The question as to whether the Glass House is a house museum in the conventional (Colonial) sense has to be a resounding yes. Once a building is no longer used as a building, it becomes an object, a museum piece. Viollet-le-Duc already talks about that. That Philip Johnson, in various ways, already planned for that only reinforces that concept. The question as to what we interpret it to is both simple and more nuanced. In simple terms we save it, as best as we can, as he has left it. In more complex terms his lack of maintenance is part of what he left us. He was after all an architect so you may assume that most of these decisions for one reason or another were intended. It is tempting to clean the sigarette smoke from the ceiling and ‘restore’ it but it is part of that story. I think the danger we encounter is of wanting to clean it up, literally and figuratively. 
While the Villa Savoye is already mentioned – and by the way I would not call it a museum but a shrine to a religion to which I do not belong – I would use the Gropius House in Lincoln, MA as a counterpoint: an architect continuing to live in a house he designed early in his career in the US. There a particular point in time was selected – not the original construction – that reflected Gropius’ long term occupancy. This acceptance of change I would argue also for the ‘Pink Room’. Finally it is interesting that no one has raised – either on the tour the other day or in this dialogue – the issue of authenticity. A word that in my mind appears on the scene in full force in the 1990s and which in my mind belongs in the same category of archi-speak as materiality and parti. It has and continues to be much debated as to how it affects preserving modern architecture. In the Glass House case the glass is almost all if not all of a much later date. While newer glass changes the appearance in a subtle manner, it is a good example of what Johnson would have done. It leaves us with the question as when does it cease to his and does it become more ours and does that make it less authentic?

What I find most fascinating about this effort to preserve Untitled, 1971 is that it is not just (simply or not simply) the preservation of Donald Judd’s artistic intent with the piece itself but simultaneously the preservation of Johnson and Whitney’s intent as collectors/commissioners on the work. Like the effect the elements have had on the exposed surface of the CIP, the location on a national historic site has played an integral role in how the work is experienced and should therefore be included in the consideration of how the piece is or is not preserved.

But how do you pinpoint a singular moment or experience to preserve?…

At The Andy Warhol Museum are in a similar position in that we always endeavor to present the types of exhibitions that other museums will not. We are not afraid of controversy and we think outside of the box as a matter of course. It goes without saying that there are always certain parameters within which one must work (finances, physical space, etc), but we all strive to be as creative as possible and to work within these confines so that we are able to do the kind of work that makes us all feel fulfilled at the end of the day. And to that end, I think David Whitney just might have fit into our culture brilliantly.

A few people I thought of:
Oprah Winfrey Money CAN move mountains
Bill Gates Ditto
Warren Buffet Ditto
Martha Stewart For her attempts at producing a
self sufficient community
Jonathan Reckford CEO Habitat for Humanity
Brad Pitts Commitment to sustainable housing
Angelina Jolie Ditto
Sandra Bullock Housing work
Arthur P. Ziegler,Jr. President Pittsburgh History and
Landmarks Foundation
Ryan Landry Founder The Gold Dust Orphans and
a strong community activist
Alexandra Billings Actress, producer, community activist.
Joel Folliard Just ’cause!

Since we are flooded with color advice for decorating, it might be useful to consider what coloring architecture can hope to accomplish, and, in painting rooms, how one would rate the effectiveness and best sequencing of the following strategies.

Recognizing color to have qualities.

Omitting needless colors.

Employing complements.

Using like intensities.

Ignoring trends.

Accounting for peripheral vision.

Using contrast to create brightness.

Acknowledging local conditions and adjacent structures.

Reinforcing hierarchies.

Determining values before hues.

Engineering narrow levels of luminance.

The use of this brightly colored plate is a step in the right direction but why didn’t they get one of the brilliant infographics designers working out there to do this? 4 colorful triangles doesn’t translate to tasty food. (And what protein is purple exactly?) While the plate is a vast improvement over the inexplicable pyramid, I shudder to think of how many “meals” are consumed these days from paper wrappers, styrofoam containers, and squeezable tubes! …

Perhaps it’s best not frame this discussion around polarities: less/more, upscale/downscale, big/small, urban/suburban. The things that make small spaces livable are the truisms of much architecture, be it vernacular or modern: quality of light and air, comfortable proportions, attention to detail and materials, and access to outdoor space.

While, there’s been a movement among both tiny house enthusiasts and mainstream builders to downsize new construction, less attention has paid to what these spaces actually feel like and how they function.

If you’re asking, can we build a complete New York today from scratch that is better than the current one, the answer is no.

Can use the knowledge we have to build better frameworks for future cities? Yes.

…Predicting the future is a difficult thing, too often our ambitious, over detailed plans are forget, dismissed by the next generation of leaders, or simply turn out to be wrong. It’s important to have both a vision and a plan but to remember that cities are organic works of progress.