Feb 6
2011
An important aspect of the Glass House property is that it contains 8 buildings designed by Philip Johnson and built over a span of 50 years, expressing his development from an architectural student to one of America’s premier architects. Over that half century, Johnson changed the appearance of some of the buildings from their original design.
Are properties like the Glass House more valuable educational tools with the buildings presented as originally intended, or as they have been changed over time?
Jeremy gave the final word
This is one of the fundamental questions of building conservation and has provoked more debate and possibly even argument than any other subject relating to historic buildings.
The way we respond to buildings is very emotive but when dealing with something that might be around for hundreds of years, we must not be impulsive. We should not alter things just because it would be nicer but should also consider if it would be better.
I think there is no generally correct answer. Each building must be considered on its own merit. In the case of the Glass House the fact that the architect himself altered the building shouldn’t necessarily have any bearing on a decision.
I think the fact that the question has been posed here already indicates the educational value of the buildings in their current form. And I suggest that if you could stand a group of students in front of the Glass House in its present state and put this question to them, then the learning benefit of that is invaluable.
Friday, February 11 at 5:05am
Although I’m interested in the evolution over time, I’d prefer the buildings in their original state if it was for educational reasons. That way you’d have a unique view on Johnson’s personal development. Each building represents a phase or next step. Furthermore a building becomes a symbol of time and reflects the zeitgeist.
If it would have been just one building though it’s great to see how an architect changes it over time. It would not only illustrate the personal development, but probably also changes due to a buildings purpose, to new material’s or to social changes.
Wednesday, February 9 at 6:14am
Conservators are typically encouraged to select the most compelling and coherent period of time, and restore and interpret buildings or ensembles through that lens. In the case of the Glass House, it then makes sense that the buildings are interpreted in the way Johnson originally intended.
My hesitation with this norm is that it oversimplifies the larger historic record, and gives visitors the impression that iconic architecture (once it’s deemed as such) is static and disassociated from larger historic and contemporary narrative.
If the goal is to generate a lasting educational impact for the visitor, an interpretation of architecture based on “original intent” alone, will necessarily omit some of the more exciting and unplanned moments in the resource’s comprehensive history.
A valuable educational interpretation needs to provide more than a first-hand look into the original vision of the architect. Whether physical or symbolic, the interpretation must effectively highlight how -and especially why- the resource was adapted over time to suit the changing preferences of Johnson, especially as his preeminence grew architecturally, as well as socioculturally.
Wednesday, February 9 at 7:28pm
If we are talking generally, about structures not limited to those in “the compound”, then given a choice, I would say leave them in their original state save for repairs and updates needed for long-term preservation.
If the choice is between remodel or raze, then I choose remodel.
If we are talking about building designed and then remodeled over time by the original architect, then I would say they should remain in the state they were in when he/she finally put down the pen.
But that’s just me.
Thursday, February 10 at 11:16am
Interesting question…preservationists are of two minds on the subject. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation do state that we should acknowledge and save changes made to a site, to better understand the revisions made by all the generations. In the case of a master architect’s own home, I agree with Skip that we should look to the end of the “era” when the architect last laid down the pen on the project.
Thursday, February 10 at 2:21pm
Many of the respondents suggest that the best thing would be to keep the buildings as originally designed. On the one hand, it makes sense. On the other, it does not allow for Johnson’s final vision of his home. Mr. Ploss supports the latter notion. Mr. Terlouw writes of changes to a single building. Actually, Frank Lloyd Wright’s home in Oak Park offers a parallel. There, the Wright’s development can be seen in his series of additions to the building over the years, all of which have been preserved. Certainly, as he added new parts, he made changes to the ones that preceded them. In the same way, the Glass House property is an ensemble in which, as Johnson added new parts, he changed some of the earlier parts so that the whole thing together looked the way he wanted. The answer may lie in the ability, at an historic site, to interpret change. If the property were to remain as he left it, its earlier appearances could still be interpreted to the public. But his final vision would remain.
Thursday, February 10 at 5:40pm
The Monsta offers another angle to consider. It was designed by Johnson as a visitor center, looking forward to the time when his property would be open to the public. In his lifetime, he used it to store a collection of pottery. But now visitors are received off site. How should it look?
Thursday, February 10 at 5:44pm
In October 2010 the Queens Theater in the Park was officially dedicated. It morphed the original 100′ circular building to a spiral, adding a stunning 3,000 sq ft reception area. The second remodel of this building for $23M, by Caples Jefferson, followed a 1993 $4M remodel. The building is one of the three parts of the New York State pavilion built for the 1964-65 New York World’s Fair and designed by Philip Johnson. The only problem is that the rest of the pavilion has been ignored since 1967. On a gusty day in 2009 debris from the adjacent 250′ tall observation towers blew off penetrating the roof. The problem is that while one part of the building was given attention the rest (and far more stunning) parts have languished. Even a fraction of the QTIP remodel cost could have helped to bandaid the pavilion and were sorely needed. Would Philip Johnson have approved the QTIP design? Beautiful as it may be, it is a bit incongruent with its glass exterior in contrast to the slip form concrete of the original theater and the rest of the building. Of the 142 buildings Philip Johnson designed only the New York State Pavilion has the distinction of being on the World Momument Fund of the 100 most endangered sites. On September 15, 2009 the pavilion was placed on the New York State register of historic places, New York City has yet to declare it a landmark. If you ever have occasion to visit Flushing Meadows Park and see this building you may be impressed with QTIP but once you walk around the site you’ll leave shaking your head in disbelief.
Thursday, February 10 at 11:31pm
Jeremy gave the Final Word
This is one of the fundamental questions of building conservation and has provoked more debate and possibly even argument than any other subject relating to historic buildings.
The way we respond to buildings is very emotive but when dealing with something that might be around for hundreds of years, we must not be impulsive. We should not alter things just because it would be nicer but should also consider if it would be better.
I think there is no generally correct answer. Each building must be considered on its own merit. In the case of the Glass House the fact that the architect himself altered the building shouldn’t necessarily have any bearing on a decision.
I think the fact that the question has been posed here already indicates the educational value of the buildings in their current form. And I suggest that if you could stand a group of students in front of the Glass House in its present state and put this question to them, then the learning benefit of that is invaluable.
Friday, February 11 at 5:05am
Speaking in generalization to the question, an early question to be considered is the intent of the work at the time of its conception – meaning was the building intended to be a way-point or statement of an era or rather was it intended to embody issues that are in a sense timeless. In some cases a work’s relevance is best served though its evolution. A work shouldn’t necessarily become an unfortunate victim to the circumstances of its time of creation be they through a lack of understanding or state of technological innovation. Take for example the issue of sustainability – whereas Modernism, as a movement, did not explicitly engage the concept as its conventionally understood today, the fundamental principles of sustainability are inherent to Modern thought and many Modern works. If the value of the structure are not compromised through its modernization or evolution then, if anything, the making a structure relevant to today seems justifiable.
Friday, February 11 at 2:42pm
Mr. Melling raises an excellent point, one that I constantly return to when thinking about historic sites: Excepting for acts of God, they will be around for a long, long time; much longer than it took to create them. It’s very important that historic site managers be very conservative in altering the historic properties they oversee. Unless there is an overwhelming reason for a reversal, alterations by the significant creator of the site should be left as they are. What we see as an important reason to change something in our lifetimes may well be irrelevant in the long term.
Thank you all for participating in the conversation.
Friday, February 11 at 6:50pm
Keywords
Selected list of words appearing in this and other conversations.
Donna Ann Harris
Principal
0
It makes it easier for the public to understand the designer’s intent if the houses are presented as originally intended. The Glass House site shows Johnson’s full career as evidenced in the 8 buildings. The properties shown to the public on tours are all icons. The original buildings on the property used for staff housing and the like may be interesting to some, but are not the work of “the master” that visitors come to see. We had a superb private tour last May with one other couple which allowed access to each of the iconic buildings. Truly memorable.
Tuesday, February 8 at 2:40pm