Museums, armatures for collective societal experience and cultural expression, present new ways of interpreting the world. They contain knowledge, preserve information and transmit ideas; they stimulate curiosity, raise awareness and create opportunities for exchange. As instruments of education and social change, museums have the potential to shape our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.
As our global environment faces ever more critical challenges, a broader understanding of the interdependence of natural systems is becoming more essential to our survival and evolution. Museums dedicated to nature and science play a key role in expanding our understanding of these complex systems.
The new Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Victory Park will create a distinct identity for the Museum, enhance the institution’s prominence in Dallas and enrich the city’s evolving cultural fabric. Designed to engage a broad audience, invigorate young minds, and inspire wonder and curiosity in the daily lives of its visitors, the Museum will cultivate a memorable experience that will persist in the minds of its visitors and that will ultimately broaden individuals’ and society’s understanding of nature and science.
The Museum will strive to achieve the highest standards of sustainability possible for a building of its type. High performance design and incorporation of state of the art technologies will yield a new building that will minimize its impact on the environment.
This world class facility will inspire awareness of science through an immersive and interactive environment that actively engages visitors. Rejecting the notion of museum architecture as neutral background for exhibits, the new building itself becomes an active tool for science education. By integrating architecture, nature, and technology, the building demonstrates scientific principles and stimulates curiosity in our natural surroundings.
The immersive experience of nature within the city begins with the visitor’s approach to the museum, which leads through two native Texas ecologies: a forest of large native canopy trees and a terrace of native desert xeriscaping. The xeriscaped terrace gently slopes up to connect with the museum’s iconic stone roof. The overall building mass is conceived as a large cube floating over the site’s landscaped plinth. An acre of undulating roofscape comprised of rock and native drought-resistant grasses reflects Dallas’s indigenous geology and demonstrates a living system that will evolve naturally over time.
The intersection of these two ecologies defines the main entry plaza, a gathering and event area for visitors and an outdoor public space for the city of Dallas. From the plaza, the landscaped roof lifts up to draw visitors through a compressed space into the more expansive entry lobby. The topography of the lobby’s undulating ceiling reflects the dynamism of the exterior landscape surface, blurring the distinction between inside and outside, and connecting the natural with the manmade.
Moving from the compressed space of the entry, a visitor’s gaze is drawn upward through the soaring open volume of the sky-lit atrium, the building’s primary light-filled circulation space, which houses the building’s stairs, escalators and elevators. From the ground floor, a series of escalators bring patrons though the atrium to the uppermost level of the museum. Patrons arrive at a fully glazed balcony high above the city, with a bird’s eye view of downtown Dallas. From this sky balcony, visitors proceed downward in a clockwise spiral path through the galleries. This dynamic spatial procession creates a visceral experience that engages visitors and establishes an immediate connection to the immersive architectural and natural environment of the museum.
The path descending from the top floor through the museum’s galleries weaves in and out of the building’s main circulation atrium, alternately connecting the visitor with the internal world of the museum and with the external life of the city beyond. The visitor becomes part of the architecture, as the eastern facing corner of the building opens up towards downtown Dallas to reveal the activity within. The museum, is thus, a fundamentally public building – a building that opens up, belongs to and activates the city; ultimately, the public is as integral to the museum as the museum is to the city.
53 Comments
Wow. That's is one seriously ugly building.
Such contrived architecture is unappealing.
Wow. That is one seriously awesome building!
beautiful forms and spaces... ugly and cold choice of materials and colours. I wish he'd get lessons from Zumthor or so.
Everything about this building is great. Function, construct-ability, massing, circulation, materials, contextual awareness, technology, aesthetics/ design sensibility, etc... Some of the finest architecture.
shit.
all our base are belong to thom.
I'll see it in a few weeks so I'll withhold judgement for now. It's funny cosmos brings up "contextual awareness".... because I can't decide if this is the most or least contextual building ever for Dallas. But it's most definitely one or the other.
It looks like urban jewelry, if you like you're jewels large and tacky.
I agree with both gwharton, and Donna.
The building is ugly—at least, its not elegant. It's a cube with wacky attachments.
Stil, though, its spaces and details look remarkable. Walking through the building I would probably often stop, gazing at the architecture with an expression not too distant from awe on my face.
It strikes me as rather geological. I like it because it relates to the theme of the museum.
It's contextual from not only the boxy buildings around it, but also from the point of not being dominated by the highway right next to it. It's as if it's also keeping urban infrastructure in mind and not just urban buildings. Thom has said that a lot of his buildings are sometimes not beautiful but tough. I usually see the idea of beauty on not just aesthetics but on its innovative intent and execution; resulting into something "brilliant".
looks like a mash-up between rem and libeskind
From reading these comments, it is clear as to who knows about "building" architecture, and who does not. It is seriously difficult to be able to build something so complex and beautiful
pretty amazing effect on the facade. morphosis never intended for it to be elegant (as a whole) and thats ok imo. It is a chaotic collection of elegant parts which is alot like nature making it very appropriate for a natural science museum). It looks like a fun place to walk though and thats all that matters.
..
Nice building and I say that as someone who isn't really a fan of most of Morphosis's work. America would have been a much better country if it had elected Perot as President.
Wasn't there a recent thread about urbanism in the most recent election? I'm not sure what Perot would have done but at least he was willing to say this:
"Go to London, Paris, Rome and the other cities in Europe that have existed for many centuries. They work. Now, then, go to our cities, which are relatively brand-new. New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and many other major cities are dirty, run-down, ravaged with drugs, crime and violence. What's wrong with us?
Excerpted from his 1992 National Press Club speech. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing and think about what might have been. It's 20 years old but Perot was remarkably straightforward & prescient.
Yo!
the flagstone roof is pretty cool too.
Love this!!....and most of Morphosis' work.
The flagstones should be pointing the other way, no? Also, incredible large expanses of "junkspace" with minimal amounts of content.
Aren't cultural institutions suppose to educate rather than impress?
More or less the same complaint I had with the Maxxi museum— a lot of architecture but a lack of art. Isn't that building in terminal decline due to budget shortfalls?
Not sure I can see the large expanses of junk space in these photos, any better sources?
Where are the morphosis style diagrams?
Almost 2000 square feet on one side of this space for a single skeleton? Not to mention, they put seating in front of the exhibit rather than seating in the middle of the space facing the exhibits. On top of that, there's no dividers between the viewing area and the seats. You know children are going to climb up into that. Another reason as to why this hall was poorly thought out.
It looks like they spent more time on lighting the room than they did considering how the room should be set up. This, at the moment, is a jumbled, confusing and empty piece of space with a price per square foot way too high— it's junk space.
And judging by how the floodlights are already set up, it looks like all this room was designed for was the two skeletons with maybe some future smaller items added.
^ yeah man that's the rem-mage i was thinkin' 'bout
Am I the only one who thinks like this?
I mean...
THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENT BLOCKS THE VIEW OF ONE OF THE ONLY TWO THINGS IN THIS ROOM.
maybe the t-rex is stalking you in a forest and the tree canopy is above you and that column is your one source of cover yeah baby!
@ J. James R, obviously you're passing judgment based on those few published images. The image you reference is the main lobby. A space which needs to be vast in order to accommodate all the visitors coming through, and perhaps leaving. The mounted skeleton is more of a storefront exhibit, so that it's also seen from the exterior. I seriously doubt it's a "junkspace", considering this building is a box. I'm sure they were very efficient with net to gross SF ratio of the building. I can also guarantee you that this building will not only impress and educate, but also capture the imaginations of the people as they experience it. Money well spent, even if its Ross Perot's. As for the flag-stone, its called dry-stacking, google it.
That space doesn't look like "junk" to me. It actually looks quite luxurious. Probably the first time in my life I've ever given a passing thought to visiting Dallas.
And the photoshop photo of the lobby needs some lasers coming out of the dinosaur's eyes. Otherwise, excellent work, yo!
james I thought the same thing about the direction of the flagstone, but it is probably like that to keep it from slipping down slope since it is just loose dry stacked and probably drains water fine below the stones...
It's contextual from not only the boxy buildings around it, but also from the point of not being dominated by the highway right next to it. It's as if it's also keeping urban infrastructure in mind and not just urban buildings. Thom has said that a lot of his buildings are sometimes not beautiful but tough. I usually see the idea of beauty on not just aesthetics but on its innovative intent and execution; resulting into something "brilliant".
lol isn't that the context for almost all cities - boxy buildings. There is more to context than what is clearly visible.. and i totally lost you in the 'not being dominated by the highway right next to it' statement.
all this wishy, washy talk.. people need to build architecture based on reality.
"...build architecture based on reality.".... hhmmm? This can be taken on so many levels too.
Since I lost you, let me help you find the way. Yes, context is more than what is clearly visible, but since the majority of this forum has never been to the site (let alone the city of Dallas, or even care to know about the history of the site), all I can do is it put in terms so that it can be understood from a google maps view. I do apologize for getting too wish-wahsy, I'll try to be more clear next time.
Also, this building looks pretty real to me. As for "reality", are you meaning style?
i love it. that work of this complexity and beauty is being built in Dallas, let alone the US, is testament to Mayne and Morphosis being one of the premiere firms in the world. makes anything Gehry does look like something designed for the Simpsons.
So 90's or even 80's.
Ugly and Desperate.
DUDE
what does mine say?
hmmmm, lessee . . .
its a square over a wiggley rectangle and it says:
PWNED BY THOM
hey Vile Child 'all our base ..' and 'PWNED'?!?
it's 2003 all over again! CLICK HERE FOR MUCH MORE MORPHOSIS MUSEEEUM EXCLUSIVE PICS WOW! OMG MUST SEE!!!11!1!11
That's funny... that image with the dinosaur skeleton is the one that sold me. The juxtaposition of the modern makes the skeleton just pop out! He (or she!) looks all the more alive. I am totally enticed to go visit. I completely agree with whoever said the space looks somehow geological. Very good descriptor. Also the scale of that space somehow agrees with me... from this angle at least, the compression of the anteroom seems to make the skeleton loom large. Most of my experience with dino skeletons has come in cavernous classical atriums which seem to make the skeleton-viewing experience lose all sense of immediacy and proportion - the dino is on a pedestal, looming, but static and usually at the (very static) position of being centered in a large classical dome of some sort. (The Power of the Center!) Anyway, the position of dino running along the edge of the space is immediately makes me want to go over to it. Well done.
And James, although I usually make it a practice never to respond to you, I just have to say... how can you possibly whine about structure supposedly blocking the view when the photo itself has focused all of our attention on the skeleton? It is clear from the photograph itself that the skeleton is totally visible.
Also, to those who whine about context... in what context do you suppose dinosaurs should be in the 21st century?!? Buried under 30 tons of dirt?
from pics 1 and 3, i like it. beautiful actually. is gritty yet so elegant, pithy yet eccentric. after seeing the work of eighties era papis and mamis like libeskind and hadid and how bland and corporate their works have more recently generally (not always) become, this looks so balanced. uncompromising in its translation of morphosis aesthetics but still a built building. really nice and controlled palette of textures on that elevation. from the interior pics of only one space, it seems like there wasnt as much design work there - but its understandable, architects get exhausted when they reach the ID level..and plus, its always nice to give a hip and funky ID firm a chance and collaborate with the architect
or maybe its 2000?
cool out.
oh behave.
YEAH BABY!!!
Like me, seems like Dallas (or Perot) likes "cubes" .. A set piece as it should be. No cause to discuss the meaning of life/architecture.
"building itself becomes an active tool for science education."
As cliche as that statement is, if so, that itself is good enough for me.
It is a lot about Dallas Arts District and powers that define Texas. And at least they didn't skimp on the architects.
ps; I wonder how much Iwan Baan charges these days? Probably he owns a helicopter now..
This type of "throw it on the wall and see if it sticks" type of builidng is so common that it makes me wonder why this one should elicit so much commentary. Maybe it's becasue Morphosis used to do some really beautiful projects that seemed to offer some hope to those who refused to deviate from modernism for fear of loosing their hard fought cred. Some of their earlier work was truly sensuous and warm, but this building couldn't look more contrived. Laying out the curtain wall escalator enclosure at the same angle of the excalator and put it on the outside like decoration. Really?
i sense the presence of Morphosis haters
I haven't had a chance to visit, but I'm excited to go. Just driving by, however, I have to say that it never looks finished. It may be heresy, but I almost wish they would paint the cube. The gardens look great, but the building not so much.
It is interesting that the museum is on the other side of the highway that bisects the city from the other museums. In plan, the Perot cube balances the Wyly Theatre cube on the other corner of town.
The exhibits I've seen on the news look pretty fun, though. I guess I could do an entire write-up on the interiors once I go.
^ now there's a beautiful building!
This might just be bad photographs, but from what I can see the outside is ugly and dull, I'm not impressed. I like the inside though.
posted this in a forum thread: http://archinect.com/forum/thread/62706887/top-3-worst-horror-architecture-z-on-planet-earth
But it belongs here too: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE
I think the problem here is that contextually there's not much to work with - there seems to be some intent of trying to create some "social/ecological awareness" by guiding the visitor through some sort of museumized "ecologies" - which is interesting - but the irony is that you only really access this building through a parking lot after you've exited off the freeway.
until there's some infill it's just really another interesting object in, which JJR points out, vast junkspace. I think we should be discussing how successful this object can potentially be in terms of what it supposedly set out to do - become a catalyst for change. Until this debate happens I think we're not moving forward as a profession.
these subjective/visceral reaction formal debates are getting really tired.
new york times review of it as sceince museum makes me want to go with my kids. who cares about the building (although i love it).
I would be curious to see the design diagrams. How was this direction created? I like some aspects of this project but feel like there could be some fluff with the design direction. In other words - lets see the departure point.
people, please . . .
its pretty kick ass. why arent you just posting clapping gifs? Or not phrasing your critiques with: 'I know its awesome, but im curious about x . . ."?? Even if theres a bunch of shit that can be debated, for fuck's sake, what an accomplishment!
I've a warm bath running, gotta go slit my wrists after seeing all the dumb-fucked-ness abounding. But Im using a plastic knife designed by Graves for Target, so I'll probably be back tomorrow. (bummerz).
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.