the New National Gallery. This writing will reveal the similarities and developed variances between two of Mies’s proclaimed masterpieces.

SITUATION & CONTEXT
Arrival and procession was a strong characteristic of Mies’s work. He strongly took into account the perspective and experience of users when approaching his work. Both of the projects reside within a campus of buildings. While Crown Hall is situated within an educational campus of Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, the New National Gallery situates itself within a campus of cultural and public buildings comprising the Kulturforum of West Berlin. The processional experience for the New National Gallery is far more rewarding than that of Crown Hall. Determined by the density of the university campus, Crown Hall’s experiential approach is limited to a proportioned “floating” south porch that greets the user before entering the building. As for the New National Gallery, the building sits firmly onto an expansive base with an outdoor porch surrounding its perimeter.

PROGRAM
Although the underlying functions for each project are rather different, both projects were designed to transform for multiple programs and uses. During the academic year, Crown Hall houses the design studio classes throughout the ground level. The model shop, library and administrative offices are tucked below grade. For the summer months, Crown Hall’s ground level transforms into a large open gallery for exhibition of student work, visiting artists and design professionals. The New National Gallery, on the other hand, reconfigures its exhibitions more often, continuously adapting to exhibit needs and circulation across the ground floor. Like Crown Hall, the New National Gallery houses dense program below grade in order to liberate the ground level exhibition space.

STRUCTURE
The design of the structure system was equally important for both projects in order to execute the impression column-free ground levels for each of the buildings. The only walls that meet the ceiling, in both buildings, are chasewalls used for HVAC systems and rainwater retention collected on the roof. Both of the projects use reinforced concrete retaining walls for the lower levels and purely steel structures inset by expansive glass for the ground levels. Crown Hall, having been designed as a rectangular form, utilizes a one-way steel framing system featuring four deep girders that stretch along the short dimension. Essentially, the entire ceiling is suspended by the four steel composite girders. As for the New National Gallery, having been designed as a square form, utilizes a two-way steel framing system featuring a steel plate structural grid. The entire roof structure is supported by two columns on each of the four sides along the buildings perimeter. Unlike the finishings found in Crown Hall, the New National Gallery’s ceiling is exposed to reveal the impressive depth of the steel plate structural grid.



BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Blaser, Werner. Mies van der Rohe: Continuing the Chicago School of Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 1981.

Hildebrand, Sonja, Christoph Hardebusch, Michael Staffa, and Renate Pauli. Mies van der Rohe's New National Gallery in Berlin. Berlin: Vice Versa Verlag, 1995.