Museum Of Fine Arts Houston At 1001 Bissonnet St.

[cloud713]

I love the Mies addition. One of my favorite museum buildings in Houston.. I'm surprised a museum director would hate it given the significance of the building in the art world.

[Luminare]

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

 

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

 

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

 

@Cloud  Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

[cloud713]

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

@Cloud Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

The building robs the spotlight from the art? I don't think the building is very exuberant. Just a classic timeless design by one of the most famous architects of the 20th century. I agree it's likely hard to show off exhibition in the larger auditorium spaces of the Mies, but hopefully they can figure out a decent presentation layout with those spaces now that they have a new auditorium space.

[arche_757]

The Mies addition has always seemed crowded - during exhibitions.  Maybe it was just me?  I think its a fun space though, and look forward to the rest of the campus opening up here before the dawn of the next decade.  Which we are already half-way to!  Hard to believe!

[arche_757]

I agree with Arche on that the Mies Addition by far not his best (this is coming from a guy who was able to experience the New National Gallery in Berlin one of his more praised buildings), but it's still a fine piece of architecture that like many of it's brethren is simply misunderstood by a current generation that run things today who simply can not appreciate it's simplicity and rigor in regards to form and space.

 

The building really plays with level changes and like many modernist buildings from Mies to Corb a big idea was progression through space which is very important in a museum and how you can make that interesting. Immediately when you walk into the main Foyer you see these level changes it beckons you to explore more of the space. Probably the most important aspect which has seems to have frustrated past curators is the verticality of it's interiors which makes filling up the space rather difficult. I imagine that the building wasn't really designed with rotating pieces in mind and more of a place to house selected permanent collections. Large modern art pieces that fill whole rooms and large canvas art would serve very well here.

 

Even though it isn't the best Mies building, like Arche said it's still better than most things that get built, period. What's even more interesting is that this building gets through into a much larger conversation about the value and worth of Modernist architecture and whether many are worth saving or should be put on the national register. That's for another thread.

 

@Cloud  Museum directors honestly could care less whether they show their art in a multi-million dollar building or in a warehouse! Because at the end of the day the one thing that matters is the art and many past Directors have made the conclusion that the building robs the spotlight from the art.

I never said it was bad!  Mies is Mies is Mies is Mies.

 

It may not be the IIT Architecture School - but its a fine building.

[nativehoustonion]

I remember when Houston was a little big city.  Not anymore we are now a Global City!

[aarosurf]

This expansion is making me consider upping my annual donation. What a great addition. 

 

This is the roof deck at the Met in NYC. I wish the MFAH's new roof deck was a little closer to the park, but it should still have a great view.

 

[Luminare]

I never said it was bad!  Mies is Mies is Mies is Mies.

 

It may not be the IIT Architecture School - but its a fine building.

 

What the hell? I didn't say it was a bad building. I was simply giving it a critical analysis and no matter how much I like the building or any building it doesn't mean I can't be critical about it. Mies never designed bad architecture. His scale was from Super awesome to Simply Good. This is an example of Great and really demonstrates how distinct the International Style was and as some have said is very important that the city of Houston has such a fine example from that time period since at one point we were essential america's example of "The Modernist City".

 

Once again I really like the building, and now hopefully with this new building future directors will give the Mies Addition a second look into how it should be best utilized because instead of being a place that has passing collections it could be become a really distinctive location for a very particular collection of art which could give the building the attention it deserves.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Luminare

[H-Town Man]

The fan shaped nature of the site combined with the need to maximize space made it difficult for Mies to put a really satisfying building there I think. It seems like a building that, if it were a painting, scholars would guess was done "in the workshop of Rembrandt can Rijn" rather than by the master himself.

I also think its facade could benefit from the rule of thirds. Two stories of glass above one story of masonry would be ideal.

But as Mayor Daley said of criticism of the Picasso sculpture commissioned for a plaza in downtown Chicago, "I don't care what it looks like, I just care that we have a Picasso!"

Edited January 18, 2015 by H-Town Man

[Texasota]

I love the MFAH, and part of the reason is that it really is one of the least "Mies-y" Mies buildings. It's not built on an orthagonal grid; it partially obscures its structure from the street; it's actually pretty sectionally dynamic. It's ultimately distinct and specific to its site in a way that makes it more than just another Mies building.  

[Luminare]

I love the MFAH, and part of the reason is that it really is one of the least "Mies-y" Mies buildings. It's not built on an orthagonal grid; it partially obscures its structure from the street; it's actually pretty sectionally dynamic. It's ultimately distinct and specific to its site in a way that makes it more than just another Mies building.  

 

I can understand how at first glance the fact that it is fan shaped would mean that it wasn't built on an orthagonal grid, but this just isn't the case. It wouldn't be very Miesian if it wasn't designed with a grid in mind (as are most modern architecture). A key feature in almost all modernist architecture is the strict adherence to a grid system however, and wherever the system is derived from. In this case it isn't a simple orthagonal grid, but instead it's a radial grid emanating from a distant point just like you would do if you were setting up a drawing in 2-point perspective. Miesian architecture is creating the grid, executing architecture within that grid and populating it with forms and space to create rooms or program. In this case the radial grid was first created and then all the spaces were placed onto the grid, but it still adheres to it.

 

You second point isn't exactly correct as well as the main structure of the building is fully exposed. The spine which runs long the roof of the building is fully exposed and runs from the very back, up the wall, over the roof, and then terminates down in front of the building. Sure it doesn't expose some of it's architecture like Philip Johnson's St. Thomas Campus, is one example, but it still reveals its structure to the public.

 

I will give you created for saying that it is sectionally dynamic! That is a very good way to describe it's interior architecturally.

 

Finally in countering your point about it being site specific, it only accomplishes this through it's exterior shape and nothing more, but it maintains it's International Style aesthetic meaning that theoretically this building could be grafted onto a similarly shaped building anywhere in the world and it would fit onto it.....though a bit awkwardly sure. The architecture though would be at home anywhere thus it being a clear example of International Style.

[Texasota]

My point was not that it wasnt based around a grid, just that it wasn't orthagonal. The difference between an orthagonal grid and a radial grid might not seem like much, but exactly how many buildings did Mies design with a radial grid? (this is actually a genuine question; I'm curious if it's something he played with elsewhere) It creates a fundamentally different effect with the building receding from the entrance, and it's a choice forced by the site. No, that's not much a concession to site, but it's more than I would otherwise expect.

 

But yes, my second point was just wrong. I remembered the structure disappearing into the stone, which it clearly does not. Still there's stone on the outside as a major exterior feature.  Sans German/Barcelona Pavilion, that's somewhat unusual. It also seems to echo/reference the original building somewhat by carrying its materiality, stripped of detailing,  all the way through to Bissonet. 

[Urbannizer]

Here was Snohetta's design proposal for the MFAH expansion:

 

http://snohetta.com/project/198-museum-of-fine-arts-houston

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Luminare]

Urbannizer, Do we know about the full roster of firms who were finalist or a group that were all considered?

[cloud713]

Oh.. Didn't realize that was stuff that hadn't been posted before. Stumbled across those renderings when I was trying to find more info on the expansion announcement a week or so ago on Google. I definitely prefer the chosen design.

[fernz]

Glad they didn't win.

[Lospringer]

Great lecture...never heard of an "orthagonal" grid before.

 

The three finalists were Holl, Snohetta and Morphosis

 

Here's a link to the Morphosis design: http://morphopedia.com/projects/museum-of-fine-arts-houston

[Luminare]

Great lecture...never heard of an "orthagonal" grid before.

 

The three finalists were Holl, Snohetta and Morphosis

 

Here's a link to the Morphosis design: http://morphopedia.com/projects/museum-of-fine-arts-houston

 

Glad you liked the conversation.

 

Orthogonal (we both misspelled it lol) is thrown around a lot in Architecture. In laymen terms its something that is linear and so an orthogonal grid is a linear grid. Most often its a grid of squares or rectangles, but can be more than that. Frank Lloyd Wright did all kinds of crazy grids from triangles to hexagons, as an example.

 

MORPHOSIS!!!!! UGH. Now I want that design They just recently finished a new Museum (The Perot Museum) in Dallas! Oh well......I'll still take Steven Holl >.<

Edited January 20, 2015 by Luminare

[H-Town Man]

We got the best design. Less is more, and a somewhat rectangular building with only modest touches of unusual geometry is better than a design that really tries too hard to make a big splash.

 

I'm also a little wary of buildings that try so hard to create a public space, sort of like the architecture is telling you, "stand here and feel you're in an awesome spot." The Audrey Jones Beck building kind of does this with the grand entrance hall (with the escalator on one side), but the entrance hall has a functionality that keeps it from feeling too desperate. The High Museum in Atlanta tries over and over to make great spaces, and it all collapses under its own sense of earnest. Steven Holl's design basically says, "We are putting a building here - if you want your grand space, you may have either the street or the sculpture garden."

 

[Montrose1100]

Great lecture...never heard of an "orthagonal" grid before.

 

The three finalists were Holl, Snohetta and Morphosis

 

Here's a link to the Morphosis design: http://morphopedia.com/projects/museum-of-fine-arts-houston

Wow... I am speechless. I almost forgot to breath. Would have had a real presence on Main. I'm almost angry that this wasn't chosen, but I can't be angry, those renderings/models make me happy.

 

I guess this design was too exciting, and Snohetta's design was too boring. Holl's was just right?

[cloud713]

Imo the Morphosis design works in Dallas with the MoN&S(?) because of the tacky architecture in Dallas, and the fact that it's not an art museum. You don't want the building to take away from the art inside of it...

Edit: while the Morphosis design would have been cool, I think the Holl design does the campus more justice. I'd like to see a Morphosis design in Houston someday.. Just not as part of the MFAH. A stand alone building would be sweet, or an addition to a museum that isn't art related.

Edited January 20, 2015 by cloud713

[Luminare]

@Montrose I think you hit the nail right on the head. It's the medium of the two extremes that flank it.

 

Due to my current architectural sensibilities I would have gone with Morphosis. The digital revolution in architecture is upon us and Morphosis is one of the firms leading the way in the US. They really challenge how we perceive form and space and the geometry they create is quite radical for american architecture. What is great about Morphosis is they live and breath the Process. You can see that in their diagrams as they layout each step in how the building was forged or crafted into the shape you see. There is a logic about their work that gives justification to every design decision. There was another thread about that one lab building going in at the St. Thomas campus and the disappearance of the canopy. With a Morphosis design they always get exactly what they want because each element is integral to the whole. Another element which can be seen in the sections and renderings is the "big move". They do a lot of civil and art buildings and they understand that most of the building has to be dedicated to program and so they will assemble the building together and then put a large amount of design attention to a particular area of the building that is the WOW part. The one gives the building its character and uniqueness.

 

@H-Town Man I understand the sensibility for buildings to be a little more subtle or even passive in regards to forming space, but in a city so spaced out devoid of a lot of crafted/intimate spaces I think it's essential for buildings in our context to form or direct people to certain spaces or places. Some buildings do it more than others, but a great building is able to create a new environment within itself and create views to the outside which weren't noticeable before.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Luminare

[Texasota]

The Morphosis renderings didn't have any art in them. The Holl renderings do. I thinks there is a noticeable difference in priorities there.

[cloud713]

Great point Texasota..

[Lospringer]

Luminare, I know what an orthogonal grid is. I was sarcastically trying to point out your error but as it has many times before, sarcasm doesn't translate well through text.

 

Anyway I think they chose the right architect for the project. All three of those are some of my favorite firms and do great design work. The Snohetta entry in this case was uninspiring to me. I love nearly everything Morphosis designs but I wasn't crazy about this one. The scale almost seemed too small for them and the work they've done recently. I think it also came down to the way the building was presented in the renderings..very conceptual and faint. Their plans and sections, because of the way they design, were probably a little hard to read for people not used to looking at them.

 

I think Holl has the right balance of conceptual and at the same time presenting something that 'looks' like a museum; the plans and sections posted of the building are very clear. At the end of the day though they couldn't have gone wrong with any of the three.

[fernz]

How's is that? As far as I know, orthogonal means it made of right angles.

[Luminare]

Luminare, I know what an orthogonal grid is. I was sarcastically trying to point out your error but as it has many times before, sarcasm doesn't translate well through text.

 

Anyway I think they chose the right architect for the project. All three of those are some of my favorite firms and do great design work. The Snohetta entry in this case was uninspiring to me. I love nearly everything Morphosis designs but I wasn't crazy about this one. The scale almost seemed too small for them and the work they've done recently. I think it also came down to the way the building was presented in the renderings..very conceptual and faint. Their plans and sections, because of the way they design, were probably a little hard to read for people not used to looking at them.

 

I think Holl has the right balance of conceptual and at the same time presenting something that 'looks' like a museum; the plans and sections posted of the building are very clear. At the end of the day though they couldn't have gone wrong with any of the three.

 

Well...sorry.

 

I all about sarcasm, but I really didn't get any hit of sarcasm from your post especially since it was your very first post...

 

You clearly know what you are talking about. As long as it didn't come off as me talking down to you then ok.

 

I personally am a fan of Morphosis so after seeing their idea for the Museum I would have loved their design. In response to Texasota if you look at the renderings and have looked into Morphosis other works they are very minimalistic in their approach to presentation layouts.

 

The Steven Holl design is a better fit for the way Houston is right now and I think Morphosis is a kind of architecture I hope becomes more the norm in Houston 5-10 years down the road.

[Texasota]

I will also say I am not a big fan of the Perot. The building feels significantly smaller on the inside than it appears on the exterior.

[Luminare]

I will also say I am not a big fan of the Perot. The building feels significantly smaller on the inside than it appears on the exterior.

 

It was a very difficult site and program they had to develop.

 

I would give this a watch:

 

 

It talks about their process for the Perot Museum. Very interesting. I was actually at this Lecture while at A&M.

 

I wonder if there is a video of Steven Holl (or one of his associates) talking about a recent building he did as to get more of an idea of how his practice designs buildings. I'll have to find one later.

[Lospringer]

Imo the Morphosis design works in Dallas with the MoN&S(?) because of the tacky architecture in Dallas, and the fact that it's not an art museum. You don't want the building to take away from the art inside of it...

Edit: while the Morphosis design would have been cool, I think the Holl design does the campus more justice. I'd like to see a Morphosis design in Houston someday.. Just not as part of the MFAH. A stand alone building would be sweet, or an addition to a museum that isn't art related.

 

I'm not sure what you were saying with the MoN&S but I don't think Dallas has much more tacky architecture than we have here in Houston. Dallas is the only place in the world where you have six different Pritzker Prize winning architect's buildings within walking distance of each other.

 

I'm not a fan of Dallas just sayin'...

 

I am a fan of the Perot though. I think it's a great building. Thom Mayne is a genius but his designs tend to be very polarizing. The concept for the Perot was to not be a neutral background for exhibits as most museums tend to be but to actively engage visitors which is why they placed it on top of a plinth that creates an artificial ground plane that tries to juxtapose nature and the city. It's meant to be explored not feel like you're walking through room after room of dinosaur bones.