In June 2016, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo chose OMA/Shohei Shigematsu to design its ambitious $155 million AK360 Campus Development and Expansion project. Today, two years later, the first set of preliminary schematic designs was released, showing a freestanding building that will add 29,000 square feet of exhibition space.
"In addition to the new North Building, OMA will work on preservation and improvements to the existing campus," reads the gallery's announcement. "Changes include creating a new education wing in the lower level of the 1962 building, transforming a surface parking lot into a green landscape and gathering place, adding a new point of entry and exist on the east façade of the museum’s 1962 building and creating new education wing in the lower level of the 1962 building. A scenic bridge weaving through Olmsted Park will connect the North Building with the 1905 building along with a new roof enclosure for the 1962 building’s open-air sculpture garden will activate the museum with year-round activities. The free-standing North Building along with the roof of the 1962 building will contribute a new profile and language to the existing lineage of architectural history of the campus."
"The north building comprises three levels offering diverse gallery experiences," said Shohei Shigematsu. "Encircling the second level gallery is a double-height promenade, a flexible space with 360-degree views to the surrounding buildings and Olmsted landscape. The building is enveloped by a translucent façade that achieves an open and ephemeral quality and engages the external environment. Layers of visual and spatial connections throughout the north building foster dialogue with the architectural legacy of the Albright-Knox while inviting contemporary audiences to discover the diverse activities within."
20 Comments
So OMA "preserves" the classic and very intact SOM design by suffocating the outdoor courtyard with a roof and by trashing the gallery interiors by turning them into classrooms.
The new building seems to be a partial recycling of their unbuilt Lucas Museum scheme in Chicago.
I hope the museum will come to its senses and fire OMA.
Since when is a roof suffocating to the space below it? The sudden sentimentality around the Bunshaft addition, and the extremist preservationist positions are what I find suffocating. The courtyard is nearly always empty, even in good weather. At least now it can be used for educational programming instead of as a trophy for preservationists.
And the inadequacies of the Bunshaft galleries are well documented. But it did feel very luxurious to have a priceless oil painting just a few feet from the entrance to the restroom. I won't miss trying to enjoy a work of art while being surrounded by visitors putting on or taking off their winter clothes.
Your issues seem to be mainly about how the museum chooses to use the spaces and where they hang the art.
My issue is with the floor plan. The long hallways are not ideal for viewing art. They encourage fast walking. And when you pause to take the art in you feel as though you are blocking the flow of traffic. The steps within the gallery are problematic for disabled visitors. The inadequate transitions between gallery space and the exit, the coat check, the shop, the restroom, the restaurant, and the theater are a distraction from the art. The way that art is loaded into the space is also inadequate. The Buffalo News did an entire article about how the floor plan forces the museum to take garbage out through the same corridor that they load artwork in through. Imagine rolling a trash bit past priceless works of art. It risks damaging the art. And the courtyard is rarely used, because the public has very little reason to pass through it. The OMA design encourages traffic through the building and the courtyard, which will add some life to it. The galleries are windowless and have no interaction from the interior with the surrounding environment. The building is designed to be viewed as an object in the landscape, not an activated urban space.
.
The compulsion to "activate" every space with throngs of people is a hallmark of museum remuddling practice these days. A lot of the SOM gallieries are windowless, as they should be. A well designed museum should have a mix of daylit and artifically lit spaces. Not all artwork can be safely exposed to natural light. On the whole, OMA has plenty of room on the site to accomplish any and all of what they and the current museum administration want to do. They could very easily leave the SOM building alone.
It sounds like your primary goal is keeping the architecture exactly as it is right now. It doesn't seem like you're focused on the experience of the visitor, or the interaction between the museum and its context.
windows in SOM-designed gallery
Seems to counter your concern-trolling about the effects of sunlight on artwork.
SOM provided galleries both with and without windows. I fail to see how any of our discussion is trolling.
Concern trolling: the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.
-
The OMA design also has spaces near windows and away from windows. Just like nearly every other major art museum. This stuff is pretty standard. Why are people still trying to lecture architects about sunlight and artwork?
Did you or did you not write this: "The galleries are windowless and have no interaction from the interior with the surrounding environment."
Nearly windowless. It looks into a vacant courtyard.
It's beautiful and one of the finest building of the period. Again, there is plenty of room elsewhere on the site for new things. This building should be left alone.
Sculpturally, it is beautiful. But it doesn't work well. If it were to be left alone, it would be severely downgraded, and probably not used for art display. Leaving it alone doesn't actually save anything. Leaving it alone neglects it, and allows the building to drift into desuetude.
The museum already has a large, skylit, room in the 1905 building they could "activate" into "an urban space"
Why? It's a very nice space for viewing art. Nearly everyone agrees that the galleries in the 1905 building are actually more functional for art viewing and installing than the 1963 building.
Notice the bathroom entrances on the right side of the picture and the entrance to the store on the left side. The art-viewing experience in this hallway gallery is poor.
Is that the museum store on the left? I believe this corridor is actually in the basement of the 1905 building and not in the 1962 SOM building. While it was remodeled by SOM in 1962 to match the adjacent new spaces, it is not part of what OMA is planning to demolish. At any rate, additional galleries elsewhere on the site (which I'm not opposed to) would relieve the shortage of space that causes the unfortunate art placements in your photo.
What do you think OMA is demolishing? It starting to sound like you haven't actually seen the updated presentation. They're not demolishing to Bunshaft building.
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.