NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART BY SANAA
THE SERPENTINE PAVILION BY TOYO ITO
Critical Historical Practices | Assignment 02 ARCH7035 (2020) Renae Schulz a1703673@student.adelaide.edu.au
&
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 01. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPOARY ART BY SANAA (2007) AND THE SERPENTINE PAVILION BY TOYO ITO (2002).
PROGRAM DEFINES STRUCTURE 02. PROGRAM BRIEF AND STRUCTURAL TYPE OF THE NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPOARY ART. 04. PROGRAM BRIEF AND STRUCTURAL TYPE OF THE SERPENTINE PAVILION.
SITE DEFINES MATERIAL 06. SITE DEFINES MATERIAL OF THE NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPOARY ART. 08. SITE DEFINES MATERIAL OF THE SERPENTINE PAVILION.
ENVELOPE DEFINES EFFECT 10. ENVELOPE DEFINES EFFECT OF THE NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPOARY ART. 12. ENVELOPE DEFINES EFFECT OF THE SERPENTINE PAVILION.
CONCLUSION 14. A COMPARISON AND SUMMARY OF BOTH CASE STUDIES.
ENDNOTES IMAGE REFERENCES Figures on cover page left to right 01. The New Museum of Contempoary Art by SANAA 02. The Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito
INTRODUCTION NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPOARY ART (SANAA) THE SERPENTINE PAVILION (TOYO ITO) Architecture is site specific, allowing the identity and culture of a place to play a vital role in the design of the building. The context is sometimes more obvious then not when delving into a finished design outcome. Looking at two case studies, The New Museum of Contemporary Art (2007) by SANAA and The Serpentine Pavilion (2002) by Toyo Ito, shows how a specific exterior factor played a key role in the decision-making process the finished design. The first example discussed is how program defines structure type. The New Museum of Contemporary Art and the Serpentine Pavilion have very specific programs, pre-determined before being constructed. The program function is a key role in how the spaces have been designed. This has direct influence on the structural type for both designs, pushing the structure to the outside to create an open, column free interior with maximum flexibility. The second discussion topic is how the site defines materiality. The New Museum of Contemporary Art is situated in what was a rough, downtown suburb, influencing the raw and harsh materials seen on both the interior and the faรงade. The Serpentine Pavilion is not so direct in taking influence from the surrounding green, however the results of framing the views and the transparency in materiality allows the exterior to be brought in. The final example is how the envelope defines the effect. While program and site define structure and materiality, these instances define the envelope ultimately all defining an effect and final atmosphere of the building. Through the two case studies, evidence is found in ways an exterior factor influences the completed design. Figures on right top to bottom 03. The New Museum of Contempoary Art by SANAA street scape 04. The Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito exterior photo
01
PROGRAM DEFINES STRUCTURE NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART (SANAA) ““A museum of contemporary art should be neutral in character of its gallery spaces, in order to create the widest palette for the art itself” As stated in PRAXIS.1 The New Museum of Contemporary Art does just this. Designed from the inside out, the museum is a steel-framed structure, with a concrete slab composite-steel decking and concrete foundation walls. The structure features numerous programmatic boxes in different directions on a vertical axis. The building was to house a café, auditorium, administration offices, education facilities and the most important, open, flexible, and column-free exhibition spaces located in the third to fifth floors. The form is a series of stacked boxes, slightly shifted along the horizontal plane as you travel upwards. The New Museum of Contemporary Art features experimental programming and a maturation within the institution. This feature couldn’t be influenced by the spaces that housed this. The steel-framed bracing and truss system run along the outside walls, allowing a freedom of space within the shifted boxes. The beams are exposed on the interior with white painted walls and raw concrete floors, allowing the art to feel accessible. A simple, white space was key to allow usage for the ever evolving and changing contemporary art scene within New York City.
Main structural components. Steel bracing pushed to exterior. Main box volumes stacked.
Figure to right 05. The New Museum of Contempoary Art by SANAA exploded axonometric of main volumes and steel bracing design highlighted in blue.
02
Figure 06. Interior photograph showing exposed steel bracing through windows, framing view
Figures above 09. Plan drawings with open, flexible space highlighted in blue. Figures to right 10. Elevations showing steel bracing members. Due to slight shift in boxes columns don’t run directly through the whole structure. Therefore the main structural component is a steel frame bracing to allow open, column free plan.
Figure 07. Interior photograph showing exposed steel decking and beams in ceiling allowing open, column free exhibition space below.
Figure 08. Interior photograph showing exposed steel decking and beams in ceiling.
Floor plans showing open, free space for specific programic functions. Main structural components, focussed through ceilings and interior edges.
03
PROGRAM DEFINES STRUCTURE THE SERPENTINE PAVILION (TOYO ITO) Unlike the longevity of SANAA’s design, The Serpentine Pavilion is intended to showcase an international architect who has never built in the UK before through a temporary structure. The deign to build timeline was that of just 20 weeks. The design must house a café and the gallery’s program of films, lectures and other events.2 The Serpentine Pavilion designed in 2002 by Toyo Ito in collaboration with Arup consists of a three-dimensional bracing system of interlocking planes. Due to the fast turn around and temporality of the design, an algorithm was used to create rotating diagonal lines around essentially a box. Cecil Balmond states, “I had to ask, why not the box after all, if we could do something special; if we could embrace the straightforward in some extraordinary way?”3 The main structural components consist of flat steel members welded together off site into individual sections. These were then bolted into place on site.4 Steel sheets clad with aluminium compose the walls and roof while slithers of space between the main structural components is left for ventilation or closed with clear glazing.5 While lines change thickness at a junction, the centre line remains continuous. The difference between Toyo’s design and SANAA is the structure is the design. The structure is on show to the public, while the New Museum of Contemporary Art has a mostly hidden structure, hence allowing the art to speak for itself. Main structural components. Flat steel members, bolted together. Interior and exterior aluminium plates. Glazing between steel frame work.
Figure to right 11. The Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito exploded axonometric of structural steel in blue and aluminium and glazing panels.
04
Figure 12. Interior photograph with steel members highlighted in blue.
Figure 13. Interior photograph showing open plan, column free interior allowing maximum flexability for face, lectures and exhibitions.
Figure 14. Photograph of one entry point with flat steel members highlighted, creating a pattern across the whole facade and roof.
FRONT COUNTER
LOW TABLE
Floor plan showing open, free space for specific programic functions. Main structural components, focussed through walls and roof.
LOW TABLE INFORMATION
Figure to right (left) 15. Floor plan drawing with open space highlighted in blue. Figures to right (right) 16. Elevations highlighting steel bracing members. The steel members are welded together to create a continunous framework around the box. The structure system influences the finished look of the design.
FLOOR PLAN
05
SITE DEFINES MATERIALITY NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART (SANAA) During the 1800’s the Bowery was New York’s most desirable suburb as well as home to a the cultural scene, however after Broadway took centre stage the neighborhood declined.6 Since the 1990’s the neighborhood has had a steady revival contributing to change. “The Bowery was very gritty when we first visited it. We were a bit shocked, but we were also impressed that a contemporary art museum wanted to be there”, as quoted by Kazuyo Sejima of SANAA.7 The New Museum of Contemporary Art was intent on enhancing what was left of the rough downtown art scene, tapping into the Bowery’s history.8 With direct access to the street, the museum offers a desired engagement with the wider community. Lisa Phillips (director of SANAA) explains, “We wanted transparency from the street so people could see the art inside.”9 Although the façade is opaque, it remains an accepting, open and embracing similar to the history of the Bowery and the history of the Museum itself. “When we learnt about the history of the New Museum we were flabbergasted by its attitude, which is very political, fearless and tough.” quoted by Kazuyo Sejima Merkel of SANAA.10 Materials were inspired directly from surrounding context with a zinc-finished envelope reflecting the light. The developed skin is an expanded mesh with industrial standard, presenting itself as either too elegant or trashy for the suburb in which it is situated.11 The staggered boxes are directly inspired by the stepped-back towers of New York but also speaking into a moment of uncertainty in New York’s economic future and cultural scene.12 Although the finishes are familiar along the streetscapes of the Bowery, they are seen in a different light. The mesh façade reflects the light creating a heightened mass while also creating a continuous surface of transitional depth. The New Museum of Contemporary Art presents itself with a strong identity amongst the streetscapes of the neighborhood, bringing an optimism to this recently neglected area.
Figures to right 17. Site plan of The New Museum of Contemporary Art by SANAA 18. (Top Photograph) Neighbouring buildings in the Bowery, New York 19. (Bottom Photography) Streetscape and frontage of the Bowery, New York
06
01. Raw concrete interior on floor and white painted concrete walls creating a ‘neutral space’.
01
02. Steel window and door frames as seen through thefacade of neighbouring buildings. 03. Mesh facade similar to balcony balustrades. 04. Framed views similar to frame windows as seen throuh all neighboring buildings.
04 02
03
Large Black and White Figure 20. Photograph of streetscape on approach to The New Museum of Contemporary Art Figures from top left clockwise 21. Interior photograph showing steel bracing through glazing. 22. Approach of interior staircase showing raw concrete finished floor 23. Exterior photograph from balcony looking through to interior. 24. Photograph of facade mesh.
07
SITE DEFINES MATERIALITY THE SERPENTINE PAVILION (TOYO ITO) The New Museum took direct materiality from the existing suburb to build a new design. The Serpentine Pavilion took the direct views of Hyde Park to be framed and experienced in an unlikely way. Located in Hyde Park, London, The Serpentine Pavilion emerges from the green surroundings. Inspired by the paths running directly through the park, Toyo Ito collaborated with Daniel Bosia of Arup to develop an algorithm producing endless opportunity of networks.13 Cecil Balmond explains, “I saw lines travel all across Hyde Park and over the lawn in front of the gallery, like Nazca lines, to infinity by somehow controlled”14 Similarly to these paths the surface becomes a mesh of circuits, seemingly travelling no where, yet at the same time moving everywhere.15 Surrounded by the green of Hyde Park it was important to bring the outdoors in and as a result “You loose the sense of being contained. You feel like you’re inside and outside at the same time, since the surrounding landscape is brought in.” As stated by Project Manager, Mark Robinson.16 The skin produced a variety of glazed openings with the ever-changing light. This creates a pattern of shadows through the interior direct from the above and surrounding structural components. The glazed sections allow the exterior views of the park to be in view but slightly off-kilter.
Figures to right 25. Site plan of The Serpentine Pavilion in Hyde Park, London. 26. (Top Photograph) Photography of path through Hyde Park, approaching Serpentine Pavilion. 27. (Bottom Photography) Photograph from Pavilion back to gallery.
08
01. Transparent glazing to frame views of existing ‘teahouse’ in the park. Angles provides a different outlook to the known view. 02. Glazing on key joins to grame exterior view of sky, everychaning from the effects of the weather. 03. Aluminum panelling allowing a selective view of the exterior greenery with the light finish bouncing light through the whole interior.
02
03
01
Large Black and White Figure 28. Photograph of exterior of Serpentine Pavilion from behind hedge. Figures from top right clockwise 29. Photograph of interior view looking outwards into Hyde Park. 30. Exterior photograph of joinery between glazing and aluminium. 31. Interior photography of main cafe open space.
09
ENVELOPE DEFINES EFFECT NEW MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART (SANAA) Program influencing structure, site influencing material is a pre-requisite for the resulting envelope. This envelope then defines the effect on both the interior, exterior and atmosphere. The New Museum of Contemporary Art features an expanded mesh, designed in England on an industrial level. This zinc finished envelope reflects light and heightens the mass. The permeability of the mesh allows a way to enhance and capture all the changes of light through the day. It also acts as a metaphor for the dynamic art this institution fosters.17 The mesh emphasizes the main volumes however also brings a delicate nature to the otherwise harsh, and industrial surrounds, producing a soft and shimmering skin. “With the galleries in this building, we tried to play with dimensions and the way daylight falls in the spaces. This allows the visitor to experience art in slightly different conditions on different visits, at different times of the day, in different spaces, without impeding the qualities of the art.” as mentioned by SANAA.18 The envelope differs to match the scale of a human, with the street presence a transparent glazing before the mesh takes over. The same design happens again on the balcony level. This engages the visitor and creates an inviting opening inside the building. While the envelope is opaque from a distance, it does not contradict a desire of engagement. SANAA moved away from a flat surface and explored options to create the resulted ‘blurry effect’.19 Although the deisgn is a static form, and a play on stacked boxes, the envelope of this design enlivens the light of day creating a visual reference back to the openness of the New Museum and the every-changing nature of contemporary art, the visitors through the space and the change of the times as a museum and the Bowery.
Zinc coated mesh creating a consistent blur and heightening the structure. Figures left to right 32. Expanded mesh detail elevation drawing. 33. Photograph from street with mesh hightlighted defining scale difference.
10
ENVELOPE TO MEET THE HUMAN SCALE It’s important to note the envelope changes to meet the scale of a human. Keeping an opening and welcoming street presence with transparent glazing, however changing to a blurred, opaque mesh once larger than a human figure. This results in height and a weighted mass, defined by the stacked volumes. Transparent glazing at the scale of a visitor. Aluminium mesh creating a consistent blur when larger than a visitor. Figures left to right, and top to bottom 34. Photograph of exterior envelope mesh material. 35. Elevation drawing highlighting scale of human figure in blue. 36. Photograph from balcony highlighting transparent glazing next to facade mesh. 37. Photograph from neighbouring building highlighting street presence.
11
ENVELOPE DEFINES EFFECT MIDDAY
THE SERPENTINE PAVILION (TOYO ITO)
MID-AFTERNOON
MID-MORNING
Similarly to the change of light created in The New Museum of Contempoary Design, Toyo played with this idea, wether intentional or as result. With a design where architecture and engineering dance seamlessly together, the Serpentine Pavilion demonstrates a search for dynamism of space and a new method of collaboration. It is evident on distinction between architect and structural engineer at the detail, although this happens later in the project.20 Cecil explains, “The textures of lines came to my mind by first asking how the people who come in and out of the park could be part of a magic capsule in the park. To admit them into this volume, the trick was to make the surface of the volume vanish in a series of cross-rhytms”21
LATE-AFTERNOON
EARLY MORNING
The envelope becomes a circuit, going nowhere yet at the same time moving towards everywhere. The extension ceases and it becomes a time capsule.22 With an angular envelope, and an alternating set of opaque and open faces the result is a dynamic visualization, that serves effect, as a “laboratory for a structural aesthetic which would have been inconceivable in an earlier era”. quoted by M, Kemp.23 With a full open field on either side of the structure, there is an unobstruction, allowing the envelope to develop it’s full expressive effect.24 Through this use of opaque and transparent faces, the resulted effect is a dance of light through the interior, off the white reflective aluminium and the change of shadow as the day continues. The structure of the envelope, defines the light and the ever-changing dynamics, everytime a new visitor enters the space.
Movement of sun across structure, resulting in ever-changing interior qualities. Figures top to bottom 38. Elevation drawing showing scale and movment of sun across structure. 39. Elevations showing all opaque facades.
12
ENVELOPE DIRECTLY INFLUENCES INTERIOR LIGHTING CONDITIONS The irregular distinction between opaque and transparent in the envelope creates an everchaning and non linear shadow and lighitng situation within the structure. This changes through the day as the sun moves and allows a new experience everytime a different visitor enters the space. Illumination is also important at night time, as shown in the image above. Opaque panels creating barrier for light, resulting in scattered patterns of sun through the space. Figures left to right 40. Interior cafe photograph showing specific light quality amongst dining area. 41. Exterior photograph highlighting evening illumination.
13
CONCLUSION A COMPARISON AND SUMMARY It is evident by researching both The New Museum of Contemporary Art and the Serpentine Pavilion, that exterior factors play a huge influence on the decisions made when designing the structure, the materials, and the envelopes. Key moves were made through an influence of program. Both designs opted for open, column free spaces meaning all structure was pushed to the exterior walls and ceilings. Steel bracing was key for both designs, allowing flexibility and freedom through the interior. The main difference was The New Museum of Contemporary Design chose to hide most structural elements, keeping a ‘neutral character’. The Serpentine Pavilion took structure on board used this element as the main design feature, embracing the pattern and depth the steel bracing created (although the bracing was designed with that in mind). Site has a direct influence on materiality, with both designs expressing their context. SANAA chose to carry the influence of the industrial, rugged Bowery through both interior and exterior, with raw, heavy materials while Toyo expressed Hyde Park through transparency, allowing a cohesion between exterior and interior. Finally, the effect is influenced by the moves made through the envelope with the soft illumination of natural light, through the reflection of the expanded mesh by SANAA and an expressive search of dynamic space through the algorithmic pattern created in the Serpentine Pavilion. Both projects go about site, materiality and envelope very differently. However, both The New Museum of Contemporary Art and The Serpentine Pavilion show design influenced by the existing factors of program, site and envelope.
14
END NOTES 01.
PRAXIS: Journal of Writing + Building , 2005, No. 7, Untitled Number Seven (2005), pp. 24.
02.
Sheila Kim, “Serpentine logic [pavilion, Serpentine Gallery],” Interior design 8 (2002) : pg. 131-132
03.
14.
Cecil Balmond in Crossover pg. 137
Cecil Balmond in Crossover pg. 136
15.
Lotus international, “Toyo Ito Associates, Ove Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Kensington Gardens, London, 2002,” Lotus international 122 (2004): pg. 57.
04.
Catherine Slessor, “Delight [tea house, Hyde Park, London],” Architectural review 1267 (2002): pg. 98
16.
Sheila Kim, “Serpentine logic [pavilion, Serpentine Gallery],” Interior design 8 (2002) : pg. 132
05.
Sheila Kim, “Serpentine logic [pavilion, Serpentine Gallery],” Interior design 8 (2002) : pg. 131-132
17.
Architectural Review, 2008 Apr.,v.223,n.1334,p.52-[59].
06.
Detail (English ed.),2008 Mar.-Apr.,v.2,p.120-121
18.
Fairs, Marcus. 2020. “New Museum Of Contemporary Art In New York By Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa/SANAA”. Dezeen.
07.
Kazuyo Sejima Merkel, J. (2008), SANAA’s New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York. Archit Design, 78: pg. 100
19.
Architectural record, 2008 Mar., v.196, n.3, p.134
08.
Merkel, J. (2008), SANAA’s New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York. Archit Design, 78: 98-101. doi:10.1002/ad.684
20.
Lazo, Pablo. “Why Cecil Balmond Never Says No.” Log, no. 4 (2005): 65-77. Accessed October 27, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41763541.
09.
Architectural record, 2008 Mar., v.196, n.3, p.134
21.
Cecil Balmond Lazo, Pablo. “Why Cecil Balmond Never Says No.” Log, no. 4 (2005): 65-77. Accessed October 27, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41763541.
10.
Kazuyo Sejima Merkel , J. (2008), SANAA’s New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York. Archit Design, 78: pg. 100
22.
Lotus international, “Toyo Ito Associates, Ove Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Kensington Gardens, London, 2002,” Lotus international 122 (2004): pg. 57.
11.
Architectural record, 2008 Mar., v.196, n.3, p.[132]-139
23.
Kemp, M. Science in culture. Nature 418, 590 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/418590a
12.
Architectural record, 2008 Mar., v.196, n.3, p.[132]-13
13.
Lotus international, “Toyo Ito Associates, Ove Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Kensington Gardens, London, 2002,” Lotus international 122 (2004): pg. 57.
24.
Temporary Pavilion In London - DETAIL Inspiration. 2020. Inspiration.Detail.De. https://inspiration. detail.de/temporary-pavilion-in-london-106495.html.
15
IMAGE CREDITS 01.
Baan, Iwan. Domus (2007) Dec. p. 21. Photograph (originally colour)
22.
Richters, Christian. Architectural Record (2008) Mar., v.196, n.3. Photograph
02.
Thomas Madlener. Temporary Pavilion in London. Detail 9 (2002). Photograph (originally colour)
23.
Richters, Christian. Architectural Record (2008) Mar., v.196, n.3. Photograph
03. 04.
Richters, Christian. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223,n.1334. p.52. Photograph (originally colour)
24.
Baan, Iwan. Domus. (2007) Dec., n.909. p. 21. Photograph
Photographer Unknown. Casabella 711 (2003). Photograph (originally colour)
05.
Schulz, R. Drawing of Exploded Axonometric, The New Museum of Contemporary Art. 2020.
25.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Lotus international, Toyo Ito Associates, Ove Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Kensington Gardens, Londo (2002). Lotus international 122 (2004): 55.
06.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Yoshio, F. GA Document (2007) Dec.,n.100,p. 106. Photograph (originally colour)
26.
Photographer unknown. Cecil Balmond and Toyo Ito, Toyo Ito Associates, Architects +Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Londra, Gran Bretagna (2002). Casabella 711 (2003): 9. Photograph (originally colour)
07.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Richters, Christian. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223. p.52. Photograph (originally colour)
27.
Juan Antonio Cortes. Toyo Ito and Koji Taki, “Toyo Ito 2001-2005,” Croquis 123 (2004): 175. Photograph (originally colour)
08.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Photographer Unknown. Croquis (2008) n.139. p.169. Photograph (originally colour)
28.
Photographer unknown. Cecil Balmond and Toyo Ito, Toyo Ito Associates, Architects +Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Londra, Gran Bretagna (2002) Casabella 711 (2003): 9. Photograph (originally colour).
09.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Drawings by SANAA. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223. p.52. Plan Drawings.
29.
Takayuki Miyoshi. Toyo Ito: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2002) -Toyo Ito with Arup, Kensington Gardens, London., GA document 71. p. 72. Photograph
10.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Drawings by SANAA. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223. p.52
30.
Photographer unknown. Cecil Balmond and Toyo Ito, Toyo Ito Associates, Architects +Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Londra, Gran Bretagna (2002) Casabella 711 (2003): p. 12. Photograph
11.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Takayuki Miyoshi. Toyo Ito: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2002). Toyo Ito with Arup, Kensington Gardens London. GA document 70. p. 77.
31.
Catherine Slessor. Delight [tea house, Hyde Park, London], Architectural review 1267 (2002): 98. Photograph
32.
Drawing by SANAA. Casabella_n.763 p. 81. Detail elevation of façade mesh.
12.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Takayuki Miyoshi. Toyo Ito: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2002). Toyo Ito with Arup, Kensington Gardens London. GA document 70. p. 77. Photograph (originally colour)
33.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Photographer Unknown. Casabella. n.763 p. 76. Photograph (originally colour)
13.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Catherine Slessor. Delight [tea house, Hyde Park, London. Architectural review 1267 (2002): 98. Photograph (originally colour)
34.
Baan, Iwan. Domus, 2007 Dec., n.909. p. 21. Photograph (originally colour)
14.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Thomas Madlener. Temporary Pavilion in London. Detail 9 (2002): 1028. Photograph (originally colour)
35.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from drawings by SANAA. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223, .p.54.
15.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Juan Antonio Cortes. Toyo Ito and Koji Taki, Toyo Ito 2001-2005,” Croquis 123 (2004): p. 178.
36.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Richters, Christian. Architectural record (2008) Mar., v.196, n.3. Photograph (originally colour)
16.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Takayuki Miyoshi. Toyo Ito: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2002). Toyo Ito with Arup, Kensington Gardens London. GA document 70. p. 78
37.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Photographer unknown. Casabella. n.763 p. 77. Photograph (originally colour)
17.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Site Plan, SANAA. Croquis (2008) n.139. p. 156
38.
Schulz, Renae. 2020. Redrawn from Takayuki Miyoshi. Toyo Ito: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2002) Toyo Ito with Arup, Kensington Gardens London. GA document 70 (2002): 78.
18.
Photographer unknown. Casabella_n.763. Photograph (originally colour)
39.
Thomas Madlener. Temporary Pavilion in London, Detail 9 (2002): 1028. Elevation drawing.
19.
Richters, Christian. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223. p.52. Photograph (originally colour).
40.
Photomontage. Schulz, Renae. 2020. Overlayed Catherine Slessor. Delight tea house, Hyde Park, London, Architectural review 1267 (2002): 98. Photograph (originally colour)
20.
Baan, Iwan. Domus. (2007) Dec., n.909, p.15. Photograph (originally colour)
21.
Richters, Christian. Architectural Review (2008) Apr.,v.223,n.1334. Photograph
41.
Photographer unknown. Cecil Balmond and Toyo Ito, Toyo Ito Associates, Architects +Arup: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, Londra, Gran Bretagna (2002). Casabella 711 (2003): 9. Photograph (originally colour)
16