Arch6430 2014 fall ryan hp

1

Piano’s Tuning: Strategies & Tactics for Delivering Successful Historic Renovation Projects

A Case Study of The Isabella Stewart Gardner and Fogg Museum by: Ryn Burns, Laurel Clark, John Hayford, Carrie Goforth and Tori Wiegand

Abstract

This paper will investigate how design teams collaborate when renovating and/or redesigning existing structures with historical significance in order to better understand the interactions between a design architect, the architect of record and additional consultants and agencies to deliver complex projects. The principal focus will be on the firm Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW), the design architect for two historical restoration/renovation projects in the Boston area: the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the Harvard Fogg Museum. In both cases, local design partners were enlisted to execute the project according to local code and to serve as liaison between the design architect and subcontractors. RPBW carefully orchestrates projects teams, maintains strong client communication, expertly manages permitting and execution of complicated high profile preservation projects.

2

Table of Contents

Renzo Piano Building Workshop Firm Profile Design Process

3 5

Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Historical Context Project Team Politics/Resistance Project Timeline and Process

7 8 9 10

Fogg Museum Historical Context Project Team Project Timeline and Process Politics/Resistance

21 24 26 32

Comparison Coordination of Project Team Calming Combative Clients Construction Issues Creating Meaningful Mock-ups Careful Material Specification

32 33 33 33 33 34

3

The Renzo Piano Building Workshop

Firm Profile The Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) is an international architectural practice founded in 1981 by Pritzker Prize winning architect, Renzo Piano. The firm currently has three offices located in Paris, Genoa, and New York City. RPBW is centered around Piano and 13 additional partners, followed by 22 associates, 76 additional registered architects and nearly 130 employees.1 After many decades of practice, Piano considers the current size close to ideal, explaining “the right size ultimately means being ‘big enough to do whatever you want.’”2 For Piano, that includes a variety of concept design, interior design, town planning and urban design, landscape design, exhibition design, and construction supervision. The main office for the RPBW is located in Genoa which doubles as Renzo Piano’s private home. While it is an advantage for Piano to have a tranquil location to complete his work, it would appear to be a disadvantage to be at such distance from his projects.

The work completed by the Renzo Piano Building Workshop covers a wide variety of project types. With over 120 projects completed worldwide, RPBW is most famous for designing museums, airport terminals, exhibition designs, and education and university buildings. Other projects include bridges, residences, concert and convention halls, government assignments, master planning, offices, retail, and mixed use buildings (Figure 1).

Regarding his extensive portfolio, Piano is quick to clarify: “Let me just say that I'm not a museum builder by definition...What I can say is that I much prefer public buildings. It's not because they're more chic or more important; it's because they make a town a better place to live in.” 3 In addition, RPBW focuses on projects of historical context and renovation. As a firm, RPBW has earned over 70 design awards, from different organizations including the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).

1

www.rpbw.com Wright, Herbert. “Mega-Practices: Size Versus Creativity.” The LEAF Review. Design Build Network. 4 Jun. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

3 Bailey, Spencer. "Renzo Piano." Surface Apr. 2014: 26+. General OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

2

4

Figure 1. RPBW Project Types

Figure 2. RPBW Typical Project Durations

5

Design Process The design process at RPBW greatly emphasizes collaboration. Their belief is that through the participation between the architects, clients, and other specialist consultants, the design process will create a more complete design proposal. Piano likes to emphasize this more horizontal approach, explaining that “RPBW is well ordered, but not a hierarchy; it’s a joyful machine!” He also credits his partners and associates as “the rock upon which we base the office - a secret of why we’re doing well,” which is refreshingly humble given his own ‘starchitect’ status. “‘I’m not the owner,’ he insists. ‘I share this. I push to share.’”4 Piano extends the sharing attitude to his clients as well as his coworkers, by including them in the design process - to a certain extent. In another interview he explained, “Clients are so important. A good client doesn't tell you to do what you want. A good client is someone who struggles together with you. And a good client is someone who trusts you--if you're trustable.”5 RPBW does not actively look for projects; however, they often have the upper hand in deciding whether they want to take a project on or not. As a result, the relationship between the client and the RPBW is mutual, as both have actively chosen to participate in the project.

The design mission at RPBW is closely connected to the idea of craft, as Piano himself comes from a family of builders and highly values the pragmatics of architecture. “I got to be a good builder. If you can't understand how a building is put together, it's like a pianist who can read music but can't play it.”6 Attention to detail is paramount, and buildings are approached as assemblies, where each part receives as much thought as the whole. The emphasis on intricate component pieces misleads some to think the firm’s focus lies in inventive use of technology, but while technology is celebrated and embraced, it is not the end goal. “Piano’s architecture...is shaped not just by function and technology but also by the place and its traditions”7 The history of the site, the community, the preexisting components are all critical considerations for informing a design that fits the project needs. The context for each project is unique, and the approach should be as well. The firm aims to “seek the design solution that seems most natural and least contrived, least constrained by architectural

4

Wright, Herbert. “Mega-Practices: Size Versus Creativity.” The LEAF Review. Design Build Network. 4 Jun. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

5 Bailey, Spencer. "Renzo Piano." Surface Apr. 2014: 26+. General OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

6 Dyckhoff, Tom. "The top of his game; Interview." Times [London, England] 17 Dec. 2008: 14.

7 Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

6

dogmas of any sort, and least cluttered by bogus ‘creativity.’”8 This way the essential spirit of the project can speak more clearly, unencumbered by superficial accoutrements. It is also important to note that RPBW believes “it is not necessary for technology to be incompatible with nature or history.”9 The firm reconciles these seemingly disparate components by returning to its roots in craft. In tying together the future and past, both sides of the story are enhanced. Historical elements become highlighted features that newer additions defer to, while the technology added is likewise emphasized through contrast. Piano understands that “to participate in history means not only responding to the past and its traditions, but also living in the present by helping the future to be born.”10 Piano’s mission entails balancing craft and technology, component and assembly, as well as past and present.

With a practice anchored in detail and context, RPBW projects can be strikingly unique, yet some critics accuse them of being bland. This is partially because “Piano remains aloof from the pure pursuit of that unholy trinity of fashion, fame, and fortune that has undone so many of today’s star architects, whose work is as a result, shallow and only of short term significance.” 11 He is less concerned with the continuity of his portfolio than the continuity of the projects themselves. His sensitivity toward the assembly and the site make for designs that defer rather than dominate. As a result, “his reputation, rare in an architect, of decency and unpretentiousness has flooded him with work in the past 15 years.”12 Understanding his clients goals only helps to enhance the design coherence. The collaborative process between himself, the client and other contributors is key to producing work that is similarly integrated and in line with the RPBW mission. “Through attentive listening, his architecture tries to grow out of, accomodate itself to, or crystallise complex situations rather than be a brutal and reductive imposition of will or personal design idiom. To pursue this ideal, the design process of the Building Workshop is itself highly participatory, with clients, consultants, craftsmen and subcontractors all contributing throughout the process.”13 The philosophy behind this practice 8

Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

9 Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

10 Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

11 Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

12 Dyckhoff, Tom. "The top of his game; Interview." Times [London, England] 17 Dec. 2008: 14.

13 Buchanan, Peter. Renzo Piano Building Workshop : Complete Works, Volume one. London: Phaidon Press, 1993.

7

structure is to eliminate the isolated chain of design typically attributed to multidisciplinary teams, where ideas are filtered through various specialists only once, and changes are patched rather than reworked. True collaboration happens simultaneously not sequentially.

Given this non-hierarchical design process it is no coincidence that the firm identifies itself as a “building workshop,” a name that honors the craft-based origins of the work and the mutual respect shared by its participants.

Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

Historical Context Isabella Stewart Gardner was a well-known philanthropist of the arts who acquired a vast collection of art which she eventually used to establish a museum open to the public.

After struggling to have children, her doctors strongly encouraged her to travel abroad to work through her deep depression. On her trips, which lasted a year at a time, she developed an interest in all forms of art and established relationships with artists. On one of her trips to Venice, she and her husband rented a Venetian palazzo, Palazzo Barbaro, which later influenced her design of the museum. Isabella Gardner and her husband, Jack, had planned to construct a building before he died, intending for it to display their collection of art as well as to be used for concerts, lectures, and artist projects, but it wasn’t until after Jack died that she acquired the land. She worked with Willard Sears on the design of the building, taking on the role of the architect while Sears assisted her. Her designs violated the building codes of the time but the Boston building department just looked the other way. The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, originally referred to as Fenway Court, opened on the night of January 1st, 1903 when Isabella Gardner was sixty three. Isabella Gardner saw the museum as a cultural center rather than just a museum and inspired artists to make and display new work along with the historic works she collected. Her will stipulated that, if any of the collection were changed, then the entire collection would be sold.

8

Project Team

After 100 years and 150,000 annual visitors, wear and tear on the existing structure became an issue, and an expansion was needed to properly accommodate the essential functions that kept the museum running, such as offices, classrooms, a shop, and café. The architect selection committee was chaired by William "Bill" Egan and advised by Robert Campbell, a Pulitzer Prize winning architect. The trustees and staff started with a list of seventy five firms and then vetted it down to twenty five. Renzo Piano had contacted Anne Hawley at the urging of a previous client, Raymond Nasher, for whom Piano designed the Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas. Piano stated that he would accept a commission if offered, but that he would not compete for the job, certainly one of the luxuries of being a world renowned architect! Bill Egan proposed that the committee visit Piano’s previous buildings before making a decision. The committee recommended Piano to the trustees on November 2004.

9

Burt Hill functioned as the local architect for the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.

They referred to their role as bringing Renzo Piano’s concept from an idea into a reality. Burt Hill’s Boston office was used as the "home base" for Renzo Piano Building Workshop to collaborate. The company, acting as architect of record, was a privately owned business with a staff exceeding six hundred employees and thirteen offices, including the one in Boston.

The architectural drawings were all stamped by the chairman of the company, Harry Gordon, who had been with the company for thirty six years.14 The final president and CEO of the company was Peter Moriarty who worked as an architect for the company for twenty six years before becoming the CEO. He ran the company for ten years. Half way through construction and a year after the building permit was issued, Burt Hill was sold to Stantec. Moriarty was quoted stating, "Our decision to join Stantec was based on the benefit that our clients, and those of Stantec, will receive through our combined ability to provide an unparalleled range of resources, expertise, services, and geographic reach. It will also provide more growth opportunities for our staff."15 It appears that Stantec left Burt Hill alone to finish out the project before becoming more proprietary. Both Gordon and Moriarty left Stantec only one year later, to each go off on their own. Burt Hill had done so much work prior to the sale that being bought out did not negatively impact the project.

Paratus Group also served a critical role in managing the design of the project. The company has many advantages because they specifically work with assisting museums and cultural institutions. The company had previously worked with Renzo Piano on the Kimball Museum and The Morgan Library And Museum. Their specialty is coordinating the selection process for all the consultants and subsequently overseeing them through the project. They act as advocates for the client by establishing a document early in the design process that serves to create parameters such as cost, program, schedule, and design for the architects to work from throughout the design process. The company works directly with the museum’s project manager, the architect’s representative, and project manager. 16

Politics/Resistance Since the announcement of the museum addition, the project was highly controversial.

The public voiced concern that a new addition would overpower the historic building and the

14

Linkedin. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harry-gordon-faia-leed-ap-bd-c/10/79a/195. Oct. 17, 2014.

Marketwire Canada. "Design Firm Burt Hill Joins Stantec." Dec. 6, 2010.

16 Friends of Historic Mission Hill. "Letter to Anne Hawley." May 12, 2009.

15

10

owner’s original intentions. The appearance of the building and collection had always been highly controlled. For legal reasons, the project had to be approved by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to ensure that it did not go against the stipulations that Isabella Gardner set forth in her will. The court ruled that the restoration and planning project was “consistent with the primary purpose” of the will: her wish to establish a museum for public enjoyment and education. The ruling stated that the project was a “reasonable deviation from subordinate terms of the charitable gift in the will of Isabella Gardner.”17 The museum’s plans also had to get approval from historic, preservation, and regulatory agencies, including the BRA, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston Landmarks Commission, and Boston Preservation Alliance. The destruction of the carriage house behind the museum was a perticularly controversial decision approved by these agencies, as many believed it to be a historically relevant structure and protested its demolition.18 The project gained favorable momentum with the endorsement of Mayor Thomas Menino and City Council President Michael Ross and eventually gained the support of the museum’s institutional neighbors and community groups in Fenway.19 Brian Pfeiffer’s article “A Return to Splendour” highlights the shift in attitude. While “Gardner provided tight restrictions on change, no institution can exist in a vacuum...the key is that the changes are thoughtful and patient-virtues that are amply reflected in the current project”20 The museum’s director claims that there was little opposition during the construction process itself, except from Friends of the Historic Mission Hill. After reportedly seeing moving vans and offices being vacated, they wrote to the State Historic Preservation Officer expressing concern that records of the Fenway Court campus had not yet been submitted and needed to be completed before demolition or construction could begin.21

Project Timeline and Process At the first design meeting in Paris, the clients expressed great disappointment with Piano’s initial design, which include a piazza covered by undulating roofs with an underground music

17

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Approves Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Expansion."

Artdaily.org. 8 Mar. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.

18 Smee, Sebasitian. "What Fate for the Carriage House That Mrs. Jack Built?" The Boston Globe 17 May 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.

19 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Approves Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Expansion."

Artdaily.org. 8 Mar. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.

20 Brian Pfeiffer. “A Return to Splendour.” Apollo 1 Jan. 2012. Print.

21 Friends of Historic Mission Hill. "Letter to Anne Hawley." May 12, 2009.

11

hall and a canal and bridges constructed around the site (Figure 3). The clients felt this proposal completely separated the building from the gardens. Bill Egan described the idea of the canal as looking like something seen in Las Vegas. After Egan stated that it was Piano’s job to design the building, Piano went to hand a pencil to Egan to ask what he wanted and then threw the model in the trash, stating, "All great projects start with an explosion." Anne Hawley also noted that Piano helped the clients communicate their expectations to him through "ten-hour days in the studio and then again at night over lovely dinners that he hosts."

22

Figure 3. ISG 1st Design Proposal

Going forward, Piano said the new building must be a "respectful nephew to the great aunt."23 In the second proposal, the distance between the two buildings was critical to the design because he wanted the ground floor to be flooded with natural light through wall to wall glass, so as to make the first floor open to the outdoor gardens (Figure 4). Piano encouraged the clients to not withhold any critique and to be honest about their opinion. He, however, insisted that they never offer any design solutions to problems.

Hawley, "Anne. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Daring by Design," 2014.

Hawley, "Anne. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Daring by Design," 2014.

22 23

12

Figure 4. ISG 2nd Design Proposal

Piano was obsessed with the distance between the buildings as it was crucial for the ground floor to receive natural light and for the perception that the buildings were separate structures. The "big" idea for the third proposal, which remained in the final design, was a glass corridor that connected the two buildings while still making them appear separate, keeping the new building set back deferentially from the existing museum. The glass corridor was eventually going to be surrounded by trees on both sides to further camouflage the connection (Figure 5). This glass corridor would direct visitors visually through the gardens while progressing towards the existing courtyard. The third iteration also introduced two floating pavilions which would hover over a ground floor completely enclosed in glass.

The two largest remaining issues at this stage were the music hall and the stairway. The clients wanted the music hall to have an intimate setting which none of the proposed designs had yet achieved. The music hall was critical to the design because the original musical hall no longer exists. Eleven years after the museum’s opening Isabella Stewart Gardner had the it torn down and converted the space into two floors for additional artwork. The committee also sought a grand staircase, but Piano was drawing narrow staircases that did not meet their expectations. At this time the clients had asked to put the design process on hold while they fund raised more money for the project, but Piano threatened to quit if they did not keep the process going.

13

Figure 5. ISG 3rd Design Proposal

The fourth proposal kept many of the previous concepts from the earlier proposals (Figures 6, 7, 8, 9). One of the main changes was that the two floating pavilions became four.

The music hall and grand staircase were still not resolved. Hoping to resolve the challenges of an intimate music hall, the clients brought in acoustician Yasuhisa Toyota from Nagata Acoustics to work with Piano. When Toyota commented that sound always travels upwards, Piano was instantly inspired. The new proposal was a concrete enclosed cube shaped music hall with single rows of balconies stacked around a center stage.

Meanwhile, Piano had proposed the building be clad in wood clapboard, concrete, and steel with glass, but these were all rejected. To appease them, Piano looked to the existing museum’s exterior for a reference for the new façade. On the fourth floor, he noticed light green weathered copper trim capping the high walls, and proposed a corrugated, pre-patinated copper cladding. The green copper panels would float above the "transparent first floor and echo the green of the gardens." 24

24

BRA. "Mayor Menino Kicks-Off Construction of Gardner Museum’s New Addition." Jan. 22, 2010.

14

Figure 6. ISG 4th Design Proposal

Figure 7. Music Hall Design Proposals

15

Figure 8. Music Hall Final Design

Figure 9. Music Hall Photos

One hundred million dollars were needed before the project could break ground. The total fund-raising campaign was set at $180 million: $114 million for the building’s hard and

16

soft costs, $46 million for the endowment and $20 million for the garden, preservation projects in the historic palace, the opening year’s programming, and fundraising expense. Ultimately, construction hard costs reduced from one hundred million to seventy five million due to the financial crisis.

Due to the strict stipulations in Gardner’s will, only minimal intrusion to the existing structure was proposed. The new building would be a standalone structure but would be connected to the Palace on the ground level via a pedestrian walkway as well as on the first level below grade via a pedestrian tunnel. No other physical connections were planned.

Nonetheless, the opening created for the glass corridor required the Attorney General’s Office to consider the legality of the alteration. The Massachusetts Historic Commission "concluded the larger preservation issue was the museum itself, that the new building was needed to absorb many functions, and that the treasured old carriage house was in the way."25 The new structure included two new sections: one consisting of five stories above grade and two below; the second only two levels above grade. The proposed use groups included A-1, A-3, B, R-2, and S-2 with construction types 2A and 2C. The 83,000 square foot addition was to incorporate visitor services, administrative capacities, and programming.

Relative to the surrounding Fenway neighborhood, the addition was located behind the existing Palace Building, supporting it but not competing with it. Piano explained: "The new building may actually be the tool, the instrument, to save the Palace without changing it too much. That is a fragile creation that cannot survive with its current level of use is one of the conversations we’re having every day. We are talking about an intimate museum that wants to remain intimate."8

25

Hawley, Anne. "Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Daring by Design," 2014.

17

The scope of work applied for in the initial building permit included renovating the basement, 1st floor, and 4th floor of the existing Palace building as well as demolishing the two story Carriage House and constructing a connection between the existing and a new building. The letter to the Building Commissioner stated that the Palace is listed as a totally preserved historic structure which allowed it to be exempt from certain state requirements.

The application was approved with certain conditions including shade impact drawings, window restoration, hardscaping/planting, lighting, and furnishing plans.26 However, the existing site is located in H-2 Residential District which does not permit retail, restaurants, concert halls, offices, and greenhouses. Therefore, the proposal was not in compliance with zoning and required a variance. The proposal also required relief from the minimum front and rear setbacks. The Boston Inspectional Services Department soon notified the contractor that the application needed relief from the Board of Appeals.27 The director of the museum, Anne Hawley, and Schirmer Engineering coordinated the Board of Appeals application and were granted an approval with the conditions that the BRA review the design. The BRA informed director Anne Hawley what would be required for the review as well as a list of conditions which included lighting, signage, sidewalk reconstruction and improvement plans.28 It was determined that the project complied with the scoping determination and the BRA voted for the Director to issue a Certification of Compliance pursuant to the Boston Zoning Code.29 Richmond So Engineers conducted the construction document review for Buro Happold30 and Shawmut Design & Construction was awarded the contract with a budget for 26

Boston Landmark Commission. "Letter to James Labeck." Oct. 21, 2008.

White, Thomas. Letter to Shawmut Design & Construction. Mar. 27, 2008.

28 Boston Redevelopment Authority. "Letter to Ann Hawley." Dec. 29, 2008.

29 Boston Redevelopment Authority. "Letter to Commissioner William Good." Nov. 17, 2008.

30 Buro Happold. "Letter to Richmond So Engineers, Inc." Sept. 24, 2008.

27

18

$66,000,000. The contract included the contractor securing the permits for the project which they had already.31 Buro Happold handled the structural, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, and plumbing sign offs. The construction company requested a permit to build the foundation only; with their application they included a two million dollar bond.32 A few weeks later the Geotechnical Engineers applied to the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) to waive the pile load test. In exchange they offered the load test which was performed at Simmons College Fen Dining Renovation which offered similar soil and loading conditions due to its proximity to the site. Schirmer Engineering proposed design alternative methods that would be addressed through State Building Code Appeals. The engineers wrote to the Building Commissioner requesting a denial letter so that they could move forward with the State Building Code Appeals Board process. The list of provisions that they were seeking to appeal included the atrium smoke control design, the music hall upper balcony egress, pedestrian walkways, exterior exit protection, exterior exit walls, and application being under the 6th edition. On June 17th, 2009 Schirmer Engineering submitted a 780 CMR Variance Request Report.33 The BBRS convened on July 21, 2009, and the official letter of approval was received in November 12, 2009.34 Buro Happold also managed the LEED certification of the project. "Main components of the sustainable design are a geothermal well system, daylight harvesting, water-efficient landscaping techniques and the use of local and regional materials, which reduces the environmental impact associated with transport.”35 Historical considerations were also addressed during the preconstruction phase. The Boston Landmarks Commissions wrote to the Clerk of the Works regarding the hearing held in Boston City Hall on Sept 23, 2008 about the existing Palace renovation. A year later, the State Historic Preservation Officer wrote to Anne Hawley stating that they had completed their review and that they were satisfied with the documentation they received.36 In early 2010, the Boston Landmarks Commission Executive Director responded in a brief e-mail stating that the Massachusetts Historical Commission had participated in the documentation review submitted to the board and that they were the only ones needed to sign off on the project.37 31

Shawmut Design & Construction. "Letter to James Labeck." Dec. 10, 2008.

Shawmut Design & Construction. "Letter to Assistant Commissioner Gary Moccia." Feb. 9, 2009.

33 Schimmer Engineering. "780CMR Variance Request Report for the New Building." Jun. 17, 2009.

34 BBRS. "Letter to Schimmer Engineering." Nov. 12, 2009.

35 BRA. "Mayor Menino Kicks-Off Construction of Gardner Museum’s New Addition." Jan. 22, 2010.

36 Simon Brono. "Letter to Anne Hawley." Jun. 15, 2009.

37 Boston Landmark Commission. "E-mail to Susan Rice." Jan. 25, 2010.

32

19

Around the same time, the Project Director and Director of Operations for the Gardner Museum and Clerk of the Works for the addition, James S. Labeck, wrote a letter to Deputy Commissioner Gary Moccia stating his role in the project as well as previous experience including having previously worked for the Boston Landmark Commission, Boston’s public, private, and nonprofit sectors, National Park Service, Historic Boston Incorporated, and the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. He also stated that he oversaw the hiring of the architects, engineers, and contractors.38 Finally, The Boston Redevelopment Authority announced the beginning of construction with a new estimated cost of $118 million. The expected opening date was set for early 2012.

The building permit for the addition was released on January, 25th 2010, two years after the first drawings were delivered to the building department.39 Eight months later the BBRS convened again regarding "the delayed egress features.”40 According to the document the 6th edition of 780 CMR allows for delay on means of egress but not for Use Group A. The approval was granted with the conditions that signage be placed on doors, that stoppers be colored, and that a person be available to manually open the exits from a control center. The official signed approval was received September 30th, 2011.22 The final plumbing, mechanical, fire protection, structural, and electrical affidavits were all signed off on October 25th, 2011. The builder and architectural affidavits were signed off on a week later. The certificate of use and occupancy was issued on December 20th, 2011, before the anticipated completion date, bringing to fruition Piano’s plan which incorporated natural light into the increased space, making the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum as relevant in the 21st Century as it was in the 20th.41

38

Labeck, James. "Letter to Deputy Commissioner Gary Moccia." Jan. 2, 2010.

Permit #2739 Jan. 25, 2010.

40 BBRS. "Decision." Sept. 30, 2011.

41 Boston Inspectional Services Department. "Certificate of Use & Occupancy." Dec. 20, 2011.

39

20

Figure 10. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Timeline

21

Harvard Fogg Museum

Historical Context The Fogg Museum enjoys a prominent and strategic position in Cambridge. The building is located at the intersection of Quincy and Broadway, contiguous to the Harvard yard and directly next to Le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center. The area is central to the life of the university and has high foot and automobile traffic.

Figure 11. Historic Fogg Museum Building Pre-Renovation

22

The original Fogg museum was made possible by a gift in 1891 from Mrs. Elizabeth Fogg in memory of her husband to build, “an Art Museum to be called and known as the William Hayes Fogg Museum of Harvard College.”42 The museum opened in 1895 on the northern edge of Harvard Yard in a small Beaux-Arts building by Architect Richard Hunt.

When the museum outgrew the spatial constraints of the original building, it moved to a new building designed by architects Coolidge, Shepley, Bulfinch, and Abbott of Boston. The building at 32 Quincy Street was designed in 1925 and constructed and finished in 1927. The joint art museum and teaching facility was unique as the first purpose-built structure for the specialized training of art scholars, conservators, and museum professionals in North America.

By the time Harvard began to consider a contemporary overhaul of the structure in the late 1990s, the museum collection had once again outgrown its building. The structure had already been extended several times to include a number of auxiliary spaces. Seven additions were undertaken from 1932 to 1992, including the Straus Conservation Center, Mongan Center, Werner Otto Hall and the Naumburg Wing.43 There were multiple structural and physical problems with the original building that threatened the collection.44 These included leaks and the dangerous lack of proper HVAC and climate control systems, now standard in art gallery spaces. The new building would have galleries, laboratories, and classrooms in addition to public circulation, and massive storage facilities on several lower levels. The research and teaching facilities would be enhanced. Study centers would be an important feature of the new building.

The original museum was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so the building was “significant” by definition and had to be considered for preservation.45 The renovation/remodel intended to consolidate three Harvard museums and address physical problems with the building that were threatening the collections.46 “The goal was to have a state of the art facility while being sensitive to the historic building.”47

Forbes, E., History of the Fogg Museum of Art. 1981 Forbes, E., History of the Fogg Museum of Art, Ibid.

44 "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Sept. 7, 2010 45 Case D-1156: Fogg Art Museum, Minutes of the Cambridge Historical Commission, December 2008 46 Informal Presentation, Minutes of the Cambridge Historical Commission, April 3, 2008 47 Informal Presentation, April 2008, ibid.

42 43

23

The materials used for the new addition were heavy timber siding and a rainscreen system. There is a new glass rooftop addition on the existing building which would allow natural light into the courtyard and work spaces. The new roof is 15 feet higher than the original roof.

Charles Klee, of Payette Associates in Boston, expressed the design intention to maintain the existing courtyard at the heart of the building as a principal organizing feature of the project, which now plays a role in the public promenade through the building.48 The new structure incorporated the terminus of the Carpenter Center ramp, as depicted left, engaging its historic neighbor. The new building echoes the original’s history of providing space for galleries as tools of teaching and learning about art history and its preservation.

Following a six-year building project, the new museum achieves 40% more gallery space, an expanded art study center, conservator laboratories, classrooms, a lecture hall, a new cafe, and a transparent glass roof that bridges the facility’s historic and contemporary architecture.

The Harvard Art Museums organization claims that the new building is more functional, accessible, spacious, and above all, more transparent.49

48 49

Case D-1156: Fogg Art Museum, Minutes”. Ibid.

History of the Harvard Art Museums, website: http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/ retreived on 12/1/2014

24

The renovated complex clearly distinguishes between new and old building fabric. The original brick facade of three sides of the Fogg Museum stands in stark contrast to the cedar clad new construction. The split is made all the more apparent by the architect’s use of a transparent glass seam, accentuating the difference between materials (pictured on the previous page). The new building aims to draw passersby into the museum by means of a new pedestrian path and the Carpenter Center ramp, represented above in blue and red respectively.

Project Team The Renzo Piano Building Workshop has worked on many historic buildings in the U.S. and abroad. While working in the United States, the firm must employ an architect of record and work with historic commissions where applicable. Work on highly specialized institutional buildings such as the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the Fogg Museum requires working with additional consultants and institutional partners. This section will explore

25

the partnerships that were necessary to deliver a complex institutional project involving historic building fabric.

In the case of the Fogg Museum, members of Piano’s Building Workshop collaborated with local architect of record Payette to develop the design and produce documentation.

Piano, Payette, multiple Harvard entities, and the Building Conservation Associates, who were consulting on the conditions assessment of the historic building, worked closely with the historic commission to make the project possible.50 Payette Associates, led by Principal-in-Charge Charlie Klee, is the architect of record and local design partner for the Fogg Museum project. They began as a small firm in 1932, founded by Fred Markus and Paul Nocka, focusing on hospitals in New England. Tom Payette joined the firm in 1960, leading to the design of patient-centered hospitals, incorporating landscape, color and natural light with a modern design philosophy. The firm has since broadened its portfolio to include high-technology buildings, providing both planning and 50

Case D-1156: Fogg Art Museum, ibid.

26

design services to large institutions, focusing primarily on universities and healthcare facilities, both nationally and abroad. Payette currently has eleven principles who share equally in firm management and leading projects, similar to the organizational structure at RPBW. As a practice, the firm’s design philosophy incorporates many complementary disciplines, including landscape, planning, programming, interiors, and building science, to take advantage of the “collective intelligence” to result in innovation and invention. In an attempt to promote collaboration and encourage a dynamic, “think-tank” environment, all of the firm’s work is through a singular office. The firm is divided into design studios and project teams to create the mentoring experience of a small practice with the resources of a large firm. Designs are submitted for “collective critiques” by a cross-section of the practice, further promoting the concept of “collective intelligence.”51 Project Timeline The timeline of the Harvard Art Museums extended over 19 years. RPBW was originally hired for a different museum that Harvard was planning to build on their Allston campus. The project fell through in their early planning stages, and in 2006 Renzo Piano was commissioned to design the renovation and construction to the Fogg Museum and other connecting museums. The renovation and expansion took approximately five years of construction, with one additional year for the commissioning of the new building systems as well as the installation of the artwork. The building officially opened on November 13, 2014.

The overall length of the project is similar to most of Renzo Piano’s complex projects.

However, there were a few aspects which extended the timeline and affected the budget over their original estimated amount. These aspects included high levels of asbestos which required removal, additional structural bracing to preserve the building’s historic exterior, and the process of multiple variance applications. In addition, the site for material storage became a problem as this was a site that had extremely limited space. The solution was to store all materials over on Harvard’s athletic campus, across the Charles River, and transport to the site was needed. This solution worked well; but, it added both time to the schedule and money for transporting it.

51

Payette Associates (25 Oct. 2014). <http://www.payette.com/>

27

28

Process As a historic renovation, various aspects of this project were subject to review by multiple organizations. For example, the interior of the structure fell under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Historical Commission while the exterior facades fell under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge Historical Commission. Such complexities required the design team to spend significant amounts of time on coordination. RPBW and its associates conducted a number of meetings for synchronization and permitting in order to execute this project. In a lecture at the Harvard GSD, Piano stated, “I can’t think of any aspect of the project that wasn’t the result of multiple meetings, negotiations, etc.”52 For RPBW, communication early and often is a key to successful operations. For example, in order to meet the requirements of the commission, key members of the design team and Harvard University’s planning entities met twice with the historic commission to present the project. At a meeting with the Cambridge Historical Commission in April of 2008, representatives from RPBW, Harvard, Payette and the Fogg Art Museum presented the project in an informal way to showcase their intentions and get feedback before the time of the actual hearing regarding the proposed construction. This type of informal preemptive measure to ease the permitting and approval process is indicative of RPBW and its design team’s attention to detail throughout the process. The Cambridge Historical Commission's jurisdiction reviewed alterations to the National Register building per the 1986 protocol and reviewed the proposed demolition of the Otto Werner Hall addition (1992) and part of the roof of the existing historic main building.53 The project was also subject to review under the protocol between the university and the Commission for Harvard-owned National Register properties. The Historic Commission made clear that they would require reasonably complete renderings of the replacement project before it could determine whether the existing building was properly preserved and suggested the project wait a while longer before seeking the demolition permit approval, as it would only last a year.54 Indeed the project team did decide to wait to seek the demolition in order to ensure that they would be able to begin construction within a year’s time, negating the need to return 52

Piano, R., “How do you do it, Mr. Piano?”, Lecture, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, November 6, 2014 53 Informal Presentation, April 2008, ibid.

54 Informal Presentation, April 2008, ibid.

29

for another hearing with the Historic Commission. At a second meeting with the Cambridge Historical Commission in December of 2008, Charles Klee of Payette Associates described the project in greater detail, which would consolidate and expand exhibit space, improve the infrastructure, repair the envelope, and improve access to the collections. He displayed photos and an elevation depicting the proposed demolition as well as section and elevation drawings and a model in order to make clear that the mass of the addition would be distinct from the original building. Alexandra Offiong of the University Planning Office described the restoration of the building envelope, the need for new building systems and a more efficient use of space.55 The university worked closely with Commission staff as the design by the Renzo Piano Building Workshop and Payette Associates developed. This high priority project was able to move ahead despite adverse economic conditions.

The project team was able to work together to convince the Commission that the Naumberg Wing need not be preserved in the context of the proposed replacement project, on the condition that ongoing review and approval of details be delegated to the staff. This process demonstrates how both Piano and Payette have been able to work with institutional clients on historic projects and achieve degrees of freedom to re-author while preserving. The coordination of the design team with historic commission and institutional planning and project management groups has been critical to their success in this type of work.

In addition to preservation agencies, the project team had to navigate the considerable bureaucracy involved in building in the municipality of Cambridge. For example, building materials had to be stored across the Charles River in Allston to appease local residents who at one point managed to shut down construction. Sensitivity amongst the design team to these types of local issues was imperative to the construction of the Fogg Museum’s renovation.

55

Case D-1156: Fogg Art Museum, ibid.

30

Facade System in Storage Across the Charles River

Detail Drawings of Cedar Facade System

RPBW also worked hard to maintain good relations with Harvard during the design process. In a lecture at the Harvard GSD, Piano discussed the endless meetings with Harvard Art Museum’s Tom Lentz about the facade system. Lentz so vehemently repeated concerns about cleaning and maintenance that Piano playfully dubbed him, “the Cleaning Lady.”56 Through a process of drawing and construction of physical full scale mock-ups, RPBW was able to convince Lentz and Harvard of the durability and performance of the wooden facade.

Scale mock-ups are a staple of RPBW’s process and prove invaluable in the justification of their design decisions.

Since its opening on November 16th 2014, the project has received some staunch criticism. For example, the incorporation of the Carpenter Center’s ramp into the entrance of the Fogg has garnered particular scorn. Writing for the Boston Globe, Robert Campbell notes, “Things don’t improve as you explore the surroundings… A pedestrian ramp is a caricature of the elegant ramp next door at the Carpenter Center.”57 The material strategy has also been questioned. The use of wood is not particularly obvious. The Guardian’s Jason Farago comments, “The mixing of brick, wood and glass on the outside is unspectacular, but perhaps better for that: embellishing the Harvard campus without disrupting it.” 58 Indeed, the new building manages to occupy a prominent corner without dominating the skyline or street scape.

56

Piano, R., “How do you do it, Mr. Piano?”, Ibid.

Campbell, R., "Cramming at Harvard Art Museums", Boston Globe. November 13, 2014 58 Farago, J., "Piano reboot of Harvard art museums largely triumphs", The Guardian. Nov. 14, 2014 57

31

Preserved Skin and Temporary Bracing of the Original Fogg Museum’s Brick Facade

The treatment of the historical portions of the building also came under fire. Farago dubbed the project, “a radical overhaul disguised as a modest intervention”59 The project, termed a preservation, only saved the brick skin of the original facade, as depicted above. The rest of the original structure was completely gutted and rebuilt. Even the original windows facing the Harvard campus are now entirely closed off to control the light entering the building. It might be argued that the materials, but neither the use nor meaning of the original facade, are preserved.

Other critics questioned the high cost of the project. Edwin Heathcote of the Financial Times writes, “Indeed he has made something better. But, for a project costing $350 million, is it better enough?”60

59 60

Farago, J., "Renzo Piano reboot", Ibid.

Heathcote, E., "Renzo Piano's Revamp of the Harvard Art Museum", The Financial Times, Nov. 2014

32

Despite criticism, RPBW received high praise from its client and from some critics. For example James Russell of Architectural Record writes, “Piano managed to stuff these jigsaw pieces neatly into a design that vigilant neighbors would find acceptable in size (204,000 square feet) and style.”61 As Tom Lentz, Director of the Harvard University Art Museums made clear during a round table at the Harvard GSD on November 1, 2014, the client believes that they got their money’s worth.62

Politics/Resistance Due to the history of the establishment as a teaching museum, the new building came under controversy as it seemed to be geared towards attracting tourists and bringing people in off the street.63 The fact that the collections would remain closed during the construction process was also a point of contention in the community. The Riverside Neighborhood Association and Riverside Study Committee (composed of residents, people doing business in the area, and a Harvard representative) sought a cogent voice in all decisions made in the neighborhood, making recommendations to the project. Mary Power, senior director of community relations, stated, “Neighborhood people were concerned about the University’s proposal...They raised questions about traffic, parking, the view, air, and the water table. They needed time to figure out what they thought should happen on the site and in the area in general. Any time development is proposed in Harvard people feel as if their neighborhoods are being taken away from them.”64

Comparison The Isabella Stewart Gardner and the Fogg Museum both experienced difficulties throughout their construction phases, which isn’t unusual in projects of their scale, particularly when historical fabric is invovled. The Renzo Piano Building Workshop has shown their expertise within the realm of historic renovations through these two projects and their ability to mediate between the multiple constituents. Areas in which the two projects relate are within their project teams, their clients, construction, design processes, and material selection.

61

Russell,J., "After 17 Years, Piano’s Overhauled Harvard Art Museums Open", Architectural Record. Nov 19, 2014 62 Piano, R., “How do you do it, Mr. Piano?”, Ibid.

63 “A ‘Bigger, Better, Faster’ Museum. “UWIRE Text 17 Sept. 2013:1 General OneFile. Web. 26 Sept. 2014

64 “Down by the Riverside: A Progress Report." Harvard Magazine 1 June 2001. Print.

33

Coordination of Project Team Both museums’ renovations had complex structures to handle all aspects of these complicated projects. In both cases, a local design firm partnered with RPBW and was key to the execution of the project in compliance with local code. The firms acted as a liaison between the design architect and subcontractors. RPBW carefully orchestrated project teams to expertly navigate permitting and execution of complicated high profile preservation projects.

One aspect which made this especially successful was their emphasis on communication and teamwork.

Calming Combative Clients Both projects were executed for demanding and highly sophisticated clients. For both museums, the clients were very specific with their requirements and opinions. Throughout both projects, RPBW was able to maintain strong client communication, despite well documented disputes.

Construction Issues While both museums ran into issues during the construction, they each affected the project in different ways. The Fogg Museum delayed their opening for a year in order to set up and maintain the building while the Isabella Stewart Gardner was able to open shortly after construction was completed. In addition, comparing both timelines for the projects, the Isabella Stewart Gardner was more in line with a typical project going through initial design, design, permitting, and construction. On the other hand, the Fogg Museum worked through multiples stages together, receiving permits over a longer period of time as aspects of construction were ready. These changes to the timelines added complexity to the project and required a greater attention to detail on daily activities throughout construction.

Creating Meaningful Mock-ups These museums both involved the use of unusual materials and assemblies. In order to prove to clients that the systems they specified were high performance, RPBW often undertook the construction of full scale mock-ups as a tool for testing performance over time.

In addition, they acted as a tool for educating clients consultants and contractors about the

34

metrics and merits of their systems. This work is a defining feature of RPBW and has helped assure many clients of the sound and practical nature of their design solutions.

Careful Material Specification RPBW’s use of specific materials to differentiate new from old construction is one defining tool they often use on historic projects. This is a significant gesture that allows for a clear reading of the building’s historic fabric. More importantly this tactic has allowed Piano to convince both clients and historic preservation entities of the merit of his sometimes drastic renovations as projects that conserve important historic fabric and context. In the Fogg Museum, brick is historic, and wood cladding is the new building material with a glass seam to accentuate the dichotomy between the two. Similarly, at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the new fabric is clad in copper, which is distinct from the original masonry, with a glass corridor connecting the new addtion to the historic building. For both these projects, cladding for the new building was a major point of contention, and made the connection to the original fabric important to address. RPBW was able to convince clients and conservators through mediation, material testing, and mockups.

Summary Through studying these two buildings, we can understand the difficulties that structures with historical context involve and the methods needed to resolve them in order to create a complete and successful building. RPBW finds that the greatest success is based on thorough client and team communications as well as careful attention to detail regarding the historic aspects of the projects.