Renzo Piano: A High-Tech Romanticist in Manhattan, Bachelor's Thesis by EFE [Ramirez] by uniformcircle / EFE

Bachelor of Science in Architecture

RENZO PIANO A HIGHâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;TECH ROMANTICIST IN M A N H AT TA N

Ronald Emilio Ramirez-Cueto 819030

Politecnico Di Milano | School of Architecture and Society, Urban Planning, and Construction Engineering

EFE

RENZO PIANO A HIGH-TECH ROMANTICIST IN MANHATTAN Bachelor Thesis 2016/2017 | Kenneth Frampton, Supervisor & Felix Burrichter, Co-Supervisor

ABSTRACT With Italian translation

I. MOVEMENTS 14 16

High-Tech Romanticism II. RENZO PIANO

20 20 21 22 22

Family of Builders Anti-Academicism Taste for Adventure Intuition and Individualism Technique and Art III. PROJECTS

27 37 65 75

Renovation and Expansion of Morgan Library (2000/2006) The New York Times Building (2000/2007) / Discussion with Kathy Ryan The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort (2007/2015) Columbia University Campus Plan (2002/Present) IV. CONCLUSION

To a Mother, from a Son.

82 87

Critical Analysis Limitations of Study

APPENDIX

VISUAL ESSAY In Collaboration with Chandler Kennedy & Rafik Greiss

Abstract Renzo Piano stands as one of today’s most prominent architects in the field, and quite likely, in history. Throughout the decades, his practice has exuded a continuing creativity that transcends the professional origins of the Italian architect. With a remarkable body of work realized – including the near milelong Kansai International Airport Terminal (1988/1994) in Osaka Bay, Japan, the Tjibaou Cultural Center (1991/1998) in New Caledonian or the Pathé Foundation (2006/2014) found floating amidst a historic residential block in Paris – Renzo Piano single-handedly retains a dominance over the practice that is rarely matched. Upon deep examination, and tracing chronologically towards more recent projects, an increasingly warm and humanistic approach has become ingrained in the socalled High-Tech designs of the architect, which prior sought to emphasize late Modernism’s fascination with technology and industrial building. High-Tech, covering the period of the 196070s, was an architectural style that concentrated on the creation of buildings as ‘machines’. Using technology and imagery sourced from technology industries, such as

aerospace and car manufacturing, it manifested structures that implied ideas of mass production through the manipulation of a unique system of components. The HighTech architect meant for his building to be judged under the same criteria of objects, while dismissing artistic values and symbolism. Romanticism on the other hand, centered itself on the exact opposite – the expression of artistic freedom. At the time of its emergence in late 18th century Europe, it counter-reacted the rationale and intellect bias of the Enlightenment movement. Romanticism was to be exemplified mainly through the visual arts, music and literature. It sourced its inspirations from individual intuition and emotions, as well as the sublime beauty of Nature.

city has Renzo Piano, nor virtually any other architect, realized four developments within the same city, at such proximity and each of momentous cultural contribution. Exploiting the informational context of New York, this examination shows how the suspected Romantic spirit of Piano has evolved his initial industrial origins through four buildings, namely the Renovation and Expansion of the Morgan Library (2000/2006), The New York Times Building (2000/2007), The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort (2007/2015), and the Columbia University Campus Plan (2002/Present). This essay is supplemented by a discussion with Kathy Ryan, Director of The New York Times Magazine and occupant of the Times building, as well as the complementing work of photographers Chandler Kennedy and Rafik Greiss.

The analysis provided in the following chapters rounds up Renzo Piano’s early background, from the master builder family in which he was born into to the influences of the mentors of his academic years along with the marked breakthrough of the Centre Pompidou (1978) in partnership with Richard Rogers and structural engineer Peter Rice. This investigation concentrates on Manhattan recognizing the fact that in no other 11

Riassunto Renzo Piano rappresenta uno dei più importanti architetti attuali nonchè storici. Negli anni, il suo lavoro trasudava una continua creatività che transcende le origini professionali dell’ architetto italiano. Con un notevole corpo di lavoro - incluso il Kansai International Airport Terminal(1988/1994) di quasi 1Km in Osaka Bay, Giappone, il Tjibaou Cultural Center (1991/1998) in Nuova Caledonia o il Pathé Foundation (2006/2014) che sembra quasi fluttuare all’interno di uno storico quartiere parigino- Renzo Piano da solo domina il suo lavoro in un modo che può difficilmente essere imitato. Dopo un esame approfondito, considerando i progetti cronologicamente più recenti, un approccio sempre più sentito e umanistico si è radicato nel cosiddetto design High-Tech dell’architetto, che inizialmente ha tentato di enfatizzare il fascino del tardo modernismo con tecnologia ed edifici industriali. High-Tech, durante il periodo 1960-70, era uno stile architettonico caratterizzato dalla creazione di edifici intesi come 'macchine'. Utilizzando la tecnologia e immagini provenienti da settori tecnologici, come quello aerospaziale e di produzione auto, ha manifestato strutture che implicano la produz12

ione di massa attraverso la manipolazione di un sistema unico di componenti. L’ architetto High-Tech voleva che i suoi edifici fossero giudicati tramite lo stesso criterio di un prodotto industriale, respingendo valori artistici e simbologia. D’ altra parte, invece, il Romanticismo si focalizzava sull’esatto opposto - l’espressione della libertà artistica. Al momento della sua comparsa in Europa nel tardo 18th secolo, ha contrastato la logica e il pregiudizio intellettuale del movimento Illuminista. Il Romanticismo veniva semplificato soprattutto attraverso le arti visive, la musica, la letteratura e trae ispirazione da intuizione individuale ed emotiva, cosí come dalla sublime bellezza della natura.

contributo culturale. Sfruttando il contesto informativo di New York, questa analisi mostra come il sospettato spirito romantico di Piano si è evoluto dalle sue origini industriali attraverso i quattro edifici, ovvero rinnovo ed espansione della Morgan Library (2000/2006), New York Times Building (2000/2007), Whitney Museum in Gansevoort (2007/2015), e il Campus della Columbia University (2002/ Present). Questa analisi è completata da una discussione con Kathy Ryan, direttrice del New York Times Magazine nonchè inquilina del edificio Times, cosí come dal lavoro complementare dei fotografi Chandler Kennedy e Rafik Greiss.

I. MOVEMENTS

L’analisi fornita nei seguenti capitoli riassume i primi lavori di Renzo Piano, dalla famiglia di costruttori in cui era nato, alle influenze dei mentori durante i suoi anni accademici, insieme alla svolta del Centre Pompidou (1978) in collaborazione con Richard Rogers e l’ingegnere edile Peter Rice. Questa indagine si concentra su Manhattan, riconoscendo il fatto che Renzo Piano, in nessuna altra città nè nessun altro architetto, ha realizzato quattro costruzioni nella stessa città a tale vicinanza e ciascuno di epocale 13

High-Tech High-Tech emerged as a brief architectural period in the 1960s, incorporating imagery and technologies from the technology industry into building designs. The pseudo-movement dismissed artistic values and symbolism for the purpose of realizing buildings that appeared and operated as ‘machines’.¹ Concepts of mass production, a key element of industrial processes, renewability (interchangeable parts) and omniplatz, (flexibility of space) became defining ideologies for the architecture expounded largely by British architects, namely Norman Foster, Nicholas Grimshaw, Michael Hopkins and Richard Rogers whom would partner with Renzo Piano in 1971.² It was not unusual therefore for buildings to embrace an intricate system of components, seemingly mass-produced.³ Its physical features were characterized by exposed structures and services, the application of synthetic materials such as metal, glass and plastic, as well as functional versatility. Functionality and representations of High-Tech architecture were rarely pure, but their merging was essential for adhering to the strict code of honesty of expression; a functional justification for every design stroke. The former compensates for the incomplete forms of buildings, which demonstrated the architects’ commitment to servicing the changing needs of time. Architects achieved not enclosures of mono-functional spaces, but rather ‘serviced zones’ that could be reshaped and reused to accommodate a variety of programs, hence the gutting of spaces from their technical elements. In applying these principles, buildings would become not singular, expiring artifacts, but “a collection of artifacts of different types and with different life expectancies.” ¹ Today, the brief twenty-year history of High-Tech is told by the HSBC Headquarters (1986) by Norman Foster, Lloyd’s of London (1986) by Richard Rogers as well as the Centre Pomidou (1978) by Renzo Piano in partnership with Richard Rogers and structural engineer Peter Rice⁴ – the three masterpieces most symbolic of the technocrat-age.

1 Davies, Colin. High Tech Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, 1988. 2 Rambert, Francis. “A Method Without Discourse.” French Institute of Architecture, 2015. 3 Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. 4 Banham, Reyner, and John Patridge. “May 1977: ‘Pompidou Cannot Be Perceived as Anything but a Monument.” Architectural Review, 2012.

Romanticism Beginning in Germany in the 1770s and peaking during the period of 1800-1850, Romanticism was an artistic and intellectual movement rooted on emotion and individualism as well as the glorification of the past and nature.¹ Expressed through artistic, literary and musical mediums, it would electrify artistic circles throughout and rise to prominence as a counter-movement to Enlightenment and classical models appealing to the intellect rather than emotions; those prizing wit over imagination. Contrary to their canons, artistic freedom and intuitive expression would become central to the Romanticist movement.² Subjectivity, inspiration and the primacy of the individual’s emotions were of utmost significance as German painter Caspar David Friedrich briefly predicates: “The artist’s feeling is his law.”³ Close connection to nature nurtured the wild emotions that inspired artistic ambition.² From this intimate relationship would emerge the new aesthetic category of the sublime, effecting feelings of apprehension, horror and terror and awe.³ The period also saw rise to the rehabilitation of human values which exalted individualism and the significance of common persons within society. Individuality, or solitary life rather than life in society, encouraged for the sake of adventure and self-exploration, would gain its glorified place herein: “The development of the self became a major theme; self-awareness as a primary method. If, according to Romantic theory, self and nature were One, self-awareness was not a selfish dead end, but a mode of knowledge opening up the universe. If one’s self were one with all humanity, then the individual had a moral duty to reform social inequalities and relieve human suffering. The idea of ‘self’ – which suggested selfishness to earlier generations – was redefined.” ⁴

1 Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. Architecture, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. 4th ed. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Books, 1971. 2 Cuddon, J.A. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Third Ed. London: Penguin Books, 1991. 3 Brians, Paul. Romanticism. Washington State University, 1998. Web. 4 VanSpanckeren, Kathryn. Outline of American Literature. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency, 1994.

II. RENZO PIANO

“I believe that the architect must lead a double life. On one hand is a taste for exploration, for being on the edge, an unwillingness to accept things for what they appear to be: a disobedient, transgressive, even rather insolent approach. On the other is a genuine, and not formal, gratitude to history and nature: the two contexts in which architecture has its roots. Perhaps this double life is the essence of the only humanistic approach that is possible today.” ¹ – Renzo Piano

competition with almost seven hundred participants.” ¹ – Renzo Piano

Family of Builders Renzo Piano’s culture of ‘doing’, as he refers, traces to a legacy bestowed upon him by his family of master builders. From his father, Carlo Piano, grandfather, and down to his late brother, Ermanno, these were all men of the construction trade. Piano derailed from his lineage, despite early affections for the construction sites of his father, when announcing his pursuit of architecture. Anticipating a career choice more in alignment with engineering, Carlo Piano had received the news as “a glitch in evolution.”¹ Piano’s inherited instincts for teknè would serve as the first learned lesson in architecture. He pursued academic training first in Florence and later at the Politecnico di Milano where he graduated in 1964. Of formative significance would be an early assignment handed to Piano by Franco Albini while employed at the architect’s office during his academic years: dismantling a television set prior to the development of a new design model would introduce Renzo Piano to the artisanal approach.² Another name is Marco Zanuso whom Piano offers credit to for establishing his interest in industrial design while serving as his assistant for two years. Presumably Piano’s impassioned sensibilities for materiality emerged during his tenure at the office of Louis Kahn from 1965-1970. The lessons of French constructor Jean Prouvé would come to resonate with early understandings on alternative modes of production as well as cast a longstanding influence on Renzo Piano, particularly on the subject of light, industrial construction. The lives of these two men would later cross again as a result of the Centre Pompidou competition, which Prouvé was a jury member of. In being awarded the commission, the influences of these ‘teachers’ were to be synthesized in the design for the Centre Pompidou that today marks Renzo Piano’s highest degree as a so-called High-Tech architect. Anti-Academicism “The Centre Pompidou, for instance, was to some extent a form of civil disobedience. It represented the refusal to inflict an institutional kind of building on a city already overburdened with memories. But dumping this out-of-scale object, disturbing in its dimension and appearance, in the center of Paris was obviously a deliberate taunt aimed at the most conservative sort of academicism – all this, after winning an international 20

Renzo Piano, b. 1937 in Genoa, Italy

Following in the spirit of Romanticism, Renzo Piano refutes the formalities of academicism as vividly demonstrates the opening quote. What is symbolized by this ‘civil disobedience’ is the intellectual attitude of the architect. Where academic approaches seek refuge in the existent and the already known, adventure defines the core of Piano’s approach. Congruence to formal and conventional rules or traditions, as the architect claims, stagnates creativity and suffocates curiosity. During his academic career, Piano claims to have been a disobedient, yet inquisitive individual – character traits that would translate into his professional career and for decades be the cause of his out-casting from schools, clubs and academies alike. Perhaps this excommunication and the profoundness of his anti-academic stance solidify speculations as to why Renzo Piano has never taught. Yet, a response most suitable for this persistence, or stubbornness, against academicism, is found in Piano’s affirmation of Neruda’s declaration: “When someone is a poet, whatever he or she has to say will be said in poetry. There is no other way to express it. As an architect, I don’t preach morality – I design it and build it, trying to maintain the profound nature of our profession, that of architecture as a service, as a project for the community.” ¹ Taste for Adventure Laying at the center of Renzo Piano’s work is the ‘adventure of the architect’. It is a glazing into the abyss as a form of accepting the challenge provided by each project, and embarking on the exploration that leads to the lack of ‘style’ coherent in the scope of Piano’s work. For Piano, there is no unity of form or monotonous way of composing spaces. “When style is forced to become a trademark, a signature, a personal characteristic, then it also becomes a cage.” ¹ This golden cage that today traps many celebrated architects imposes a hindrance on the architect’s freedom to develop. The common thread that runs through the work of Piano is the’method without discourse’ underlined at the La Méthode Piano exhibition of the French Institute of Architecture in 2015. “No theorizing, but a collective practice, with neither discourse nor protocol. Piano’s method, in search of a constructive truth, takes an approach to the profession that breaks with the idea of the artist’s gesture, the dazzling stroke that carries everything.” ³ Where Romanticism championed the creativity and emotions provoked through the exploration of Nature, Piano’s adventure is that of the mind. In believing we are living in a world where everything has already been [physically] discovered, Renzo Piano champions the emotions brought by the unexplored 21

territories of design, those “which can bring as much anxiety, bewilderment and fear as an expedition to a land of ice and snow.” ¹ Intuition and Individualism The conditions for creating are harmoniously synthesized for Renzo Piano in Punta Nave (Genoa, Italy), where the architect operates from in the UNESCO Workshop and Laboratory.⁴ Preferring isolation, although not purely given the second Renzo Piano Building Workshop office in Paris, the ‘half rock, half ship’ is poised on rocks and surrounded by the sea where “a meeting place for craftsmanship and high technology, daring and patience, persistence and reflection, teamwork and privacy” ¹ is afforded to the Genovese architect.This semi-hermetic decision aligns with the solitary life Romanticists devoted themselves to. It also pairs with the individualism of the architect announced by his morality in architecture “based on being true to your own ideas, to your own commitment, to your own method.” It significantly explains Renzo Piano’s maintained distance from professional politics, remaining humbly unforthcoming and true to his critical ethic of collaboration. The “technical capacity sustained by a modern scientific nature” ⁵ Franco Zagari speaks on in The Piano Effect is mediated by the contrasting nature of intuition central to Romanticism. Once detesting the instinct of the individual for its connotation of the ‘gift of the artist’ or ‘the inspiration of the muse’, intuition is an undeniable factor driving the intelligence of Piano’s architecture in combination with his technique. After all, Zagari concludes, “Technique knows how to integrate the most sophisticated technology with the creative, manual input of the individual.”⁵

and the structure, the setting and the building, the local and the universal,” ¹ which architecture is created from. The reduction of building as mere technique, which Piano has explicitly come to understand, ultimately equates in a loss of expressiveness, social significance and complete contact with life.¹ In his writing, Piano continues, “…this profession walks a knife-edge between technique and art; and it is right on that edge that I think it should stay. As soon as you accept that division you are bound to fall – on one side or another. I like to think of the architect as a person who uses technique to creation emotion, an artistic emotion, to be precise.” ¹

Technique and Art From the outset of his career, and as a natural consequence of his mentors, Piano reflected a technicality in his work that investigated technology, space, and the city while embracing the complexities of architecture.⁶ At the time, this was in alignment with the associated principles of High-Tech where buildings were intended to function as ‘serviced zones’ and were kept far removed from humanistic considerations. However, it is apparent that the architect’s late practice displays an increasing concern for understanding humanism.⁷ His search for a more humanistic approach, whether it is a fruit of intuition, or the observed necessity for servicing humanity, a sober lesson Piano keeps at the forefront of his thinking, is evidenced in his intentions to establish “a contemporary way, not a nostalgic one, for relating to space.” ¹ In this case, the relation to space is referential to placeform and produktform, or the “the conscious differentiation between the topographic site and mode of production,” ² in the words of Kenneth Frampton. It is what Renzo Piano has also acknowledged as, “the tension between the ground 22

1 Piano, Renzo. The Logbook. London: Thames and Hudson , 1997. 2 Frampton, Kenneth. Renzo Piano: The Architect as Homo Faber. Tokyo: GA Architect No14, 1997.  3 Rambert, Francis. “A Method Without Discourse.” French Institute of Architecture, 2015. 4 Piano, Renzo. Renzo Piano Building Workshop 1989-2010. Japan: A+ U, Architecture and Urbanism. 2010. 5 Zagari, Franco, The Piano Effect, as quoted by Kenneth Frampton 6 Pawley, Martin. “Day of High-Tech Piano.” The Guardian, 1989. 7 Co, Francesco dal. Renzo Piano. Milan: Electa. 2014.

III. PROJECTS

RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF MORGAN LIBRARY 225 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY USA 2000/2006

5 3

Typology: Museum Floor area: 15 000 m² Height: 23.8 m

Romanticism having expressed itself through the visual arts, music and literature made the case of the Morgan Library a suiting undertaking for the Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Treasuring today a precious collection of rare Medieval and Renaissance works, the dual-acting museum and library opened up to the public realm in 1928 with the construction of the Annex building. The Neo-Renaissance 19th century fabric originally designed by McKim, Mead & White in 1906 saw subsequent extensions including the reacquisition of the 1853 Morgan family mansion.¹ With the increasing success of the institution, a further expansion was deemed necessary. The commission awarded to Renzo Piano Building Workshop in 2000 bid for the conception of public spaces, security areas for the collection, a new

reading room and an auditorium with seating capacity for three hundred. In response, the design project resolved to expand the total surface area of the complex to 15,000 square meters (roughly doubling the total space) without violating the boundaries of its original site which were restricted from expanding in the direction of the surrounding streets (Madison Avenue, 36th street and 37th street) 3. The ‘small miracle’ in the Murray Hill district, as claims Kenneth Frampton, was achieved by dovetailing to a depth of 17 meters below grade “a seven-story matrix into the narrow residual space between existing buildings1, 2.”² The approach initially sought to free the site of all unqualified additions in order to recover the required space below ground level. As section RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF MORGAN LIBRARY

drawings reveal, three communicating levels nestled within Manhattan soil house the collections under modern climate-control and security systems 4, 5, 6, 7. A continuous incline gained from the underground strategy accommodates the two hundred ninety-nine seats offered at the concert hall; equipped with modular acoustic elements for flexing the space into a conference or projection room 4, 5.² Mechanical spaces immediately beneath are the last offerings of this lower half accounting for more than fifty percent of the total square footage 7. On the surface level, a transparent steel and glass roof permitting natural light joins three new pavilions interposed between the preexisting buildings 3. A rose-hued, off-white paint coats the structural steel panels as a subtlet nod to the Tennessee pink marble dressing the historic buildings.³ The Administrative offices housed 29

within the four-story pavilion are found connected to the Morgan Mansion on the north 16. A freestanding pavilion to the south, cubic in plan to recall Renaissance gallery chambers, protects and displays the masterpieces of the collection 10. The largest pavilion, centering the campus and establishing the new entrance on Madison Avenue, completes the interplay of three new structures for the three existing 9, 11. Additional amenities, namely café, bookshop and a restaurant located in the former dining room of the Morgan house, cement the microcosm proposed by the intervention 8. In Renzo Piano’s humanist design, a subtlety wrapped piazza connects the old and new and invites a richness of warm, natural light within the internal civic realm via sizeable clerestories above 12, 14, 18. Posing as the reference 32

point from which all wings of the Morgan can be reached, the central space mimics the urban element (characteristic of European cities) to become the civic nucleus of the intervention 12. The gesture primarily recalls Piano’s national origins, but also the human consideration of the Seagram Building by Mies van der Rohe in recessing its position to create a public plaza 13. To maintain the spatial expansiveness of the space and heighten its civic significance, the piazza’s vertical space is cleared from the two stories above 14. And it is undoubtedly for the same purpose glazing encloses the treads of the main stairs as well as the box cabins of the sidelined elevators 15, 20.4 The wood treatment in the foyer, omitting the “steel plate revetment, welded in place with seams ground smooth”⁵ of the pavilion structures, further signify Piano’s attention to human presence within the building. The vernacular,

also repeated in the atrium of the New York Times Building, is silently widespread at points where human contact engages with the ‘machine’ 17. The approach adopted by Renzo Piano and his Building Workshop for the expansion and refurbishment of the Morgan Library stands as his most Romantic response of the case studies range. Making use of the residual spaces to create a central piazza for public use is an acknowledged inference deepened by the garden remnants within the block 16. These trees are scarcely placed to the same effect in which traditional Japanese teahouses placed single objects within the rooms to insinuate a desired atmosphere. And as if highlighting their value, lamps hanging from above honor the trees with direct shine 14. The spontaneity of the building, in opting to insert RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF MORGAN LIBRARY

itself between the historic landmarks, again reminds of the individualism in Piano’s Romantic methodology. By not exceeding the height of the historic structures either, complying to their hermetic nature, the intervention is able to establish its individuality without disruption 2, 3.

1 Jodidio, Philip. Architecture Now! 5. Berlin: Taschen, 2007. 2 Goldberger, Paul. “Molto Piano.” The New Yorker, 2006.  3 Irace, Fulvio. “Renzo Piano: Un Italiano in America / Renzo Piano: an Italian in America.” Abitare N.439, 2004. p.151-154. 4 Jodidio, Philip. Piano. Complete Works 1966–2014. Berlin: Taschen. 2014. 5 Frampton, Kenneth. “Renzo Piano and the Res Publica. Harvard Design Magazine, 2007. 6 Fondazione Renzo Piano. Morgan Library (Renovation and Expansion). 2006. Web.

THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING 620 8TH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY USA 2000/2007

6 8

5 9

Typology: Offices Floor area: 143 048 m² Height: 238 m, mast at 317 m Floors: 52

According to Kenneth Frampton, The New York Times Building, realized in the period 2000-2007, has been the “finest high-rise structure to be completed in Manhattan since the Seagram Building of 1959.”¹ Located in the heart of the city – Times Square – the 52-storey tower, measuring a total height of 238 meters, not including the crowning 79 meters antenna, institutes the newspaper company’s seventh headquarters since its founding in 1851 1, 2. As a consequence of the structural requirement to fit the grid of the surrounding area evenly, the project embodies a simple podium and tower scheme. The cruciform plan of the tower tributes the soaring verticality of Gothic cathedrals in the same way Romanticists celebrated the Mediev-

el “Gothic” culture of the late-18th century for its aweing imagination and creativity 3.² The podium, covering the near-half block site on 8th Avenue between West 40th and 41st Street and raising five stories to connect with its eastern neighboring buildings, is considered for its openness, transparency and public permeability 4. It houses the fully glazed internal garden designed by HM White Site Architects + Cornelia Oberlander Architects that backs into the semi-public 380-seat auditorium on the eastern end 4, 5, 6, 10, 11. Immediately below is a multipurpose room that together with the concrete encased auditorium fulfills the cultural heart of the complex. Above on the upper three floors, extending eastward onto the 40th and 41st frontages, the building houses the journalist offices tiered around the 20 x 40 feet top-lit newsroom below 4.³ Three separate pedestrian entries; THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING

a cross-axis North and South along with a third axial approach from 8th Avenue, provide access to the atrium 6. Vertical circulation is assured via twenty-eight lifts located at the center along with equipment rooms and emergency stairwells as well as stairwells on the lateral facades visible from outside. Entering the lobby the design reveals the humanistic concerns of RPBW. Wooden elements, most specifically, symbolize the presence of occupants at every instance – where the user interacts and comes into physical contact with the building, i.e hand railings, floor, elevators cabins, wood is the finishing treatment 7. As a repeated gesture succeeding the Morgan Library, the wooden accents invert the mechanical stubbornness of the buildings into a softened responsiveness to the human. The warmth of the wood is then enhanced by the livening aura of the orange paint finish on 39

the atrium walls 6, 8 10. While the tangy interior echoes a sunbathed Manhattan landscape, or even more, the soundscape of Quincy Jones’ Summer in the City, its citric color-palette highlights the role of the atrium as the civic organ circulating Life into the building 8, 9. Communicating with the context, Renzo Piano explains, “The building and the city study each other and interact together. To me, this seemed like a good metaphor for the concept of an editorial building and a newspaper – it’s a space that feeds upon the city itself 8, 9.”³ Transparency in two separate insistences prolongs the dialogue between building and context. Movable Type (2007), the installation of vacuum fluorescent screens by Mark Hansen and Ben Rubin flung on copper and steel cables in the atrium, is an active portrayal of the information processes transpiring within The New York Times and on NYTimes.com 42

15. It poses as a software-generated peephole, per se, for the city to observe

through. Behind the extruded ceramic bars and refined muscularity of the exterior, glass facades more direct transparency into the practices of the newspaper company 12, 13. A second skin of exposed steel structure and slender steel framework holstering a total of 175,000 ceramic rods define the fine qualities of the tranquil Times building 1, 13, 16. “This penchant for ceramics,” as Frampton attests, “is a spinoff from Piano’s revival of terracotta cladding that first appeared in his 1991 Rue de Meaux Housing” in the 1990 IRCAM project 14.³ The luminosity of the ceramic louvers once again serves a reflective purpose. With sunrays beamed at the horizontal bars, the building appears as a mirage

amidst the concrete matrix and eloquently grounds itself within it 16. This “material appropriated form industry would prove to be equally essential to the conception and appearance of the tower, namely the cylindrical ceramic louvers adapted from rollers used in industrial kilns.”³ With private access to the superior floors, the tower discloses its occupants; editorial offices occupy the lower half, while Forest City Ratner Companies rent the upper floors. A subtle rhythm in the pattern of the louvers is more clearly observed from within – “Taking a contrary approach to the issue of height, as we find this in the verticality of the Gothic Revival skyscraper or its modern successor the Art Deco high-rise, Piano handled the New York Times building as if it were a tropical structure covered with jalousies, thereby assuring the horizontal dimension that prevails throughout its height, including a THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING

subtle change of rhythm in the pattern of the louvers as they open up at every floor to permit views out 16.”³ Kathy Ryan, Director of Photographer of The New York Times Magazine and daily occupant of The New York Times Building reveals in conversation, “the openings of the bars are so that we can view birds flying by 17.” The gesture is full-flexed Romantic in nature; one that instead of plastically emulating nature, visually welcomes it inside. The expansiveness of the podium at the lower levels is continued in the arrangement of the office plans above. Piano once more demonstrates thoughtfulness for the individual in his way of dispensing the office landscape to the perimeter of the building and directorial offices close to the core. In reversing the conventional 43

order of office planning, the workforce is endowed panoramic views and the charm of the light-shadow play produced by the sun shading louvers 16. This light phenomena, beautifully captured by Kathy Ryan in her book Office Romance (Aperture, 2015), is most admired in communal domains of the building, namely the cafeteria and conference room on the 14th and 15th floors 18, 19. The project indeed preserves the High-Tech origins of Renzo Piano as the exposed steel structure and cross bracings easily give away 1, 20. The fireproofing of the steelwork in intumescent paint adheres further given the use of a technology formerly perfected for the purpose of oilrigs 22. Equally would come to prove the applied ceramic rods sourced from the rollers 44

used in industrial kilns. The verticality and incomplete nature of the exposed steel frame extending an additional 27 meters beyond the structure lets one imagine the upscaling of The New York Times Building in some future 20. Such incompleteness is aligned with High-Tech’s fascination with the omniplatz, or flexibility of space, vividly rebounded in Piano’s words, “In a sense, the process of construction is never complete. I believe that buildings, like cities, are factories of the infinite and the unfinished. We must be careful not to fall into the absurd trap of perfection: a work of architecture is a living creature that’s changes over time and with use.”⁴ Yet High-Tech the building is not just. Softening the structural nature of the building through the use of wooden elements at ground level, for exam-

ple, as a yielding response to human fragility symbolizes more 7. The building design provides the enjoyment of nature even at its greatest height, namely the forest of birch trees on the roof, and abundance of natural light soothing the office atmospheres within to reflect the humanistic qualities ingrained in Piano’s lastest works 17.⁵ Five stories of nature are punctured within the skyscraper that perhaps only in recent diagrammatic designs have these offerings begun to see their time of day 4.⁶ To add, the natural light streaming into the public realm and heightening its warmth completes an unveiling of the fact that The New York Times Building is not as much a ‘big bad wolf’ skyscrapeer competing for its place in the metropolis, but rather a ‘sheep in wolves clothing’ that can be representative of its humanist builder too. THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING

1 Frampton, Kenneth. “Piano’s Whitney.” Domus N.992, 2015: p. 62. 2 Brians, Paul. Romanticism. Washington State University, 1998. Web. 3 Frampton, Kenneth. “Renzo Piano and the Res Publica. Harvard Design Magazine, 2007. 4 Piano, Renzo. The Logbook. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. 5 Glancey, Jonathan. “The Power of Tower.” The Guardian, 2007 6 Jodidio, Philip. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: 1966 to Today. Berlin: Taschen, 2008.

DISCUSSION WITH KATHY RYAN

Kathy Ryan is the longtime director of photography at The New York Times Magazine and a daily occupant of The New York Times Building. Taking root in 2012 and as a result of her time in the building, Ryan has grown inspired to capture the beauty and poetry of the office spaces within – spontaneous endeavors that have lead to the publication of Office Romance (Aperture, 2014) and the director’s debut exhibition Kathy Ryan: Office Romance at Howard Greenberg Gallery in 2016. Today she continues the spontaneity of her work and speaks on The New York Times Building: Q Office Romance tells an eloquent 'love story' of your time in the New York Times Building and captures many claims made by this investigation. What inspired the making of the book? KR In October 2012, I saw a zig-zag of light fall across one of the steps on the staircase. I took out my iPhone and made a photo of it. Then I posted the photo on Instagram. From that moment on, I began to see the beautiful light in our building. The emotion I experienced when seeing the light was vivid and called for a response, so I started making photos of that light and posting them on Instagram. The horizontal white ceramic rods that cloak the outside of the building create stunning stripes of light and shadow that move across the walls and furniture throughout the 48

day. These shadows lend a cinematic air to our workspace. The clear glass in the windows also allows the light to come in unfiltered so it has a crisp, super clear radiance on sunny days. Manhattan has very bright light, thanks to the fact it is a small island surrounded by water. I’m forever grateful to Renzo Piano for putting in those white ceramic rods and for using clear, unfiltered glass. I find myself constantly inspired by that bright light. After I’d been posting pictures for a couple years, I thought perhaps there could be a book of this work and took it to Chris Boot, the publisher of Aperture. Fortunately he agreed. So there was no plan to do a book at the outset of the project. The process was more organic than that. The notion of doing a book emerged slowly after I had been shooting the photographs for a while. Q Its name is also a pleasant synchronicity given this research focuses on Romanticism. What lead to the book title? KR The title just popped into my head at one point. The pictures I make are romantic – they are the result of me falling in love with the light in the building. Most people don’t think the office life is beautiful or romantic. The commonly held belief is that the office life is banal and not very visual. I am lucky enough to work in a building in which the architect, Renzo Piano, is obsessed with

light. He thinks about the light all the time, and that light directly inspires the romantic photos I create. I thought the title Office Romance was a witty way to describe the pictures I was taking. It emphasizes the unexpected nature of what I am doing with the photos – celebrating the beauty and poetry to be found in the office life, (if you are lucky enough to work in building like The New York Times building!) Q What were your first impressions of The New York Times Building? And how have they been affected by your experiences in the building? KR I didn’t like the building at all when we first moved in. I missed the old NYTimes building. I had loved it in all its messy glory. It was getting kind of seedy and tattered around the edges, but it felt like an exciting, creative space – a place where major journalism was happening. I missed all of that when we moved. The new building felt too corporate and formal. It took a while for me to understand the new building. But once I did, I fell head over heels in love with it. The key to understanding our building is to recognize that all of its glory happens along the window walls. Q High-Tech was a movement that produced buildings as 'machines', whereas Romanticism was defined by emotions. Had you considered

the building in connection to these separate movements? KR I didn’t know about these movements, so no, I hadn’t considered them. I’ve never studied architecture. Q What emotions do the different building spaces evoke? KR Sometimes the building evokes passion and drama. At the end of the day on the west side, when it is flooded with the warm, golden light of the setting sun, bouncing off the Hudson River, it feels like a movie set.

In the morning, on the east side, the stripes of light march across the walls with a clarity that makes my heart beat faster. Literally, there is sometimes a feeling of ecstasy. That is why I make the photos. I need to stop what I am doing and react to that startling light. I can’t let it just slip by. It creates a sense of urgency in me.

Q In what parts of the building do you feel HighTech and Romantic qualities come together? KR I don’t think I know enough about architecture to answer this question. But I imagine the windows and the white ceramic rods have 49

the Romantic qualities and the exterior steel framework has the High-Tech qualities. The white ceramic rods strike me as Romantic, and the steel framework strikes me as the High-Tech part. Q Humanism was an important concern during Romanticism. In what instances does the Times building embody human considerations?

Q Do you find your told story in Office Romance works as a testimony to the Romantic claims of this investigation? KR Yes, absolutely!

KR The Times building embodies human considerations along the window wall. Q Describing the offices, what is the environment produced by their spatial planning? KR The offices themselves are not the most exciting part of the building. The inner offices are dull, and the offices along the window wall break up the extraordinary sweep of the window wall. But of course the people in the outer offices have lovely workspaces. Q What attitudes does The New York Times Building reveal about Renzo Piano? KR The New York Times Building reveals Renzo Pianoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understanding of light and his conviction that it is the most important thing about a building. It always starts with light. 50

Select images from Office Romance (2014) ÂŠ Kathy Ryan

THE WHITNEY MUSEUM AT GANSEVOORT 99 GANSEVOORT ST. NEW YORK, NY USA 2007/2015

4 1

Typology: Museum Site area: 42.248,9 sq ft Built Area: 220.000 sq ft Height: 84 m

Free from myths it may be, but irrefutable is the artistic freedom given to the new Whitney Museum by Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Its imagery is ambiguous; from a distance, the building resembles both the “big factory” Renzo Piano describes as well as a ‘cruise ship’ docked on the edge of the island 1, 2, 5. “Constructed out of the same palaeo-technological lexicon as the High Line itself,” ¹ the new Whitney takes inspiration from both the vestiges of its post-industrial location as well as the Hudson River 2, 6. It is largely the expanse of water adjacent to the site that permits Renzo Piano to express freely, in typical Romanticist fashion, his innermost passions for this project 4. The new structure located in the Meatpacking District of Manhattan, not

too withdrawn from the museum’s 1918 origins, primarily achieved to consolidate the scrambled galleries of the former Whitney Museum 3. Spatial solutions provide 60,960 square meters of museum space equipped with flexible gallery spaces as well as a 170-seat multifunctional theater on the second and third floors. True to High-Tech practice, retractable seats grant the theater a flexibility for transforming the space into a cinema, exhibition gallery or a space for performances. The external form of the building – “a more imposing mass towards the river and irregular and stepped down towards the city” ² – personifies the distinctive refinement of Renzo Piano through its remarkably sharp metal façade panels measuring 8mm thin 1, 8. The steel-framed and clad building expresses a nautical character from an outset “by virtue of the round-cornered windows punched at intervals into THE WHITNEY MUSEUM AT GANSEVOORT

the steel paneling 8, 9.”¹ Cooling towers deposited on the roof as well as on the terraces instigate further the double character of the building. Inherently industrial due to their appearance and served function, the cooling towers mainly recall the funnels of a ship 1, 8. The expansive gray-blue steel cladding of the exterior “respond to the different climatic conditions and reflect the waters of the Hudson and the lights of New York 2.”² Like ribbons, they wrap and connect with the concrete revetment of the north elevation – a variation insinuating the private and public division within. An angular inflection above the two-story entry volume sets the ground floor back from the street and sensually, as if giving rise to its ‘skirt’, invites the public into the foyer 11. Entering the museum’s reception area from Gansevoort Street one finds the museum shop flanked to the west, a small public gal67

11 13

lery niched on the north and a restaurant that spills onto the largo on the west 11.³ This forecourt in combination with the entry space constitutes ‘the urban heart of the project’. Here Renzo Piano ties together the res publica spaces by appropriating a floor material that continues inside the exteriority of the pavement outside. The glass underbelly, permitting views through the building from the High Line to the West Side Highway and, at some remove, the Hudson River, cements their visual connection and showcases the dynamic activity for the city to see 7. Slender columns, reminiscent of the extremities on Ron Herron’s Walking City (1964),⁴ lift the mass of the body above ground along with a reinforced concrete base supporting the building’s steel frame from below to make the glass fittings possible 12. The building spine, cladded in prefabricated concrete panels and dividing ad70

ministrative functions from exhibition spaces north and south, respectively, accommodates the four elevators and stairs granting circulation to the floors above and laboratories below. With vast uninterrupted landscapes, the new Whitney prides itself as New York’s largest column-free gallery 14.⁵ The rectangular plan of the fifth floor offers the most generous floor area of the four gallery levels (85m x 21m) while the top floor takes advantage of the natural light pervading through its shed roof above 14.⁶ Reclaimed Southern Yellow Pine floors give the exhibition sequence both an industrial and unpretentious ‘studio look 14’.¹ Alternating longitudinal windows to the north and regular openings to the south and west grant the gallery spaces regular views of the surrounding

city and river. Climbing down to the second and third floors via the central stairs, scenic windows project outwardly and overlook the river 13. At this instance and acknowledging Renzo Piano’s activities as a sailor, the building is again given artistic expression. From an external perspective, the projection of the panoramic windows carries resemblance to a ship’s cockpit. On the other end, the open-air terraces characterized principally by “the cascading, steel-frame, stair system jutting out from the concrete-clad core of the building,”¹ double as outdoor exhibition space and simultaneously resemble the ship’s decks 15. On the sixth floor terrace, the building returns to an angular inflection to provide framed views of the Hudson River – a gesture of Romantic significance that hints at Piano’s attention to nature 16. The individualized balconies extending past the limits of the terraces THE WHITNEY MUSEUM AT GANSEVOORT

enhance these Romantic notions further 17. Representative of the individualism central to Romanticism, the ‘break-out’ spaces “afford visitors with moments of respite from the relentless exhibition of art within.”¹ Acknowledging the rarity of this conscious provision for the individual, Frampton adds, “This is an amenity that is rarely if ever considered today as opposed to H.P. Berlage’s Gemeentemuseum (1934) in The Hague, which provides small-built lounges in the gallery sequence for exactly that purpose 18.”¹ Overall, it is perhaps an idyllic ‘factory for art’, as Andy Warhol had once envisioned, that the Whitney Museum at Gansevoort truly aims to signify, and appropriately so given its post-industrial location. And it is most certain the edifice realized to the designs of Renzo Piano Building Workshop, constitut71

ing the office’s third in New York, goes to reinstate its founder’s deep-rooted High-Tech approach. But nonetheless, it is the dual appearance recognized within the building and its external form that animates the Romanticist and passionate aspects of Renzo Piano, the sailor 19.

1 Frampton, Kenneth. “Piano’s Whitney.” Domus N.992, 2015: p. 62. 2 Fondazione Renzo Piano. The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort. 2015. Web. 3 Ouroussoff, Nicolai. ”Whitney’s new Plan: A Respectful Approach.” The New York Times, 2004.  4 Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. 5 Jodidio, Philip. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: 1966 to Today. Berlin: Taschen, 2008. 6 Co, Francesco dal. Renzo Piano. Milan: Electa. 2014.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PLAN WEST HARLEM NEW YORK, NY USA 2002/PRESENT

Typology: Masterplan Site area: 631,740 sq m Height: Various

Although still in its ‘work-in-progress’ state, the master plan of Columbia University’s new Manhattanville Campus in collaboration with Skidrowe, Owings & Merrill (SOM), constitutes the fourth development in the island of Manhattan for Renzo Piano Building Workshop and the latest to undergo construction 1, 2, 3. The campus design, delimited by 125th and 133rd Street on the north and south and similarly by Broadway and Riverside Drive on the east and west, foils the original gated campus at Morningside Heights situated just five blocks south 2, 3. Its social permeability lies at the core of the proposal. As a state-of-the-art university campus design, the Manhattanville Campus aims to redefine the role of Columbia University by instituting a scheme that interacts with the social realities of Harlem, NY and serves as a catalyst for positive change.

The prevailing component of this interactive scheme is the ‘Urban Layer’ – a continuum of public spaces offered at the ground level of each construction to be realized 4. Committed to integration, the public layer warrants diversity and accessibility throughout the entire the campus, covering an exact 631,740 square meters, for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic 12.² Public activity will be nurtured by an assortment of open spaces, along with commercial, cultural, and social spaces seeking to actively engage with the community 5. Such promises of accessibility and the introduction of social functions within the hybrid space mark once again the humanist preoccupation definitive of Piano’s late career. Moreover, tree-lined streets and widened sidewalks connecting the campus as well as the neighborhood to the Hudson River Waterfront Park will enhance the pedestrian experience; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PLAN

their movement throughout the spaces symbolically meant to weave the new campus together. New constructions will give way to the increasing spatial needs of the university, four of which have been designed by RPBW, specifically: Jerome L. Greene Science Center, Lenfest Center for the Arts, Forum, and the School of International and Public Affairs. Academic, research, recreational, residential, administrative, and support space will be the programs offered to the university expansion as they honor the ‘Urban Layer’ with their raised position above street level or below as in the case for the laboratories 4, 7, 8, 9. The aforementioned buildings, of which the Jerome L. Greene Science Center and the Lenfest Center for the Arts have already begun seeing their 77

completion, are to be arranged around a piazza ornamented with trees and lawns 5, 6.¹ The remaining structures will see their realization in the successive phases of the master plan. As in Piano’s work all throughout, the refinement of details and precise craftsmanship are omnipresent, even when tempering with 17-acres worth of development. The completion of the Jerome L. Greene Science Center in particular demonstrates the long-lasting fascination of Renzo Piano – to push forward into the unknown and develop creations that glance at heritage yet remain fixated in innovation. Relating to the former, the Manhattanville Campus applies Piano’s lesson of learning from the ‘old cities’, for the adoption of the urban permeability found in the microcosm of Central Park 78

12, 13.³

The gesture in its manifested form silently parallels the method of Romanticism to embrace tradition without abiding by it formally 13. Renzo Piano maintains his curiosity and passion for high technology and the high performing double-skin facades of the Jerome L. Greene Science Center exemplify this10, 11. With research that took decades to develop inside Renzo Piano’s UNESCO Laboratory and Workshop in Genoa, Italy, the double-skin façade has already garnered the plans of Columbia University’s Manhattanville Campus the LEED Platinum award by the US Green Building Council; the first of its kind in New York City and the first for any university plan nationwide.⁴ While proving to the High-Tech core of Piano’s architecture, the double-skin in conjunction with the ‘Urban Layer’ also lends itself

to unifying the community through its offered transparency at street level. The ‘Urban Layer’ at the heart of Renzo Piano’s new masterplan will presumably procure the creation of a social dynamism that values the common person and rejuvenates the identity of the future Harlem, herein lying the exact values pursued by the Romanticist period that lead to the nationalism of so many European countries.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PLAN

1 Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Columbia University Campus Plan. 2007. Web. 2 Brown, Ed. Renzo “Piano Building Workshop and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: Columbia University Expansion, New York City.” Architecture V. 93, 2004. p.46. 3 Gong, Fanny T. “Strengthening Education in New York City with Architecture –Columbia University Manhattanville Campus Plan, Renzo Piano Building Workshop / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP.” A + U: Architecture and Urbanism N.12, 2013. p.112-115. 4 Levinson, Nancy. “Campus Planning is Breaking New Ground.” Architectural Record, V.192, 2004. p.86-90,92,94.

IV. CONCLUSION

Critical Analysis The scarce interviews that exist with Renzo Piano are rather brief and reserved. Reticent is his persona and well considered his words. One may even go as far as suspecting Renzo Piano as the ‘play it safe’ type without an in-depth understanding of his work. Despite the relative distance of his expressions, there is a whisper of softness, of a caring individual with a deeply humanized outlook on the world that is inescapable in the words of Renzo Piano. Romantique! It was a speculation that was to be confirmed, or nulled, through an actual exploration of the architect and his works, most specifically the recent projects in New York City realized to the design of the Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Momentous have been the contributions of Renzo Piano to the city of New York, one for the count of high-quality buildings, each of significant civic character and second for the recognized fact of the rare architects to realize this number of buildings (four) within the hard-coded city of New York. For a case study range, the concentration of Piano’s buildings, namely the Renovation and Expansion of the Morgan Library (2000/2006); The New York Times Building (2000/2007); The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort (2007/2015); and Columbia University Campus Plan (2002/ ongoing), prevailed as ideal. Accessibility to all buildings with the exception of the unrealized Manhattanville Campus was a significant criterion for understanding the works in the typical Romanticist spirit of adventure and feeling. The relative newness of these projects, each overlapping at some timeframe from their point of initiation to their date of completion, collectively illustrates the evolution of Renzo Piano’s practice from its so-called High-Tech origins. Of certain pertinence was also the unusual fact that Piano has never taught. Focusing on the point is Kenneth Frampton: ”The anti-academicism that is such a profound aspect in his character is pre-Renaissance in its fundamental spirit, which surely accounts for certain conflicting aspects of his professional career: on the one hand, his debt to Baconian empirical science, that is, to the Anglo-Saxon pragmatic tradition; on the other, his respect for Italian craft production, for il mestiere, that mastery that may be acquired only through apprenticeship.” ¹ But the explanation was not enough in quenching the curiosity if this was somehow related or non- to the suspected Romanticism. In fact, the investigation yielded the discovery that Renzo Piano’s reluctance to partake in academia is indeed parallel to Romantic fundamentals – adding to the ‘pre-Renaissance spirit’ claimed by Kenneth Frampton.¹ Given the highly valuable lessons of Piano’s "method without discourse"² the investigation simulta82

neously served as a critical exercise for learning the untaught lessons of the master builder through the subtle and indirect findings.

From the expansion and refurbishment conducted by Renzo Piano Building Workshop at the Morgan Library, the humanist incorporation of a piazza as the heart of the intervention is perhaps the single, most aligning element to Romanticism. Although the brief indeed requested the inclusion of public spaces, it is the unique qualities designated to the space, beginning with its spatial expansiveness that makes the court central in its figurative sense. From this central stage, and observing how the building yields, it is undetectable that the plaza earns its concept by consequence of the residual space resulting from the added pavilions and preexisting structures. What would otherwise give a crowding effect is the specified transparency dressing the main stair leading to the levels below and the box cabins of the hydraulic elevators rising to the floors above. The glazing treatment is equally extended to the balustrades protecting visitors standing on the overhang balconies connected to the elevators. Then there is the positioning of the Morgan Cafe within the enclosed court, that alone with its casual atmosphere (critically enforced by the natural light and singular tree filling its space) and free-access to the public at all hours of the operating museum, underlines the direct national reference of Italian piazzas. Here, in the same tradition Romanticism drew from its national origins to create new works, Piano draws from his to establish the “courtyard at the heart of the story.” ³ The wooden detailing found throughout the spaces subtlety reveals the catering attitude of the project; the building adapts its steel structures to wood finishing so as to yield to both human touch and presence, as the wood cladding of the foyer suggests of the latter. The steel and glass structural elements hold fast to High-Tech principles, in as much as they are the principle building materials of the intervention, but also in how it appropriates paint finish typical of auto repairs to the steel plate revetment.⁴ The assembly of individual parts along with the monitor roof system and hanging components throughout attest equally to the High-Tech description of the project, but then we are pulled back to Romantic findings by the individualism expressed by the pavilion structures. Where stylistic references could have easily been adopted from the Neo-Renaissance fabric of the Morgan, the building opts to explore its own path and intelligently insert itself between the classical 83

buildings, and with great delicacy at that as it ever so slightly comes into full contact with the historic buildings. As for how it repeats their formality is understood to be the single instance where it nods at the Tennessee pink marble of the McKim building and Annex through the rose-hue paint coating the steel panels.⁵

The New York Times Building extends the conversation of the piazza, however this time in the form of a public atrium accentuated by a five-story internal garden. Public offerings of the majority of built towers are cheaply rendered via large canvas or art installations pompously displayed on the lobby spaces. Although the Times building does not necessarily free itself from this corporate habit, as Mark Hensen’s and Ben Ruben’s Movable Parts (2007) prove, neither does it flaunt it. The art installation yields to Renzo Piano’s vernacular, camouflaging with the mechanical language of the building and permitting the grandeur of the garden and other delicate finishes to really assume their primary position. Nature, as the crucial muse for Romanticists, repeatedly finds its place within the studied designs of Renzo Piano, a gesture interpreted as a means to sensuously connect the atmosphere to a more natural, soothing environment, and not just emulate its essence as Piano firmly punctuates.⁶ The wooden touches are again in use to symbolize the humanist approach taken; walnut panels outfit the interior of all twenty-eight elevators to mediate the transition to the office atmospheres above and warmly wrap the standees within the confined spaces . The last of the Romantic findings within the ground floor space is the Gothic reference echoed by the cruciform plan of the tower. On the floors above, as a personal tour of the offices revealed, this cruciform plan accommodates a rather logical, yet widely unconventional spatial planning that distributes the workforce landscape to the perimeter of the building and affords it the enjoyment of the panoramic views. The former reveals a humanist truth about Piano that is explained through both the classist and economical truths typically driving skyscraper designs: executive offices are normally fixed in their corner positions so as to grant an ‘overseer’ perspective, simulatenously functioning as a symbol of hierarchy while the rest are pushed towards less ‘privileged’ spaces. With the reversal of this office planning Renzo Piano places an emblematic value on the individual by honoring him the ‘executive’ privileges of views and natural light. If the gesture was not to speak enough, the ceramic rods of the exterior are rhythmically opened

for “people inside the building to be able to see the birds” ⁷; Piano’s method for introducing nature at paramount heights. But climbing further up, it becomes evident Piano’s attention to environment des not conclude at his thoughtfulness for birds. On the roof, Piano romantically explains, “The ceramic rods continue above the line of the roof, as a windbreak. We wanted to have a forest of birch trees on the roof – like in the lobby garden – where the trees would flirt with the rods.” It is then in adapting the colors of the surrounding environment through the luminosity of these horizontal bars that the building completes its Romantic verbiage.

In the Whitney Museum it begins with the artistic freedom granted to the building expressing Renzo Piano’s inner passions. Of the four analyzed projects, it is the American art museum, which through its dual appearance, simultaneously resembling a ‘factory’ and ‘cruise ship’, most vividly harmonizes the clash of the High-Tech movement and Romanticism – that of ‘machine’ and emotions. Moreover, we find again the amplified significance given to the public nucleus at street level in receiving a glazed enclosure so as to encapsulate the vitality of the public space and ‘exhibit’ it to the city. The spill of the restaurant onto the largo, or forecourt, speaks on the entry volume’s integration with the surrounding environment. In former projects, it is uncommon to find the level of plasticity the exterior form of the Whitney Museum expresses, starting with the round-cornered windows pierced at intervals on the south and west elevations that unmistakably reference Renzo Piano’s maritime upbringing near the harbor. Supplementing the evidence is the orientation of the complex, not signaled by its latitudinal entrance on Gansevoort Street, but rather by the mass facing the Hudson River and the step-down terraces on the rear functioning as the ship’s sundecks.⁸ Of course, every site imposes its own restraints, or what Piano views more optimistically as “the guides that lead us by the hand.” ⁶ In this case it is the extraordinary opportunity of the post-industrial site in the Meatpacking District of Manhattan, sitting besides the Hudson River that permits Piano the freedom to project more intimate feelings, namely his love for sailing and the harbor of Genoa. From these understated elements disguised in their industrial materiality, Piano’s desire to build the ship that would feed his appetite for exploration is speculated, although these ambitions remain hindered by the reality that a building is after all, a building. The expression is continued on the sixth floor terrace where the south façade inflects itself inwardly to frame 85

for the individual the Hudson River alongside the vast American continent beyond.Orienting one’s attention in the opposite direction, small balconies overlooking the urban landscape of Manhattan extend past the terraces’ boundaries so as to create individual moments of isolation. The cooling towers towering above the built volumes reveal their resemblance to the funnels of a ship in the wintertime as the cold humidifies the blown steam-air. Stemming together these Romantic hints back to their High-Tech roots are the clipped-on, modular steel panels; elongated and industrial by nature, yet softened by their gray-blue finish reflective of New York’s climatic conditions, tie in with matt industrial character of the interior along with the flexibility of the gallery spaces or the retractable-seat theater, that solidify the HighTech nature of the design.⁹ And here again Renzo Piano demonstrates his prowess to bring together, through the help of genius refinement, two distinct sets of principles of opposing movements in a single project design. Meanwhile, the Manhattanville Campus, once completed, will reveal the distinguishing humanistic approach of Renzo Piano’s late career. With the ‘Urban Layer’ making accessible to the public all ground levels of the built structure, the Columbia University Campus Plan will see to carry out its mission by promoting openness and permeability as strategies for promoting social integration between university and community. Open piazzas will be prevalent and will host open-air activities while also serving as public nucleoids for the campus.¹⁰

As the evidence of this investigation indicates, there is a myriad of architectural nuances that project the Romantic parallels of Renzo Piano’s practice towards truth. The question however remains: what exactly does viewing the work of Renzo Piano through the lens of Romanticism in relation to High-Tech architecture revealed? At once, it establishes a new perception on the work of Renzo Piano, one that helps distance the common perception from the overworked scope of High-Tech while providing an updated understanding of his work which true indeed stems from the High-Tech period. It also helps illustrate the evolution of Piano's approach since then and presents an opportunity to perhaps understand better his receded work ethic. Through the analyzed buildings, we are able to engage the attitudes of the edifices by reading their design implications – attitudes that reveal just as much Piano's humanism

about the as it may about the Italian architect himself. The shared values of the considered buildings voice the evolution of designs that formerly fostered the relationship between technology and space, purely, for the provision of ‘serviced zones’ to now servicing not just zones, but in fact, humans.¹¹ By yielding to the individual, whether its providing spontaneous interactions with nature at unprecedented levels, or offering the warm tactility of a wooden finishing over robust steel components, the Renzo Piano Building Workshop aims to evoke emotions in the user in the same way the Medieval Ages and Romanticism looked forward to. So has proven the spontaneous photo series of Kathy Ryan, whom after moving into the New York Times Building in 2012, would later come to a sudden epiphany of the emotions she felt within building spaces. As she has communicated, it was the abundant natural Light penetrating to the ceramic louvers of the building that aroused her willingness to depict a 'love story' with a Piano backdrop in Office Romance. Last, the transcendence and evolution of Romanticism itself goes revealed today through contemporary media extending beyond the original artistic, literary, and musical channels. With its principles and main cultural still being exported, Romanticism can perhaps be defined as a period of timeless creations; and with the revealed parallels, it can arguably be said that the work of Renzo Piano itself is Timelessness – perhaps the highest achievable degree of any creation. With new perceptions, come new understandings, and perhaps even misunderstandings. However, like is the case with any perception, these conclusions are both arguable and interchangeable; a different lens would yield different meaning. And herein this investigation acknowledges its shortcomings: Limitations of Study The immediate understanding is that creatives typically do not like being labeled nor categorized into any niche of cultural history, unless that niche is one they themselves created – Kazimir Malevich and Suprematism; the Dutch and De Stijl; Walter Gropius and Modernism, etc. The so-called High-Tech architects of the time, did not like and still do not enjoy the title, and Piano’s personal expressions on the matter confirm so.¹² Moreover, to introduce a second 87

label to the name of Renzo Piano might seem like an overdoing. Despite intentions being strictly opposite, the assertions concluded in relation to both the High-Tech and Romanticist movements may unfortunately appear to carry out this very task. More tragic is the potential of the given arguments to portray Piano as someone referential to tradition – a failure that in so would be untrue of the architect and would equally put the Romantic claims in contradiction. It is equally understood that this exploration fails to deepen in other areas of potential significance, namely how Piano’s ‘Romantic’ approach impacts other aspects of the project developments, such as constructions costs, floor area loss due to amplified public offerings, etc. The marvelous information that could yield from such a technical plunging would reveal if perhaps the so-called Romanticism found in Piano’s work withdraws more value from the project designs than it actually deposits. In this direction it would become easier to gauge Piano’s work in a much more critical manner rather than the appraising tone recognized in this essay. And of course, a conversation could be engaged if it is in fact Romanticism that best explains the late practice of Renzo Piano. The case has already been countered (indirectly) by Kenneth Frampton who in Placeform and Produktform likened the particular logic of Piano’s work to the Enlightenment period – "It is just this commitment to the empirical methods of the Enlightenment, combined with an ideological openness towards every available technique, including where appropriate the craft of the past, that distinguishes Piano from other hi-tech architects with whom he is otherwise associated." ¹ Following the string of statements, the Piano approach could actually be said to follow a rationale based on scientific findings as his constant research would prove, and not as much the mystic following of intuition. Last, Piano’s collaborative efforts and incessant emphasis on teamwork highly defines his practice and this is perhaps where the investigation falls shortest. With the variety of architects, engineers, designers and even clients involved throughout the entire design processes of each project, it is hard to say if the findings can be directly linked to Renzo Piano himself; surely to the Building Workshop as this was the questioned posed at the French Institute of Architecture in La Méthode Piano: “Whose idea was it, actually? No one can remember, and it is not important. It is the intelligence of the built project that counts.” ² But after all, and to echo the words of Kenneth Frampton, “Whether this is what Piano had in mind or not is hard to say, but a resemblance is surely there.” ¹

1 Frampton, Kenneth. Placeform and Produktform. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. 2 Rambert, Francis. “A Method Without Discourse.” French Institute of Architecture, 2015. 3 Muschamp, Herbert. “A Courtyard at the Heart of the Story.” The New York Times, 2002. 4 Frampton, Kenneth. “Renzo Piano and the Res Publica. Harvard Design Magazine, 2007.   5 Morgan Library & Museum, The. “Architectural History.” The Morgan Library & Museum. 2006. Web. 6 Piano, Renzo. The Logbook. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. 7 Ryan, Kathy, and Renzo Piano. Office

Romance. New York: Aperture, 2015. Print. 8 Fondazione Renzo Piano. The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort. 2015. Web. 9 Ouroussoff, Nicolai. ”Whitney’s new Plan: A Respectful Approach.” The New York Times, 2004.  10 Levinson, Nancy. “Campus Planning is Breaking New Ground.” Architectural Record, V.192, 2004. p.86-90,92,94. 11 Davies, Colin. High Tech Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, 1988. 12 Amery, Colin. “The Architecture of Renzo Piano — A Triumph of Continuing Creativity.” The Hyatt Foundation / The Pritzker Architecture Prize, 1998.

Bibliography Amery, Colin. “The Architecture of Renzo Piano — A Triumph of Continuing Creativity.” The Hyatt Foundation / The Pritzker Architecture Prize, 1998. Web. Banham, Reyner, and John Patridge. “May 1977: ‘Pompidou Cannot Be Perceived as Anything but a Monument.” Architectural Review, 2012. Web. Brians, Paul. Romanticism. Washington State University, 1998. Print. Brown, Ed. Renzo “Piano Building Workshop and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: Columbia University Expansion, New York City.” Architecture V. 93, 2004. p.46. Print. Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Complete Works, Vol. 5. London: Phaidon Press, 2008. Co, Francesco dal. Renzo Piano. Milan: Electa. 2014. Cuddon, J.A. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Third Ed. London: Penguin Books, 1991. Davies, Colin. High Tech Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, 1988.

Image Credits Fondazione Renzo Piano. Morgan Library (Renovation and Expansion). 2006. Web. Fondazione Renzo Piano. The New York Times Building. 2007. Web. Fondazione Renzo Piano. The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort. 2015. Web. Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Frampton, Kenneth. “Piano’s Whitney.” Domus N.992, 2015: p. 62. Print. Frampton, Kenneth. Placeform and Produktform. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. Frampton, Kenneth. “Renzo Piano and the Res Publica. Harvard Design Magazine, 2007. Print. Frampton, Kenneth. Renzo Piano Building Workshop, GA Architect 14. Japan: ADA Editors, 1997. Frampton, Kenneth. Renzo Piano: The Architect as Homo Faber. Tokyo: GA Architect No14, 1997.  Glancey, Jonathan. “The Power of Tower.” The Guardian, 2007. Print.

Goldberger, Paul. “Dream House.” The New Yorker, 2000. Print. Goldberger, Paul. “Molto Piano.” The New Yorker, 2006. Print. Gong, Fanny T. “Strengthening Education in New York City with Architecture –Columbia University Manhattanville Campus Plan, Renzo Piano Building Workshop / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP.” A + U: Architecture and Urbanism N.12, 2013. p.112-115. Print. Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. Architecture, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. 4th ed. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin Books, 1971. Irace, Fulvio. “Renzo Piano: Un Italiano in America / Renzo Piano: an Italian in America.” Abitare N.439, 2004. p.151-154. Print. Jodidio, Philip. Architecture Now! 5. Berlin: Taschen, 2007. Jodidio, Philip. Piano. Complete Works 1966–2014. Berlin: Taschen. 2014. Jodidio, Philip. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: 1966 to Today. Berlin: Taschen, 2008.

Jones, Howard M. Revolution and Romanticism. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1974. Levinson, Nancy. “Campus Planning is Breaking New Ground.” Architectural Record, V.192, 2004. p.8690,92,94. Print. Morgan Library & Museum, The. “Architectural History.” The Morgan Library & Museum. 2006. Web. Morner, Kathleen and Ralph Rausch. NTC’s Dictionary of Literary Terms. Chicago: NTC Publishing, 1997. Muschamp, Herbert. “A Courtyard at the Heart of the Story.” The New York Times, 2002. Web.  Muschamp, Herbert. “Lessons of a Humanist who can Disturb the Peace.” The New York Times, 2002. Web.

Piano, Renzo. “Pritzker Prize Laureate Acceptance Speech.” The Hyatt Foundation / The Pritzker Architecture Prize. 1998. Press Release. Web. Piano, Renzo. The Logbook. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. Piano, Renzo. On Tour with Renzo Piano. London: Phaidon Press, 2004. Piano, Renzo. Renzo Piano Building Workshop 1989-2010. Japan: A+ U, Architecture and Urbanism. 2010. Piano, Renzo. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Visible Cities. Ed. Fulvio Irace. Milan: Mondadori Electa, 2007. Rambert, Francis. “A Method Without Discourse.” French Institute of Architecture, 2015. Print. Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Columbia University Campus Plan. 2007. Web.

Muschamp, Herbert. “Renzo Piano Wins Architecture’s Top Prize.” The New York Times, 1998. Print.

Ryan, Kathy, and Renzo Piano. Office Romance. New York: Aperture, 2015.

Ouroussoff, Nicolai. ”Whitney’s new Plan: A Respectful Approach.” The New York Times, 2004. Web.

VanSpanckeren, Kathryn. Outline of American Literature. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency, 1994.

Pawley, Martin. “Day of High-Tech Piano.” The Guardian, 1989. Print.

High-Tech 1 Photo: Foster + Partners 2 Photo: Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners 3 Photo: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop Romanticism 1 Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog, Caspar David Friedrich. 1817. Image: Hamburger Kunsthalle 2 The Fighting Temeraire, J. W. Turner. 1839. Image: The National Gallery 3 The Ninth Wave, Ivan Aivazovsky. 1850. Image: The State Russian Museum Renzo Piano Photo: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop Renovation and Expansion of Morgan Library Cover, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Photos: Michel Denancé 1 Photo: Moreno Maggi 2 Photo: Stefano Goldberg 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 © Renzo Piano Building Workshop 13 375 Park Avenue The New York Times Building Cover, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 19, 20 Images: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 22, 23 Photos: Michel Denancé 7, 15 Photo: Chandler Kennedy

Acknowledgments 16, 21 Photos: Nic Lehoux 17 Photo & Image of sketch by Renzo Piano : Kathy Ryan The Whitney Museum at Gansevoort Cover, 1, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16 Photos: Nic Lehoux 2, 3, 13 Photos: Karin Jobst 4, 5, 11, 20 Images: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop 8, 9, 10, 17 Photos: Rafik Greiss 12 Image: Archigram 18 Photo: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag 19 Photo: Timothy Schenck Columbia University Campus Plan Cover, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 Images: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop 1, 5 Photo: Harlem + Bespoke 2 Columbia University / Eileen Barrosso 6, 10 Columbia University / Frank Oudeman 12 Vidiani.com Conclusion 1, 2 Photo: Michel Denancé 3 Photo: Karin Jobst 4 Photo: Columbia University / Frank Oudeman 5 Image: © Renzo Piano Building Workshop 6 Image: Hamburger Kunsthalle

My warmest gratitude is extended to Kenneth Frampton for his openness from a start, and for the honor it is to conclude this crucial chapter under his guidance. I am equally indebted to Felix Burrichter for his gripping kindness and for lending this investigation the creative direction that allowed it to takeoff. To Kathy Ryan whom over the process became a friend and whose contributions amplified the meaning of this work; first in providing a personal tour of The New York Times Building, granting permission to implement her work and last, in sharing her thoughts on the case study amidst a most busy work schedule. My beloved friends Chandler Kennedy and Rafik Greiss – can not find the words to thank you enough for permitting me your time and gifting this analysis your beautiful eyes. To Mariagrazia Meddis for translating the Abstract of this thesis with such precision. And last, to those who I burdened along the way, thank you for your wonderful feedback and support.

100

101

All original photos by ÂŠ Chandler Kennedy & Rafik Greiss

102

103