- Obama Promises Direct Aid to Cities to El Nutter
- The "rolling closures" for this week
- Injustice in Housing is a Life or Death Matter
- The library: a recession sanctuary?
- Nutter should get credit where credit's due
- Thursday Counter-Protest at "We Stand with Israel" Rally
- This Saturday: hearing of Mayor's Task force on Ethics
- Why do we fund this?
- ABC debuts "Homeland Security USA"
- Library Closings: They Have Never Really Been About The Budget Crisis
Editorial: Great architects have been selected to design the Barnes museum. Will it matter?
Submitted by bret on Thu, 12/20/2007 - 11:49am.
Now that the architects have been named for the new Barnes museum, I hope an overlooked element of the proposal will receive attention: that is, the building site and its relationship to the urban context. So far, the focus has been on the design mandates for the project's interior, since architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien will be challenged with replicating the original Barnes galleries in an entirely new, expanded building. Aileen Kennedy Roberts, chair of the Barnes' building committee, praised Williams and Tsien in the New York Times for their process of working inside out. "That's the restriction we have," she concluded. Yet, by placing the museum on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, the Barnes Foundation has invited a host of complex urban issues that further restrict the project and may very well suffocate even the best design. The architects, in fact, do not have the luxury of designing from the inside out. Comprehensive planning, not just intelligent architecture, would be necessary to make this project succeed.
Jane Jacobs, our touchstone urbanist, wrote convincingly in The Death and Life of Great American Cities that cities require diversity in order to function well. For this she laid out four generating elements: one, the district must serve more than one primary function; two, blocks must be short; three, buildings must vary in age; and four, there must be a dense concentration of people. Not to mince words, she warned, "All four in combination are necessary... the absence of any of the four frustrates a district’s potential." This alone should tell even the greenest Philadelphian why the Benjamin Franklin Parkway stoops to failure: it's missing about three-and-a-half of those qualifiers.
The diagonal slice to Penn's city grid has never been a success. An anomaly of scale and orientation, it sustains no city life. The Parkway succeeds only at being picturesque (which was its main objective) and has become little more than a highway linking City Hall and the Art Museum. No corrective planning ever occurred to make it functional, so the buildings along the axis are arbitrary and overshadowed by civic monuments at both ends. Why would the Barnes choose such a mediocre location? The inferiority of the site is an insult to the superiority of its collection.
As Jacobs pointed out, successful districts require a mix of uses. City leaders may wax ebullient over the idea of a "Museum Mile," but catchy marketing is no primer for urban planning and segregating our major museums to one district is unwise and impractical. The last thing the Benjamin Franklin Parkway needs is another museum. Look only to its current state for evidence. Five museums and the Free Library already sit along the beleaguered boulevard. Toss in a new Barnes museum (and someday maybe the Calder Museum) and the Parkway would look more like the Appia Antica than the Champs-Elysees we've always wanted it to be.
Important urban issues ranging from traffic intensity to pedestrian accessibility plague this location, yet these urban realities seem to have been overlooked in a rush to move. Were studies ever undertaken to determine how this site would serve a new cultural landmark? Or does the city simply assume that a sexy new building will "fix" the Parkway? Such an unrealistic goal cannot be given to the architects, and nor should it be promised by them. Architecture can be powerful, but one building can hardly be expected to solve the problems of an entire district.
It's shocking that the Barnes would risk everything (including quite a lot of public funds) by building on a site so enervating. Why, out of all Philadelphia, is this location the most appropriate? Were other sites even considered? And ultimately, what will the building look like? Will it really be a great place for the collection? Will it respond well to its context? Not all of these questions can be answered immediately, but the Barnes has been getting by on such abstract and speculative plans that we are overdue for specifics. Perhaps their proposal to move, which is fraught with so many legal, moral, and aesthetic questions that it’s now back in court for a re-hearing, can only really be evaluated once these details are presented. After all, the Barnes Foundation is not known for its wise decisions or fiscal responsibility. Do they really deserve a blank check?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Hey Bret,
Hey Bret,
Very interesting post. The thing about Barnes is that, for the most part, we aren't really paying much for it, right? The Youth Study Center needed to be replaced, and most of the money for Barnes was raised privately. So, to me its not a matter of whether this was a good use of tax dollars.
Anyway, I am curious to hear a little more about your thoughts on this.
First, assuming they would want to put the Barnes somewhere downtown-ish, is it realistic that there would be any site big enough?
Second, even if something came to the Youth Study center that was not a museum, do you think that would change the flavor of the parkway? When I think about the parkway now, it seems basically like a place where only destination type places can survive/thrive, because the Parkway is so craptacular for pedestrians. But, I think the only way that big changes could happen is if a massive reorganization of the parkway went down, with less traffic, more sidewalks, more space for retail, etc. And to me, whether the Barnes is there is really sort of moot, because even if you put things that were more Champ Elysee like there- cafes, stores, etc., they would still be isolated from normal C City foot traffic.
Totally changing the Parkway to me is very pie in the sky, but, it seems to be pie in the sky no matter whether Barnes settles there or not.
further thoughts
Thanks, Dan. I'm not in favor of the Barnes moving. This is for many reasons, most of which are aesthetic and have been vociferously argued by others elsewhere, but also for these particular urban issues that no one seems to be highlighting. They concern me and make me think that because they're not being considered, the execution of the move will be poor: we'll introduce an anti-urban building into an urban context, drive one more nail into the Parkway's coffin, and end up diminishing one of our greatest cultural gems in the process. I'm not an alarmist, but what a disaster that would be.
But if the Barnes has to move, let's do it right. One site that comes to mind is the vacant lot between 19th and 20th on Walnut Street. It's currently being developed, but let's imagine the Barnes being somewhere like that: off Rittenhouse, near shops and restaurants. A great precedent to think about is the Rosenbach Museum and Library, nearby, which is a wonderful place. The point is to imagine a building that is urban, accessible, and therefore Philadelphian. Think about some of the great museums that are in the thick of Manhattan: the Frick, the Morgan, MoMA. And if the Barnes should not want an urban building, then why do they want to move downtown?
(Of course the real answer to that question might be sinister, but let's not go there)
It's funny that you think that because the Parkway is such a horrible place for pedestrians, the only buildings that could go there are "destination" buildings. But why would a city want to put its destination buildings in places that can't be reached by pedestrians? You're not alone in thinking this. Common thought goes: Parkway = museums, Barnes = museum; therefore, Barnes = Parkway! But for reasons I explain above, that's a bad idea. I don't know what other building should go at the Youth Study site. I think the Parkway needs to be totally reassessed to figure that out. We should proceed with a long-term plan for the whole Parkway, not build things willy-nilly. Maybe, once drafted, a new plan for the Parkway would support a Barnes museum. Or maybe it won't. But the point is to think about it and be smart about it. It may be pie-in-the-sky, it may take 50 years, but there's nothing that says the Parkway can't be turned into a functional, urban boulevard that connects to Philadelphia's established urban fabric.
But one thing we should certainly NOT do is build the Barnes museum on the Parkway in its current state. That effectively kills the possibility of ever reforming it. The Barnes on the Parkway would be bad for the city and even worse for the Barnes.
Benjamin Franklin Parkway Plans
The Central Philadelphia Development Corporation has a plan for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway available at http://www.centercityphila.org/plan/docs/SOCC-Plan07-BFP2.pdf. They call for making it more pedestrian friendly and for adding uses like cafés that will also make it more inviting for people to walk around. While it does go against Jane Jacobs' philosophy, a museum district does offer benefits for marketing and tourism. If the new Barnes is built it should include a café and/or restaurant and/or shop that opens up onto the Parkway. This could be one of the first steps to add some life back to the Parkway, rather than have everything contained inside a large structure that is totally closed off from the Parkway. Of course if the Parkway remains the the hellish experience it is for pedestrians, most people will not walk there no matter how many cafés there are. While it would impact cars, I would like to see a study that would look at removing the middle lanes and replacing them with a wide grassy median and walkway, similar to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/cases/comm_ave.htm.
Re: Comm Ave.
From when I lived in the Boston area, I sure don't remember Comm Ave. getting much foot traffic at all. Because it has relatively few destinations other than residences.
Compare that to Newbury Street, a parallel street right nearby, which has tons and tons of foot traffic - probably the most in the entire city - becuse it is lined with commercial establishments.
While it is hopeful that a new Barnes Museum on the Parkway might make the Parkway more vibrant, it doesn't seem likely to me. Given the relative isolation from other Center City attractions, I can't imagine many tourists walking to get to the museum, especially in the extreme weather months of winter and summer.
If the proposed developments were already in place along the Parkway, and if it were already a vibrant hub of pedestrian activity, locating the Barnes there would be a great idea.
What is going on with that plan for the Parkway, anyway?
Let the market decide
Who owns all that empty land on the Parkway? W hy don't we just let developers build there. That'll give the Jane Jacob-ites what they want--mixed use. I bet we could rip up all those flag poles and build right down the median strip. After all, why should every former Soviet country get space on OUR Parkway when there are condos to be built!
re: Let the market decide
Well, condos and Lynne Abraham's NEW SPARE RIB WAREHOUSE! Craig LaBan will give it four bells if he knows what's good for him.
Comm Ave. and Parkway Plan Status
You are certainly right about Commonwealth Ave. in Boston. Newbury Street is a great pedestrian environment and even Boylston Street gets more foot traffic than Comm Ave. However, keep in mind that Newbury is a great mixed use street with a range of high end retail and Comm Ave. is nearly all residential. However, the wide green strip in the middle of Comm Ave. does positively slow down traffic and adds a lot more visually than the broken down green patches on the Parkway. The plan for Parkway is delayed due to a lack of funding and a lack of support from the City. The Center City District has taken a lot of smaller steps in improving the Parkway; see http://www.centercityphila.org/programs/parkway_projects.aspx.
I think you're being
I think you're being unfairly pessimistic about the future of the Parkway. One of the reasons it has been a failure, is because there's nothing on it. With the exception of the Rodin Museum, it's empty between Logan Circle and the Art Museum. When originally designed, it was supposed to be loaded with museums, monuments and fountains. If it wasn't for the Depression, a concert hall for the Philadelphia Orchestra might have been built on it. Imagine how that would have transformed the space!
The Barnes Museum can be a hub of activity that that Parkway desperately needs. Once you actually have people going to that part of the Parkway, then you can bring in restaurants and cafes. You cannot develop the parkway until a major attraction is put there. As others have noted, Center City District has come up with numerous ways to make it more pedestrian friendly.
Having a museum district is good for tourism. It makes it easier for tourist to navigate the city, and it has worked in other cities. In Amsterdam, some of the most prominent museums are outside of the city center, circled around a park. And those museums are: Rijksmuseum, Stedelijk Museum and Van Gogh Museum. Despite the location, this part of the city has become a destination point.
The problem with putting a museum in Center City, is that it generates no foot traffic at night since it's closed. You'd have to have a restaurant or bar on the first floor. Also, there would be light issues -- museums need lots of natural light. If you put the museum in the Rittenhouse location, you could only have windows on two sides of museum, and the apartment house next door would probably interfere with sky lighting.
What's ironic about the Parkway, is that in its current state, it really is a lot like the Champs-Elysees -- more beautiful than functional (which pretty much describes the entire layout of Paris). It's always traffic congested, and there isn't much to see or do on many parts of it.
People should be excited about the Barnes coming to Philadelphia. In this day, it's rare that a city is able to build a new museum with such a spectacular collection. In the late '80s and early '90s, the Ghetty was spending a hundred million a year on new acquisitions (unadjusted), and they're still a second rate museum. The Barnes will not only help maintain Philadelphia's status as a tourist destination, but will enhance it. (But of course, the City needs to do a far better job marketing itself.)