Archinect Op-Ed: The Acropolis Museum; An Unhappy Fit

by Jan Lepicovsky

Last June, after three decades of competitions and debate, the Acropolis Museum in Athens opened to the public. It was designed by internationally re-known architect Bernard Tschumi, and it houses nearly 4000 ancient Greek artifacts, including the great stones of the parthenonʼs frieze. I ﬁrst visited the Acropolis 15 years ago as an undergraduate student of architecture. Last month I had the opportunity to visit the site again, now with the eyes of an experienced architect. Hearing about the controversy surrounding the new museum, I was eager to see how one of the great theorists and idols from my student yeas responded to such a challenging, high-proﬁle commission. My ﬁrst glimpses of the building brought that familiar rush of excitement and anticipation, the kind you get at a concert just before the performer takes the stage. The simple geometric volumes, one rotated above the other, were familiar from pictures and, seeing it live, I could appreciate its powerful yet restrained presence. I walked the long way around to the front in order to take in the whole exterior. By the time I had made it around the block to the entrance, my initial excitement had faded and a different impression began to form.

Photo by John & Mel Kots

What I discovered was a building of that shows little regard for its surroundings in the adjacent Plaka neighborhood, the only surviving 19th century district in Athens. The site planning resembles a foreign embassy instead of a modern museum; that is, it designed for security instead of openness. Occupying three quarters of a large city block, there is only a single point of entry, and it requires descending a staircase past a gated checkpoint. One has only to view the project from the acropolis itself to see the relationship: an elevated megalith, completely fenced off from the surrounding 19th century urban fabric. Given the precious nature of its archeological content, the security needs are no doubt great. Yet those needs must be reconciled with the need to build an easily accessible and user- friendly urban space. Originally the museum was to be housed in a renovated former beer brewery on Syngrou Avenue, where the new Museum of Contemporary Art is now being built. I began to wonder if the ﬁrst idea wasnʼt better: it is a fundamental question of the compatibility of site and program.

Photo by Dionetian

Entering the grounds, the visitor is greeted by a polished stone terrace topped by a steel canopy, gesturing like a tour-guide towards the acropolis. The problem with this gesture however, is that the visual axis it implies is partly disturbed by a view of the backside of two historical buildings, rare gems in this city. It appears that the museum was insensitively designed with the intention that both of these buildings would be demolished, in order that not just the Parthenon, but the entire base of the acropolis site is fully visible from the museumʼs front entry. At the time of this writing, these buildings are slated to be demolished, despite the public outcry. The Parthenon is visible from this point, so the only beneﬁt to demolishing the buildings would be to provide an unfettered view of the acropolisʼ fortiﬁcation walls as a background for tourist photos. A better and ecological solution would be placing a grove of trees to block the view of the buildings, as has been proposed by a group of local architects and landscape architects. So far there is no response from the Ministry of Culture. It would be a great mistake that would rob the cityʼs inhabitants of two very ﬁne historical structures.

The site design does not encourage exploration, save for the carefully delineated glass- ﬂoored catwalks where visitors can see remnants of the old cityʼs foundations. Instead of being designed for visitors to enjoy, the landscape areas are akin to putting greens - well-maintained, yet uninviting. Not to mention un-ecological.

Entering the building, one has again the impression of visiting an embassy. The blast- proof concrete exterior opens to a surprisingly underwhelming reception lobby. A black stone ﬂoor, low plaster ceiling, and queuing ﬁles for tickets and security check evoke an upscale bus station. Having bought a ticket and entered, the ﬁrst big hall ﬁnally offered something to enjoy - a multi-story gallery displaying beautiful sculptures, proceeding towards a grand staircase. Ascending the stair to the ﬁrst ﬂoor one ﬁnds a spacious exhibit hall generously illuminated by sky- lights and diffused ﬂoor-to-ceiling glass. The impression is spoiled, however, by the massive and redundant columns, which make it difﬁcult to appreciate the sculptures. The interior design throughout is museum standard without much attempt at creating a variety of spaces or user experiences.

Reaching the museumʼs pinnacle moment, the third ﬂoor gallery with the parthenon frieze, requires ascending past the cafe terrace and bookstore on the second ﬂoor. There is no architectural celebration of this movement here, two escalators ﬂanking an unused staircase. We might as well be passing from Arrivals to Baggage Claim.

Fortunately the trip up was worth the effort, as the top gallery is quite enjoyable. From here one can view the great frieze assembled and partly reconstructed in full scale, while simultaneously seeing the parthenon itself from which it came. It is the only part of the museum that is really meaningful and successful. The cafe on the second ﬂoor feels much like the main lobby - low-ceilinged and deadpan, while the exterior terrace broils unshaded in the summer heat.

For all his writing about event-cities and the urban experience, Bernard Tschumi has disappointed here. A major museum has a civic responsibility beyond its function as a viewing place for artifacts. Here was an opportunity to provide a much needed neighborhood amenity at the intersection of the modern and historical city quarters. The scale of the new building could have been made welcome by a sensitively landscaped perimeter that invites visitors to enjoy its grounds, or it could have provided a public amenity such as a mini-park or outdoor theater. In my student days we celebrated aggressively modern buildings that were seemingly air-lifted into their historical contexts, like the Centre Pomidou in Paris. What I understand now is what really makes that project a success: it is not just the machine iconography; it is the generous public square and how the building opens onto it, offering the city a giant outdoor living room. The Acropolis Museum, on the other hand, offers very little to its neighborhood. Let us take away a lesson from this missed opportunity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

UPDATE: Here is a personal response from Bernard Tschumi:

As the designer of the Acropolis Museum, I would like to clarify a few points raised by Jan Lepicovsky’s thoughtful Op-Ed piece (posted 7/31/09). These points, along with the practical and theoretical reasons for my comments, are addressed in a site chronology written by BTA project architect Joel Rutten in the book, The New Acropolis Museum, available in the museum bookstore and distributed by Rizzoli this fall. Here let me contextualize a few of Mr. Lepicovsky’s points:

First of all, the museum site was chosen before the fourth and final building competition so as to have a direct visual and conceptual relationship with the Parthenon. This is not a simple conceit: the Acropolis Museum differs from other museums in that it is explicitly related to the Acropolis, containing almost all and only the sculptures and artifacts from the temples and sanctuaries of the Acropolis. Located less than 1000 feet from the Parthenon, its site is an archaeological ruin containing houses and infrastructure from many centuries of Athenians who worshiped on the Acropolis hill. The museum context and its contents are thus inextricably related to the Acropolis and its 2,500-year history, not to the recent neighborhood.

While Mr. Lepicovsky is correct that the neighborhood contains a number of 19th century and neoclassical structures, the immediate vicinity of the Museum contains far more polykatoikia, the multi-storey concrete apartment buildings that date from the 1950s through 70s.
The museum stands above visible archaeological digs that will be accessible to visitors when the museum is fully complete a year from now. Such ruins are fragile and potentially unsafe at night when the museum is closed (the Acropolis itself is fenced off for similar reasons). Hence we chose not to fence off the archaeological site, but rather to locate the surrounding fence by the perimeter sidewalk, in the manner of Parisian parks. Recently planted cypress trees will soon be joined by thematic gardens. The building is located 20 feet below a popular main access pedestrian avenue that already functions like an urban plaza and aligned with the historic slope road that linked the site with the Acropolis. Its carefully chosen entrance point, which marks that ancient road, currently accommodates 11,000 people a day. Perhaps its greatest “neighborhood amenity” may be the views afforded by the totally transparent glass onto the Parthenon Frieze at day, but particularly at night.
We elevated the museum on pilotis to reveal and protect the excavations below. The museum is dimensioned to allow its collection to be entirely visible at all times; the “megalith” is sized to exactly fit the Parthenon Frieze, which is now visible for the first time in modern history according to its original orientation and narrative sequence. Should the Parthenon have been smaller?
The size and number of columns are required for support and protection in a major seismic zone. However, these columns also replace standard partition walls, allowing the sculptures to be seen in the round, in full daylight, in a dynamic hypostyle space. (Historically, many of the Acropolis statues were located out of doors, in a context of large columns.)
The museum was specifically designed so that a dozen 20th-century buildings located on the perimeter of the site could be maintained if so requested. Any decision to demolish buildings has nothing to do with our design. As of two years ago, and in a decision reiterated in July, the two buildings mentioned are not being torn down.

I want to thank Mr. Lepicovsky for his many interesting points. All architecture is a form of dialogue, engaging facts and interpretations alike. “Polemics” is, after all, an ancient Greek word.

Bernard Tschumi

nice essay, mr lepicovsky. i appreciate hearing this opinion.

i, too, have admired this project from pictures, but haven't had the opportunity to visit. glad to hear your impressions and and glad you're putting your criticisms out here.

anybody else visited and have a different experience?

Call me ignorant but I was unfamiliar with the project until visiting Greece. I was shooting a pano from atop the acropolis...and 'CLUNK' there it was.
After an immediate: "what on earth could that be?" My initial assumptions tended towards a hospital of some sort. The jobsite sign, and the 'ol Bernard came later but wow... I think the pictures say plenty about it being out of place. I understand it houses a huge collection, but the building looks like it 'wants' to occupy twice what it does.

i was there last summer during it's near completion and actually had similar thoughts....

1 - from the acropolis, i thought, hmmm, a shift of boxes and very out of context facade, that's the best mr. disjunction could do?
2 - as i walked around it trying to get a good photo, i hoped that surely all this stuff in the way will be gone when it opens
3 - as i found a way in, the first thing I thought, looks like an embassy...

i left hoping, well maybe the interior makes up for my lack of excitement and major disappoitment.

very on point essay.

i wish you'd add couple of photos looking toward acropolis from ground, and top level, and looking back to building from the amphitheatre and from the line of two buildings to be demolished.
i am sorry to say those two buildings have to go but imagining the power plays and speculation goes on around locally, i am almost certain tschumi was given a clear plot plan without those buildings.
public should cry out before it was decided on the site plan, but it is likely it was snatched under them.

if it was me .;.) i would demolish those two buildings creatively so they too become another page on athens' diary.

i thought, as an idea, the parelling the third floor with parthenon and other alingnments with certain site lines etc., very skillfull after your descriptions.
from the picture, the exhibit area with statues are pretty good too. and, i always like that looking down an archeologial site/dig very engaging as a site visitor. it is like one of those ant farm toys, i kid not.
the building is completely clunky but i hear it works fairly good accomodating the collection and the tourists, for whom it is really designed for. also, technically the building is not finished until the whole connective landscape is developed between the museum and the acropolis.

who knows, maybe then this becomes the architect/hero's best building to date..?
i have not seen anything of tschumi's except parc la villette buildings just redhot built but not yet open to public. those days, everybody was discovering text.

i find your overall discontented critique very telling. in athens, things should be more democratic, at least conceptually. and just feels like maybe they choose the wrong architect to deliver more.

Greek President Dimitrios Pandermalis wrote: “The new Acropolis Museum was designed with two objectives: the first to offer the best conditions for the exhibition of its exhibits and secondly to be a Museum that welcomes and befriends its visitors. A walk through its galleries is a walk through history – between the masterpieces of the Archaic and Classical periods, but also in the ancient neighborhoods of Athens. The Museum offers many opportunities for rest and recreation, as well as a visitor friendly environment for some of the most emblematic works of antiquity.”

how did Tschumi get the commision? based on this essay there are plenty of local architects agreeing democraticly on what to do....

Bravo Tschumi, good try.

I completely believe some architects should stay as theorists, and one of them is clearly Tschumi. Is an almost impossible task to bring just theory into the actual tangent reality of the building environment. I say is impossible because theory exists in the imagination of the creativity and how each architects uses that is a matter of personal distinction and application to design anything.

Yes Tschumi has written some of the best writings in architecture academia, but once the dust settles down, sadly means nothing. Let theory be an integral part of our educational system in architecture but to clearly use theory as the basis to design a building would result in big flaw in architecture.

I have a soft spot for Tschumi as he has inspired me with some of his writings, but as one grows older and sees the world with a larger simpler vision, one clearly seems to understand that theory is just an elemental ingredient in design, but not the means to do it.

cheers

Dr. Superchicharron

i am glad the architect clarified some of the "criticism" of the project. I appreciate the mass of the columns and the entry. i believe being able to experience the archeology in real time could be a great experience. personally, i've had my fill of kritios boys.

"Let theory be an integral part of our educational system in architecture but to clearly use theory as the basis to design a building would result in big flaw in architecture."

"...theory is just an elemental ingredient in design, but not the means to do it."

I might say that theory is one of the things that makes an architect different from a builder. Certainly not everyone engages theory at Tschumi's level, some don't do it at all. The very fact that a building is designed for use by people- who think and feel- seems enough of a reason to engage theory in a design practice. Not all theory is ivory tower esoterica, much of it has very real ramifications where eventual users are concerned. If it is never engaged in built form, then why study it at all?

it doesn't appear, from the built work, that tschumi's theory gets in the way at all. the talking/writing informs the work, but the work is the work.

if anything, both the primary strength and the primary weakness of the work is that it starts with a clear diagrammatic strategy and, through careful crafting of the built details, it REMAINS that simple diagram upon realization. this is a difficult thing to achieve, i think, and there is a lot of skill and a certain brilliance in it. problem is, it's not a strategy appropriate to all projects.

i think it works perfectly at the university of cincinnati project and at the florida international university architecture school project, and, of course, at la villette. a 'built diagram' (which i've heard the fiu project called) is well-suited to the design problem and the architectural expression. at the columbia student center it worked great for the centerpiece - the exquisite ramp - but the rest of the building around the ramp didn't sing. it's telling that the most famous drawing of the project was tschumi's sketched ramp diagram, removed from the building around it.

i was ready to believe that the simplicity-strategy was working as a positive at athens from everything i'd seen published up until now, but this critique certainly makes me wonder. and the aerial pictures certainly make the museum appear awkwardly scaled and massed for its location - an urbanistically unfriendly interloper. but i'll have to visit to see/feel for myself.

Well, the "theory as the basis to design" critique is pretty misplaced here - at least considering the criticism of this particular project, because the reasons given for most design decisions are quite pragmatic.

And I have to point out that Tschumis writings on architecture mean a lot - but this sentence - "Yes Tschumi has written some of the best writings in architecture academia, but once the dust settles down, sadly means nothing." - does not mean anything.

Steven,
yes, the massing does look awkward - but I guess the point has been to explicitly relate to the acropolis - in scale as well as orientation - so the buildings hostililty to (and disjunction from...) its immediate environment can be seen as strenghtening the connection with its "parent site".

About the original critique:
Questions about what to raze and what to leave/incorporate are always hard - but not every torn down building is a missed oportunity or a lost gem - the architects priorities here are understandable and sensible.

The most pointed parts of the critique are the description of many of the spaces and their sequence - the building sounds a bit boring as a spatial experience.

"Yes Tschumi has written some of the best writings in architecture academia, but once the dust settles down, sadly means nothing."

loco77 seems to have been on crack when he posted this ridiculously nonsensical comment.

looks horrible and totally out of place, but not as monstrous as the atrocity that is the blue building in manhattan (which i have the misfortune to see every day a few times)

tschumi has good writing for sure, but he should have stayed there. just looking at the falling apart vilette (this was in 1995) is enough indication that he was already then not to be trusted as an architect.

Intriguing. No doubt, B.Tschumi is a cool guy. First, note to his hard core admirers, who write comments in highly insulting language. Idolatry is a sin! Maybe they like the arrogant tone that Mr. Tschumi sets in his letter, as he suggests we should go to the museum, check out the building, and spend money on anther pointless monograph in the middle of depression?!

mr Tschumi's letter was a good comment of the criticisms raised. There's no arrogance in defending your work and decisions with a few good clarifications. And it was just very nice to hear his voice in the conversation.

Most of the critiques in the discussion-section are a bit too heavy on him being a better writer than an architect, though - would be more productive if the comments were focussed on the building, not the man.

I'd like to applaud Mr. Lepicovsky's critique; It is honest and inclusive, calm and precise; I only regret I heard no comments on how he perceived peoples’ reactions in the interior space ;
When I had my first visit to this project, when it first opened for the Greek public in Jan 2008 (the top floor gallery was not opened then), what impressed me most, was peoples’ reaction (and fear-even of the young) to walk on the glass floor of the ground floor; As I just found out , following a second visit to the place , after reading mr. Lepicovsky's critique, it is not permitted anymore to take pictures in the interior. I believe your readers may find instructive the links I provide for visual evidence on the above from an article of mine that was published a year and a half ago in the following addresses. All the pictures in this article were taken by me and you or anyone is welcome to use them :
http://www.greekarchitects.gr/index.php?maincat=&newid=102&lang=en

http://www.acaarchitecture.com/Mag23.htm

Anthony C.Antoniades, AIA
Former Professor of Architecture UTArlington
Hydra/Greece, Aug.09 , 09

eigenvectors
Padermalis is not the Greek president but the president of the museum of the acropolis. + tshumi was comissioned after a competition that was held for the museum.

mr antoniades
the glass floor is one of the most exciting elements of the museum, it brings everything into context. if u also check the plans of the museum (the ones provided for the greek architects comp) u can easily understand that tschumi did care about the adjacent buildings. he even used their outprints, just check for parallel lines and extensions.

" We elevated the museum on pilotis to reveal and protect the excavations below. "

Mr tsumi, did you ever heard that "pilotis" is a forbidden way to build in Greece nowadays because we have lots of earthquakes!? Many buildings ('polikatoikia' with 'piloti' on the ground) suffered great static problems(many of them collapsed) during the last great earthquake in Athens (1999).

Why all this valuable weight (all those ancient stones that weight thousands of kilos) is on top of concrete columns (and not onto a solid base)?? How safe do you think is the way you build the new museum???

Concrete is a material that lasts for only 80 years or so! After this period detoriation starts in the inside of the concrete. What is going to happen after 100years with this museum? we are going to through it in the garbage beside your grave?

How permanent and mostly how safe from earthquakes do you think the new museum can be when it is build on concrete columns( piloti style)?? In 50 years mostly, this building is going to be too dangerous. Especially when they are going to keep on adding weight (ancient stones, etc.).

Many civil mechanics in Greece have noticed and call to attention about the incompatibility of "pilotis" in high seismic areas such Athens. You should know mr tsumi that in modern greek building rules, pilotis goes to the basement of the build (for the garage) sa as the building can step on the ground!!!

mr Tsumi has not made a new museum but a great crime

ps: the glass floor is very clever choice! Especially for women with skirt! Everybody from the floor below can see their panties... ouuu lala.. do you think mr Tsumi's male subconsius nature did that on purpose??

" We elevated the museum on pilotis to reveal and protect the excavations below. "

Mr tsumi, did you ever heard that "pilotis" is a forbidden way to build in Greece nowadays because we have lots of earthquakes!? Many buildings ('polikatoikia' with 'piloti' on the ground) suffered great static problems(many of them collapsed) during the last great earthquake in Athens (1999).

Why all this valuable weight (all those ancient stones that weight thousands of kilos) is on top of concrete columns (and not onto a solid base)?? How safe do you think is the way you build the new museum???

Concrete is a material that lasts for only 80 years or so! After this period detoriation starts in the inside of the concrete. What is going to happen after 100years with this museum? we are going to through it in the garbage beside your grave?

How permanent and mostly how safe from earthquakes do you think the new museum can be when it is build on concrete columns( piloti style)?? In 50 years mostly, this building is going to be too dangerous. Especially when they are going to keep on adding weight (ancient stones, etc.).

Many civil mechanics in Greece have noticed and call to attention about the incompatibility of "pilotis" in high seismic areas such Athens. You should know mr tsumi that in modern Greek building rules, pilotis goes to the basement of the build (for the garage) so as the building can step on the ground!!!

mr Tsumi has not made a new museum but a great crime

ps: the glass floor is very clever choice! Especially for women with skirt! Everybody from the floor below can see their panties... ouuu lala.. do you think mr Tsumi's male subconscious nature did that on purpose??

there are regulations for pilotis and of course the use is not forbidden by any means in greece for earthquakes.
subconsious on purpose? really?
why buildings also have to somehow last forever, 80 years are enough for me.

One very simple thing blatantly proves that this museum was not designed with the visitor in mind:
It only has two toilets to serve the more than 5,000 visitors it is supposed to receive every day (yes, only two - imagine the queues and the inconvenience).
Is this the only problem? Hardly:
There is no parking space for coaches (or even cars). Yet the museum depends on having hundreds of visitors, which means busloads of tourists, not a mere handful of art lovers.
The queues for tickets and to get through the security gates are enormous - waiting can last more than an hour.
The bus station (or airport) impression is reinforced by the continuous (and rather loud) announcements.

Yet, by far the greatest problem of the New Museum is that its exhibits were made outdoors and meant to stand in the open air, against a clear blue sky and glaring mediterranean sunlight.
The old Acropolis Museum was just a series of functional rooms with no architectural pretentions. Yet there the statues maintained all of their charm and breathed easily, even against the plain walls and low ceiling.
In their new home, the statues have somehow lost something of their charm; placed against the grey columns, their crisp lines have become subdued and anaemic. The huge interior makes the sculptures look inadequate, diminished and lost.
And that, to me, is the new museum's gravest crime.

it's a museum ilius, not a bar or a restaurant. toilets? really?
5000 visitors /day, not all of them at once, be reasonable.
alternative means of transportation ring any bell? why buses etc.
the old acropolis museum was totally crap, what do u mean when writing functional rooms? get your head off the graound and start thinking.