The first purpose-built space for the Virginia General Assembly, designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects in collaboration with Glavé & Holmes Architecture, has debuted in Richmond’s Capitol Square.
The 14-story, 414,000-square-foot facility serves the modern needs of what is the oldest continually meeting legislative body in the United States while enabling better public participation in the legislative process.
Addressing Thomas Jefferson and Charles-Louis Clérisseau’s Virginia State Capitol from 1785 at the northwest corner of the square, the project anchors its full-block site and consolidates a spate of smaller buildings ranging from 1912 to 1965.
A central ten-story masonry-clad tower rising from a four-story podium dominates the composition, which features the preserved historic facades from the 112-year-old Life Insurance Company of Virginia building.
The publicly accessible podium engages with the citizenry via a double-height elliptical lobby that gives way to a variety of legislative rooms, a cafeteria, coffee bar, constituents’ business center, events spaces, and a press suite.
On the second floor, a public waiting room connects to a unique triple-height space offering views of the square and the State Capitol building. Above the podium, floors five through 11 are outfitted as 21st-century workplaces for legislators. The final three floors are reserved for use by Senate Finance and House Appropriations committee members.
RAMSA partner Graham Wyatt says: "Both functionally and symbolically, its design supports government of, by, and for the people."
The firm also pursued a LEED Gold certification for the project using a high-performing envelope, improved HVAC systems, LED lighting, and a highly reflective roof membrane that contributed to a 34% reduction in energy costs when compared to a typical design of its use and size. Water use was also reduced by approximately 40%.
This was a four-year construction from start to finish and carried a reported cost of $292 million.
19 Comments
This won't excite anyone and it's not trying to excite anyone. Reserve is its tone, which is not a sin, and I'm sure it suited the powers that be in Richmond well. Still, in spite of its desire to welcome the public, it is a massive building, bland and imposing to the point of being banally oppressive, and breaking up the cube does little to mitigate that effect.
It made me realize how well the Portland Building handled the same problem. Also a government building, about the same size, with a similarly large program, this is a cube on a base, yet it does so much to break up the monotony and oppression of mass in an exterior design that is lively and engaging.
—plus—
It is more expressive and more explicit in classical reference.
Some find it outlandish. I see a great measure of tact and restraint.
The Portland Building is so good. This latest from RAMSA just seems like more of the same from them.
The only reason people liked the Portland building is that it broke the stranglehold of modernism on big comissions, but all things being equal, it looks like a tacky birthday present complete with ribbons. The 'key stone' motive as stripped windows is ridiculous. The RAMSA building is quietly diginified if a bit bulky, but massing is usually a product of programing, regardless of style.
Most buildings don't need to be 'exciting', they just need to be good neighbors. Think of it like a social gathering, which is what urbanism is. Imagine if every person at a gathering was the life of the party, it would be insufferable. That said, it's also a matter of taste.
This mixing of orders and scales between the left and right podiums hurts my brain...
Exactly. How could the podium of their building be as large as the surrounding building itself?
Michael Graves was a big influence for me coming out of school. But I have to say I have never been a fan of the Portland Building. I like the IDEA of it, and I liked his original drawings. But the realized building is an example of how a good idea can be value engineered into banality. From what I hear, the government employees hate working in it because of the tiny windows. The RAMSA building looks like a much, much nicer place to be.
Regarding the RAMSA building, I like the individual parts of it very much, but I’m afraid that it doesn’t hang together as an overall form very well. I too am bugged by the mixed orders on the podium base. I think the designer was trying to give the illusion that there were two different buildings that were combined when a tower was added. But it doesn’t really work as well as it might have. I wish it were a single podium with a unified language
I like the entry facade very much. Really well proportioned, restrained classicism, 1930’s style.
I agree. Looking at the original building, they might have mirrored the right side and built above the whole as a base. Many good examples of how this could have been accomplished but also understandable why this route was chosen.
I'm only commenting on the overall exterior design of the Portland Building. He was on a tight budget without leeway, lacked experience, and there were all kinds of problems. The windows, many complain, are too small. I suspect making them larger would weaken the design—it needs a fairly solid backdrop to make the other elements stand out. But the clients are right here.
Since we're on Stern, he has a sophisticated discussion of classicism in recent times of a sort we don't hear elsewhere. He breaks it down into categories: ironic, latent, fundamentalist, canonic, and modern traditionalism (I suspect they overlap). Graves would obviously fall into ironic, though I think this building is more light hearted and playful, not sarcastic, certainly apt for Portland.
In this building I think Stern is trying to present a collection of buildings and styles, assembled, as if a collective. I'm not sure it works.
"consolidates a spate of smaller buildings ranging from 1912 to 1965"—I assume this means many facades, at least, were preserved as they were?
The line between stripped classicism and some art deco styles is thin and RAMSA straddles that line deftly on the upper part. Where it needs more work (I think) is between the stricter classicism of the base and the upper part, but I suspect it's because of the 'built over time' story line as you point out. That said, the detailing is excellent as usual.
Ok, now the building makes a bit more sense. I guess I should have read the text. :). I’m guessing the podium portion on the right with the Corinthian order is original, and the entry bay is new.
Looks like a ministry of truth (1984) or ministry of information (brazil) - intimidating and oppressing.
Intimidating and depressing:
Alternatively, rational and calming? Let the trees grow and it will be nicer. I can't get enough trees lately. MOAR TREES!
So very bad. Why some people dont retire or grow is beyond me.
Alan Greenberg and Peter Pennoyer do traditional work much better than RAMSA. It's unfortunate that they don't get some of these big jobs.
RAMSA has a good racket being the only blue-chip big firm that does trad buildings.
It could be argued Graves is following classical tradition by adding color to his building.
Imagine if an ancient Greek came and saw the Va State Capitol today, what he'd say:
"Yeah, yeah, it's got columns. What else you gonna do? If this thing is so important to you, why don't you paint it up?"
More seriously, our sense of tradition shifts with time, with our own sensibilities and may stray from original conception, not always for the best, at any rate isn't set in stone. It was important for Greeks to elevate their temples and set them off and draw attention, near and from afar. Graves did this with color. And since the building is in an urban area, surrounded by taller buildings, at the edge of traffic which passes by quickly when it's moving and will only get a glance, he does this with the oversized scale of the classical elements. Which I think are tastefully done.
Also, we get trapped in our polemics, which can blind us. The Portland Building was the darling of the Postmoderns, the bane of traditionalists. Lost, its real qualities, which I think will last well past the broil, once recognized and appreciated.
Man, that Capitol is awfully white. If a Postmodernist built something like that today, many would think it was a sideways joke.
only that post modernism was a joke about historicism that some used to get out of modernism's monopoly. Regardless of whether you like your classicism or any style painted or not, it's ironic you should post the original Virginia Capitol building. Much like RAMSA which sought to harmoniously add to the existing Beaux Arts building, the Capitol building recieved harmonious additions in the early 20th century. Same exact design strategy but somehow acceptable before Modernism and now considered fake.
With the Stern, you can best appreciate it from street level. It looks like several older and smaller buildings on a block, behind which rises the taller, as if behind. We're in a city. And give Stern credit for not trying to upstage those lower buildings, rather lightly complementing them with his restrained tower. This is not a bad solution.
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.