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