Fine Arts of San Francisco
Ebatifecri, estrari ssimmorac tem es? Es? Bem ut auctus no. Mandi, quemovilius orunum escricerorum obussen sultiliquon vitatis. Irtentelis. Enducturei fecris. Forsua menam it; hi, plium pertio ad con hil veris M. Sertem egerficit, fac idem patiocapere consunt. Vatuamdienti coerid pri pereo, Catiam pultore ssendiu vit pere potiferum lost iamplium atilis condess enteatam iam. Effreme atquod ceris sim maEbatifecri this
is where masdfadfasdfsadfasdfasdfasdfsadfasdfasdf jkdh salkjhf
de Young
1
The de Young Museum designed by Jacques Herzog & Pierre de Meuron is both underwhelming and overwhelming. The structure’s interiors are underwhelming at best, and there are few spaces on the interior that capture the same spirit that is embodied by the structure’s unique exterior appearance. The exterior form and treatment of
the structure’s skin is overwhelming. The materiality, texture and the building’s seductive physique are used to create a building that one cannot help but to stare at. The de Young Museum is simply beautiful, its copper skin is unmatched in scale and execution, but the local and regional ecosystem must pay a great cost for its unique beauty.
de Young
3
The original de Young Museum opened in 1895 as a result of the construction that took place in preparation for the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894, now called Golden Gate Park (see photo gallery below for photo of the original de Young Museum). The original de Young Museum aged poorly and over the years the structure slowly fell apart. Finally in
1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake severely damaged the building, and plans were made to construct a replacement structure. In 1999 a competition was held for the design of the replacement museum, among the finalist teams were architects Tadao Ando, Cesar Pelli, Antoine Predock, Rafael Viñoly, and Herzog & de Meuron whom were selected as the winners of the competition. From the very beginning the design for the new museum was the subject
of controversy and criticism. Its appearance was accused by its critics as being a “huge shed,” an “Internet start-up company,” an “aircraft carrier,” a “Howard Johnson’s of the future,” “atrocious” and “ugly,” but it would not be until construction for the Herzog & de Meuron designed de Young Museum was completed on October 15th 2005 that its critics would be silenced.
de Young
5
The de Young Museum and Golden Gate Park have a unique history, but unlike Renzo Piano’s design for the California Academy of Sciences building, which is sited across from the de Young Museum on the other side of the park, the Swiss architects decided to take a fresh new approach and relieved their selves of such historic constraints. The only
“The museum is a ruin by design.� James Cornetet
similarities between the previous museum and the new one is that they share the same site. It is important to note this, because by ignoring the past and starting fresh, the new design for the de Young Museum becomes timeless. Timeless in that its presence suggest that it has always been and will always be. Entablatures, colonnades and pitched roofs have been omitted, suggesting that the structure is without influence from history and
may in fact be a relic from prehistory. Herzog & de Meuron chose to ignore the history of the site in search of something greater, and they found it.
de Young
7
The de Young Museum is not as polished as a Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry design, it is also not as flamboyant. The museum is a ruin by design, and is intentionally clumsy and graceful at the same time. The de Young Museum is a deceptively complex building. Deceptive, because at first glance the structure appears as a simple monolithic form.
Like the stepped pyramids of Central America and the pagan temples of antiquity the de Young Museum consists of variable readings: From afar the form is simple, monumental and timeless, but as one approaches the structure the building’s ornamentation begins to reveal itself as the delicate details become apparent only when close to the structure. The structure is beautifully detailed and few exterior conditions are left unresolved.
The de Young Museum is devoid of any kind of historic or contemporary style, and until one enters the interiors, it seems that Herzog & de Meuron have come very close to creating a building with the same kind of timelessness as a Louis I. Kahn building or a rare modern masterpiece.
de Young
9
The copper rainscreen that sheaths the building is the result of an experimentation in using the technology of our time, to create an effect that is reminiscent of the craftsmanship and sensitivity to detail from the past. The mantra of Herzog & de Meuron is to focus on using common materials in an uncommon way. There is no finer example of this than the de
Young Museum. Regardless of whether you ‘like’ the design or not, there are few structures in the world that come close to such an orchestration of a singular material in the design of a building’s skin. The skin of the building is impressive because of the technique used by Herzog & de Meuron and their ability to come up with a unique language for a singular material, which is not only beautiful, but resolves nearly all of the museum’s needs.
de Young
11
It is impossible to discuss the texture of the facades of the de Young Museum without talking about pattern, the two are beautifully merged together creating a surface that appears to be disintegrating right before our very eyes. Although the structure appears to be disintegrating, the concept behind the design of the exterior was to create a skin with
many layers that would manipulate light similar to natural occurrences in nature. The idea for the texture and patterning of the copper skin came from Jacques Herzog on a site visit he took pictures in Golden Gate Park of the effect of sunlight filtering through the leafy trees of the park. This effect is successfully realized in the built structure, and is evident when viewing the building from virtually any vantage point.
de Young
14
Tatur sitatenit reic tem eratusda ipsandia natur? Ita aut rerro ea as sinimus, solor seque volumque prenient. Borrume seditio eossimu sandant. Lenda aborendi cum apis dessum audipsapis ne nestrum sant ut eseque vit est ati volo estinciatet doloritatia aboribus, eum si ut vent re nihicab oreped quas nossimus, cusam