A couple of weeks ago, while admiring the statue in Piazza Campo del Fiori, Jordan and I met some art history student from england named Phil. He mentioned that he was interested in switching majors to architecture and one conversation led to another until the topic landed upon Richard Meier's Ara Pacis. He said something that really struck me, it went something like "you just don't build a contemporary building in a city that is 2000 years old." Now, given that he was an art history major, I can let that slide, but now he's dissing on modern architecture, expecially our own home american grown Rich?! I tried to explain that where else could a new building have such a meaninful dialogue with such a rich immediate and extended context that spans over 2000 years!? It is a very rare and special opportunity that is fertile ground for profound architecture! Unfortunately i couldn't say much else because i hadn't even seen the building in person at that point, so the conversation kind of died there...with him not liking it because it was new and me not being able to discuss specifics. HOWEVER, earlier this week, we had an excellent tour of the exterior museum with "Slim Jim" Scotty from the AIRC and.....well....where to begin! Lets just say that i was right without even knowing it.
Lets start with extended context. Now, for architecture its important to respond the history of rome, without re-representing it. If we as architects fall into copying typologies, we are missing the true specificity and evolution of architecture. And besides, if rome is truly a stratified city comprised of layers of different architectural time periods, then in modern times we should build modern buildings. If rome didn't build "of the times" than we wouldn't have the beautiful medieval, baroque, renaissance, ancient, fascist, and imperial era buldings, and everything would look as it did when the seven hills turned into the republic. So this new museum should feel Roman, but not neccessarily look Roman.
Typically, roman buildings, whether they are residential or commercial, civic, etc, are organized in a tripartide vertical composition with a base, middle, and capital or top. Meier follows this motif and used a stone base, partially because it serves as the foundation for the heavy "Altar of Piece" for which the museum is designed for. FOr the middle Meier uses a fully glazed spider clipped facade, with a floating white roof that serves as the "capital" or top. He even incorporates horizontal glass inoperable louvers not only as shading devices, but also to thicken up the facade, a very roman thing to do. SO what we get is a very modern looking building that still references the historic contextuality of Roman compositions in architecture, while still incorporating modern notions of transparency and floating.
Oh, I forgot to mention, looking at the foreground of this picutre is an entrance to the tomb of Augustus, so this new building couldn't be anymore in the heart of this 2000 year old city! Here is a pic of the tomb.
Also, keeping with extended context, Rome, as indicated by the famous (an utterly helpful) Noli Plan, is a city where the buildings craft public space. THe map indicates this by showing the buildings as black, and all of the public spaces (including churches) as white. The Ara Pacis's entrance is raised off of the ground about 4 meters, unto which there is a beautiful white staircase that raises up to a forecourt that houses the entry. At the west end of the stairs on the ground level there is a fountain, which carves out some seating and also contributes to Rome being a city of public fountains. The steps are prime seating in any public space, and are reminiscent of a piazza, even to the piazza near our first apartment in Trilusa, where we sat and hung out many a times. Typically if you want to sit down, stairs are the best and most lively place to do it. So the Ara Pacis creates a very roman type of public space as part the entry sequence into the building.
This is a good point to cross over into how the building fits in with its immediate context. First, the building literally and metaphorically makes a connection to the river right on the other side of those trees in the above picture. Literally by stepping up to the level of the river with the stairs, and metaphorically with the fountain, and a water feature that runs around the upper "piazza space". Unfortuanetly, none of this was working because the water stains the stone that Meier chose, so it was shut down for some heavy duty cleaning (one of the building's many criticisms). Also, the stairs refernce the piazza di Ripetta that used to exist to the west of the site previously.
Also, there are two churches to the south side of the museum that the building takes into account. Specifically, Meiers building responds to the difference in the churches facades...
With this church, the San Rocco, notice the entrance. There are no steps, no plinth, no heavy base like we typically see in churches, the door goes almost right down to the ground plane. So, Meier's composition responds to this by the fountain being at the same level. It also is right on the ground plane, which referneces the level of the church that it faces. Now given that it is not on axis with the church door, **side note, that subject is the scene of a glorious battle of wits between Matt and a previous tour guide** i would say that it doesn't matter because the fountain relates to the church in a much more meaningful way than being lined up perfectly with the door. THe second church, (sorry for the sideways pic, and thats scott pointing at the church)
the Santa Maria Portae Paradisi, has a much higher facade and is more to the east and more towards the entrance of the Meier composition. Unfortunately the truck hides the bottom of the entrance, but you can tell that it is raised off of the ground, and even the columns sit up on a prominent base. So the architecture of the museum responds by setting a viewing platform that juts out in front of the church, which ultimitely is higher in elevation because the orientation of the church lines up with the higher "piazza space" of the entry forecourt. So, two churches, two different facades, two different conditions, two different responses.
I truly feel that this building is a good example of a contemporary building in the heart of rome. There is a conscious effort to take into account the buildings context, both extended and immediate, so the building is both Roman on a wider scale and site specific. There is no wild, un-bridled individualism in this modern building, like we see in other places by star architects. It is a building that is of our times and is meaningful to the history of the city. Unfortuately, people like Phil won't step back and architecturally analyze the building like Scott did for us, but if people get past their prejudice about something new in the center of Rome and truly take in the space..... they will see a building with very meaningful spaces with a very meaningful dialogue with history, and no its not perfect, but its a good example of what architecture can and should be. Soon, the initial wave of criticism with any new piece of architecture will die out and we will turly see the value of the building.
Scott (who provided us with such great info) told us that at the opening of the building, Meier explained that he remembered vividly 50 years prior, being a student in Rome, and dreaming about designing a building in the very heart of the city........... and I believe that we all can relate........
No comments:
Post a Comment