In a message dated 11/23/98 2:46:33 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

  > So, what exactly is wrong with the addition to the Jewish Museum?  Met
  >  History (above) calls it "compliance architecture".  Is that such a bad
  >  thing?  Those of us who have labored for years to administer preservation
  >  guidelines in urban historic districts certainly can see "compliance" as
a
  >  small victory when the alternative is something intrusive, out of scale,
etc.

  This is an eminently fair question.  (And I note it is one which is rarely
 addressed by preservation or community organizations fighting "new" buildings
 or "saving" old ones; their critiques rarely run above mud-throwing.  No
 different than the owners fighting landmark regulation. )

  So, why does the 1993 "matching" addition by Kevin Roche to the original
 1907 French Gothic townhouse at 92nd & Fifth make me cry?  (Out of towners:
 the 1907 limestone townhouse looks something like Biltmore - in Asheville, NC
 - but on a corner plot in New York. The adjacent addition doubles the size of
 the building in a "matching" format.)

  1.    The Jewish Museum had a long history of fiercely fighting Landmark
 designation for the 1907 building.  They were careless and neglectful
 stewards of it (just as are the International Center of Photography, the
 Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History).  To have them
 crow of their "restoration" - after it was forced down their throat - makes
 me wince.  And that there was plenty of intact interior which they just
 junked, well ....

  2.   In life, this addition is completely unconvincing as a "period
addition"
 , and looks like it was just inflated, not a design from the hand of a human
 being (most white brick buildings of the 1960's share this characteristic).
  Regarding "context", the area is marked by wide contrasts of scale - which
 scale should the a new annex respect: the 15 story apartment house on one
 side or the 6-story mansion on the other?

  3.    Unlike a 19th century village or suburban street, New York is a place of/
 for contrasts.  Do people complain that St. Patrick's Cathedral doesn't match
 Rockefeller Center which doesn't match Saks Fifth Avenue?  The matching
 addition reduces this desirable contrast.  Definitely more enjoyable (in
 terms of the street) was the museum's curious 1958 airport-modern
predecessor,
  which sank back from the corner bulding behind a nice swath of green.  The
 1907 building stood alone, and could be savored and evaluated on its own -
 this addition does not support bu smothers the original building, like A-1
 steak sauce ("makes hamburger taste like steak") on an actual steak.

  4.    Workmanship:  Hey, everybody: Field Trip!!! ( and I'll pay for hot
cocoa.)
   Take a look at the much ballyhooed "carefully matching stonework" of the
 addition.  Sure it does match - for the 1970's.  For the 1990's it looks like
 a bicycle accident.  The sloppy disparity in profiles old and new must be an
 embarrassment to the masons - who, I feel suspect, were at the bottom of the
 food chain.  Then there are the marks made by the museum's surveyors
 preparatory to construction - these are carved and paint-highlighted directly
 onto the original stone - Rodney Dangerfield could make a particularly
 painful joke out of that.  I never pursued it but ... is it a concidence that
 the addition was swathed in repair scaffolding a year after the project was "
 complete"?

  5.    "Compliance architecture".  It is no shame on anyone in particular that
 the addition is really just compliance.  Everyone was exhausted after over a
 decade with an intractable owner - community groups, Landmarks,
professionals,
  the museum's architects (all of them!), indeed even the museum was
exhausted.
   It was perfectly legit that everyone threw in the towel - in part because
 such an addition is a knotty, perhaps insoluble problem.  But it was a
 surrender all around, no credit to anyone.    The only good part - and it's
 no small part - is that it finished a long siege, and the Jewish Museum could
 continue with its long and interesting series of exhibitions.  Bravo for
that.
   But that building ... ouch!

  If the issue is to prevent "something intrusive, out of scale" [to quote
 [log in to unmask]] then the work is indeed a success.  But I don't see that
 the same as either architecture or historic preservation.  To copyright-
 infringe Lewis Mumford:

  "an excellent period reproduction - Restorationque, ca. 1993".

  More, please - from the other side.

  Christopher Gray