just throwing this out there.. i wish they would have hired coop-himmelblau. vinoly is great but so boring.

I am fine with graceful/boring for the CMA, but I kind of hope to be delightfully punched in the face with MOCA.

 

For the Bruer fans online, do you think by trying to honor the Bruer addition as an equal to the original building in the overall design, did it minimize the impact of Bruer's design?

There was a comment along those lines in an article recently posted, and I guess I can see that.

 

It is well documented on this board that I am not a fan of the Ameritrust building, but for some reason I liked his work at CMA.  Maybe because when I was a little kid on field trips to the museum, we would always enter that way, so I just thought that is what the whole museum looked like.

 

Just wanted to get the opinion of a Breur fan.

just throwing this out there.. i wish they would have hired coop-himmelblau. vinoly is great but so boring.

 

Just remember "Mr. Viñoly's master plan is designed to display great work, not overwhelm it". 

They were not interested in making a strong statement with the building, more-so just producing a great space to view a great art collection. 

just throwing this out there.. i wish they would have hired coop-himmelblau. vinoly is great but so boring.

 

the cma doesn't need another flashy building, it already has two.

just throwing this out there.. i wish they would have hired coop-himmelblau. vinoly is great but so boring.

 

the cma doesn't need another flashy building, it already has two.

 

Exactly.  A museum structure should make a universal statement that transends time.  IMO, what the outside of the building looks like is less important than the collection(s) on the inside.

A building can only be timeless if it defines the time in which it was created.

Wish them the best of luck with the probate appeal ... This seems like it would definitely increase the likelihood that they will be able to proceed. I'm so proud that we have an art museum that can draw $15 MILLION off the INTEREST of trust funds EXCLUSIVELY for the purchase of art EACH YEAR. That is not including any other unrestricted endowment funds or their annual revenue intake. There is definitely a reason that this is a world-renowned institution, folks. Cha-ching. Yay Cleve!

^For all of Cleveland's well documented bad luck, one bit of good luck was the fact that at a time when we had industrial titans swimming in money, establishing and contributing towards endowments and foundations was in vouge.

 

Thanks Jeptha Wade, and all your crazy buddies!

Breuer! flashy? He is considered a brutalist and constructivist.. thats as far from flashy as it gets. Tell me the name of famous museums off of the top of your head. guggenheim bilbao moma ny.. iconic architecture. Just saying it adds a level of depth to an organization. These structures exemplify the abilities of an architect to provide space for art IN art. look at the CAC in cinncinnati and akron art museum. if you are really honestly "overwhelmed" by the building and can't concentrate on the art when you go into the exact same rooms that are in every art museum covered in white walls to display the art then you are just making an excuse for not comprehending the depth of creation behind iconic museum spaces. all you have to say is that you dont like it. CMA doesnt get the respect it deserves nationally because there is nothing that grabs you. Nothing that demands attention. They paid a high price for "design" that is meant to not exist? He didnt go all tabula rasa on us, but the design is just nothing special IMHO and in that regard it takes away from the collection by not adding to it.

 

punch,

I am not necessarily a breuer fan, but his work is certainly minimized by vinoly. Every time I see the addition that has been made that is supposed to look like the brueur wing materials yet the colors are off because it hasnt worn. its the most disgusting attempt to replicate an idea and I am seriously appalled that anyone could think that was a great way to honor the past. vinoly respects it in a way but any space will always be minimized in a certain way when there is an addition.

if you are really honestly "overwhelmed" by the building and can't concentrate on the art when you go into the exact same rooms that are in every art museum covered in white walls to display the art then you are just making an excuse for not comprehending the depth of creation behind iconic museum spaces.

 

if you think of them as the "exact same rooms," I could easily say the same for you.       

 

let me put it this way, if we agree that you hang the art on the inside of the museum, not the outside, then what part of the museum is the most important then?  not that one precludes the other, but rather, that one is significantly more important.  and the new wing succeeds remarkably in this, in ways far better than museums with more "iconic" buildings.

   

 

           

 

 

if you think of them as the "exact same rooms," I could easily say the same for you.       

 

unfortunately there are standards set for which to follow. no not all museums follow it and most great ones dont however there are similarities and inconsistencies (i actually attended a lecture about how there is a slight difference in the "white" color of the walls of museums around the world.. boring i know but interesting nonetheless). I dont think that the actual space for the art is bad, its nice. but only nice. nothing fantastic. the overall scheme just isnt very special. its my opinion. if you think thats a good thing thats fine; many do.

 

CMA is still at best the third nicest piece of art museum architecture in the state. Which is saying a lot for ohio, but no so much for vinoly. IMHO

 

VV haha yeaaa i mean akron and the CAC in cincinnati .. i respect your opinion though. i dont believe they are better museums, just as pieces of architecture.  :mrgreen:

 

 

 

and sorry to rile you up sfbob, but i think that being an architect should allow me to talk about buildings.

 

^Care to elaborate further?  (which museums are better, please do not say Akron) Once the center atrium is completed and the entire vision is constructed I think you will feel otherwise.  Vinoyls idea of setting the 1916 Beaux Arts building as a diamond in an engagment ring is wonderful.  Evocative of the age in which the museum was founded and why it is so strong today.  Just my opinion.

Well keep in mind that CAC and Akron are FAR smaller buildings, both around 80K feet (as opposed to CMA's almost 600K+ after completion), both sited on relatively compact urban blocks in a CBD- not an Olmsted designed lagoon/park surrounded by iconic buildings housing diverse institutions. Sure, CAC and Akron have more dynamic buildings but their setting and size are what make them work, IMHO. For CMA to get an ultra-modern addition, given the size and site? I can't say that would be a good thing.

Almost too ridiculous to even compare or talk about, Scav put down the pipe. The CMA is not even close to being finished but you can make those type of judgement calls? Please.

I think of the vinoly design in terms of what gwathmey did for the guggenheim.  there was an iconic building, he needed to respect it.  can you imagine that building with a coop-himmelblau dog and pony show in background.  preposterous!

 

ultimately, there is no satisfying some people.  and that is probably a good thing. 

Well keep in mind that CAC and Akron are FAR smaller buildings, both around 80K feet (as opposed to CMA's almost 600K+ after completion), both sited on relatively compact urban blocks in a CBD- not an Olmsted designed lagoon/park surrounded by iconic buildings housing diverse institutions. Sure, CAC and Akron have more dynamic buildings but their setting and size are what make them work, IMHO. For CMA to get an ultra-modern addition, given the size and site? I can't say that would be a good thing.

 

I am a little surprised that Kansas City's Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art has not yet been mentioned (as far as I can tell). It may provide the best comparison with CMA since the original N-A building was modeled after CMA's 1916 building.  The settings of both museums are very similar, and they both have (or will have) contemporary additions.  Hell, they both have The Thinker.

 

The main difference is that N-A did not have a significant addition built until Stephen Holl's 2007 building; Holl had more of a blank slate to work with than Vinoly having to deal with one iconic building versus two.

 

EDIT: I do want to emphasize that I think Scav has a point in that the Vinoly design was a relatively safe one, and certainly safer than Holl's.  Once the construction is completed, I would love to see an exhibition at CMA (and N-A) comparing the two designs.

Scav never said you should be muzzled but to tell you the truth being an architect doesn't, IMHO, give you or any other architect any more insight or bragging rights. When it comes to this specific subject I just don't know how anyone can really make these kind of calls until the building is finished and you have actually experienced what the function of the building is for and I think in this case it's to witness amazing art and not the architecture, although if they both happen together it's not a bad thing for sure.

sfbob - sorry if my saying that seemed pretentious of me but I do know what I am talking about as far as architectural criticism. You hit the nail on the head when you said "if they both happen together". Thats what I am looking for in this building and, from what I have seen SO FAR, I am not convinced I am going to see that. I just feel like vinoly played it too safe to become anything more than a "cool modern expansion" instead of the world-renowned, visible, iconic institution that it deserves to be. IMHO

 

mayday/math- the size is only part of the challenge. You can't say whether or not it would have been cool (nobody can) to have a design by wolf prix or even ghery because we dont know what they would have come up with. would be nice to see what could have been, and who knows maybe i would have liked vinoly's the most. I just wish I knew the other options... speaking of which, does anyone know where I could see holl's plan? or any others?

 

i was speaking of his plan for the CMA expansion.. but thanks, IMHO thats a decent expansion. it kind of kills the old museum at night though haha

^http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?id=19

eh. given the choice of those two i'll take vinoly's, but i certainly agree who can really say for sure until cma is done.

eeesshh.  I don't like that KC expansion at all.  Looks like a series of glow in the dark warehouses.  I'm sure it looks cool as hell at night though.

Love Steven Holl, but I have not liked that addition since I first saw it.  It has no relation to the original building.  I think that is the thing that should challenge the design, to work with, not in disregard to, the existing building.  I think that's an interesting design for a blank slate, but not an additon.  Also why I like Vinoly's design.  It plays with the original design.  I definitely think that it could have been more inventive but does have some very interesting mannerism like concepts.  Coop's building in Akron is actually intriguing, because it almost ingests the original building, that kind of tension I think also recognizes the original building that is there.

ARCH 101: (for me)

 

So there is talk that by having Vinoly's design incorporate some of the design aspects of the Bruer addition, it has minimized its impact.  So, my question is does the Bruer design, and brutalist design in general only serve as a point of contrast?  Is the additon only remarkable because it is unlike anything around it, and not on its own merits?

Punch; your question cannot be answered by a yes or no. This is makes it a great question! I will try to help you, but, there is no right answer. However there are underlying truths that an architect must satisfy. These constraints challenge an architect to create something that he or she agrees meets those truths and whatever else it can accomplish (which is unfathomable). As to actually attempt to shed light on your question my comment is that simply any design MUST minimize/change the impact of another simply because you are adding something. In other words the Breuer design becomes one of three, not one of two. This changes the impact of all built form around it. I believe that the addition of rooms that are designed to mimick the Breuer design are horrid. Imagine if he would have had some marble columns built; its all the same to me. That would be like using smoke and mirrors and in my opinion he loses a lot of credibility with that structure. That is my critique. I think he gives it less honor by trying to copy it instead of having his building know and understand the breuer and try to build upon it in a respectful way.

 

Brutalist design was implemented as a branching idea of constructivism. That is, less is more. Brutalism is simply another way to achieve that minimalist idea of completing a structure with extremely factual forms. Wether or not they are more factual by the use of concrete vs steel and glass is another thread all together. So, the founding ideals of brutalism were to be truthful and honest as well as beautiful. Wether you think they (especially Breuer) achieved this is completely a mans opinion. SO they did not necessarily try to simply make forms that were unlike anything around it, they only tried to make the bare minimum. Constructivism (art moderne) mainly utilizing steel and glass while brutalism took more of a concrete approach. This is why the building looks like it does. Decoration and ornament of any kind was pretty much a sin to them.

 

Dont know if that helped or made it more confused.. but thats a great question and I really enjoyed trying to answer it.

Expansion of the museum continues - this is the view of the west wing; looks like some foundation work is happening:

 

Judge Anthony Russo of the Cuyahoga County Probate Court has ruled that the Museum of Art may use up to $75 million of restricted endowment income (spread out over the next ten years) toward bridging the $138 million gap in funds for completing the expansion project.

 

(yay!)

 

http://www.cleveland.com/arts/index.ssf/2009/10/cuyahoga_county_probate_courts.html

^very good news.

^That's GREAT news!  Let the expansion continue.

Hell yeah!

 

Cleveland Muesum of Art board OKs next phase of expansion project

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

December 14, 2009, 10:16PM

 

 

Encouraged by a rebounding endowment and favorable construction prices, trustees of the Cleveland Museum of Art voted unanimously on Monday to embark on the second major phase of a $350 million expansion and renovation.

 

But the vote authorizes only the first half of the remaining work, called "Step C," which includes completing exterior facades and the raw interior structure of a new West Wing and central atrium.

 

Trustees will vote in June on whether to proceed with the final stages, including completion of interior floors, walls and ceilings, and the installation of art in galleries devoted to textiles, pre-Columbian and Asian art.

 

MORE FROM LITT: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/12/cleveland_muesum_of_art_board.html

 

wow great to hear this!

This had to happen and it did. I am excited for the future, and the finished product.

 

By the way, it's fun and easy to show your support for the CMA and the decision to continue the building campaign. Check out Gauguin: Paris, 1889. Open through the holidays!

 

/shamelessselfpromotion

Expansion of the museum continues - this is the view of the west wing; looks like some foundation work is happening:

 

 

Is that foundation work for the west wing or the atrium?

I'm going to guess the atrium - the west wing will probably start (just guessing) further back in the photo - maybe near the striped Breuer section on the right?

Another way to support the museum is to become a member

 

http://www.clevelandart.org/memberanddonorcenter/jointhemuseum.aspx

^Family/household card carrying member here :-)

 

Photos of construction:

 

 

 

^Cool!  That rising steel in this second shot is- that tat CMA phase II or VA in the background?

That's CMA phase II; the VA is too far away and down the hill to be seen from that spot :-)

^Thanks!  Wow, I didn't realize they were already that far along on Phase II.  Exciting!

Is that the atrium or the west wing being constructed?

West wing.

Are they using the atrium as a staging site?  I guess it makes sense that it goes up last because they probably have to affix part of that glass roof to part of the soon to be constructed west wing.

the steel you see above is for what is called the office bar. keep in mind, breuer never had a back side to it. employees currently housed at the penton building downtown will be housed here. before long, we will be seeing trusses in the air, and framing for the atrium. west wing will be part of the final stages, as the construction project will need to back out of the U. 

Thanks for clarifying - when you say "before long"...? :-)

when you say "before long"...? :-)

 

I am being purposefully vague.

Does the West Wing have a green light for sure or is there still fundraising that needs to be done to reach that goal?

I am being purposefully vague.

 

 

Just kidding - glad to see it progressing :-)

Does the West Wing have a green light for sure or is there still fundraising that needs to be done to reach that goal?

 

It's described in one of the articles up thread.  I believe the building construction for the west wing has a green light thanks to the ruling allowing a redirection of some endowment money, but the art installation/interior finishes in the west wing still need further approval down the line.  I don't think there is much of a risk of the entire project not being completed at this point.

as I understand, the board is reviewing/approving each phase, piece by piece.

In Cleveland, a Frenzy to Prepare Antiquities

The museum is in the midst of one of the most ambitious rebuilding programs of any art institution in the country, a $350 million project expected to be completed in 2013. All through its corridors, workers with dollies and moving blankets hauled unlikely assemblages of priceless works out of storage and conservation rooms as the museum prepares for the reopening next month of its antiquities galleries, as well as those devoted to Byzantine and medieval works, all of which have been closed for five years.

 

It is an undertaking whose complexity — and importance to patrons of Classical and ancient art — is perhaps rivaled only by the reopening of the Getty Villa near Los Angeles in 2006 and the renovation of the Greek and Roman Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art a year later.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/arts/design/26classical.html

 

 

I'm super excited for this.  The antiquities are my favorite part of the art museum.