CONTEXT - Spring 2020

SPRING 2020

ON COLLABORATION Complications of Being a Good Client Creating the Philadelphia Museum of Art Interdisciplinary Design Teaching

Spring 2020 – IN THIS ISSUE In this issue we look at the practice of working together to achieve more than we can as individuals.

FEATURES 10 Being a Good Client is Complicated

by Derek Gillman, Anne Papageorge, and Timothy Rub

14 Collaboration on Fairmount

by David B. Brownlee, FSAH

DEPARTMENTS 5 EDITOR’S LETTER 6 COMMUNITY

8 UP CLOSE

18 Interdisciplinary Design Studio Teaching: An Experiment

22 BOOK REVIEW

by Dan Willis and Paul Daniel Marriott

24 DESIGN PROFILES

ON THE COVER US Embassy in London - Each of the Embassy's floors contain a garden inspired by a different United States ecosystem. These gardens enhance circulation and provide peaceful places to meet and reflect. KieranTimberlake (Architect) and OLIN (Landscape Architect); ©Richard Bryant (Photographer)

CONTEXT is published by

AIA Philadelphia A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects 1218 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-569-3186, www.aiaphiladelphia.com.

The opinions expressed in this – or the representations made by advertisers, including copyrights and warranties, are not those of the editorial staff, publisher, AIA Philadelphia, or AIA Philadelphia’s Board of Directors. All rights reserved. Reproduction in part or whole without written permission is strictly prohibited.

Postmaster: send change of address to AIA Philadelphia, 1218 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Published MARCH 2020

Suggestions? Comments? Questions? Tell us what you think about the latest issue of CONTEXT magazine by emailing context@aiaphila.org. A member of the CONTEXT editorial committee will be sure to get back to you.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 3

2020 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Paul Avazier, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, NCARB, President Soha St. Juste, AIA, President-Elect Robert Shuman, AIA, LEED AP, Treasurer John B. Campbell, AIA, ARIAS, RIBA, LEED AP, Past President Rich Vilabrera, Jr., Assoc. AIA, Secretary Brian Smiley, AIA, CDT, LEED BD+C, Director of Sustainability +

Preservation

Since 1996 Parallel Edge has focused on providing Outsourced IT support for AEC firms and other companies specifically working with the built environment.

Outsourced IT Services when IT is not what you do.

Phil Burkett, AIA, WELL AP, LEED AP NCARB, Director of Firm

Culture + Prosperity Stephen Kuttner Potts, AIA, Director of Technology + Innovation Erin Roark, AIA, LEED AP, Director of Equity, Diversity + Inclusion Jeff Goldstein, AIA, Director of Design Kevin Malawski, AIA, LEED AP, Director of Advocacy Rob Fleming, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Director of Education Timoth A. Kerner, AIA, Director of Professional Development Danielle DiLeo Kim, AIA, Director of Strategic Engagement Scott Compton, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, PA Director Clarissa Kelsey, Assoc. AIA, Director of PEA Mike Penzel, Assoc. AIA, Director of PEA

610.293.0101 www.paralleledge.com

Tya Winn, NOMA, LEED Green Associate, SEED, Public Member Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director

CONTEXT EDITORIAL BOARD CO-CHAIRS Harris M. Steinberg, FAIA, Drexel University Todd Woodward, AIA, SMP Architects

BOARD MEMBERS Wolfram Arendt, AIA, LAYER Architecture David Brownlee, FSAH, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Julie Bush, ASLA, Ground Reconsidered Susan Miller Davis, AIA Daryn Edwards, AIA, CICADA Architecture Planning

Certified Contractors, Resources, and Education for All Interior & Exterior Glass Applications AGI Glass Resources: Interior Glass Guide Specification Demountable Interior Glass Partition Guide Project Case Studies Devil’s Details Technical Education Series Call to schedule a Lunch & Learn session! www.theagi.org info@theagi.org 215.825.1422

Clifton Fordham, RA, Temple University Fauzia Sadiq Garcia, RA, Temple University Sally Harrison, AIA, Temple University Timothy Kerner, AIA, Terra Studio Elizabeth Miller, Community Design Collaborative Jeff Pastva, AIA, Bright Common Rachel Simmons Schade, AIA, Drexel University Eli Storch, AIA, Looney Ricks Kiss Franca Trubiano, PhD, University of Pennsylvania David Zaiser, AIA, Whitman Requardt and Associates LLP

STAFF Rebecca Johnson, AIA Philadelphia Executive Director Elizabeth Paul, Managing Editor Tiffany Mercer-Robbins, The Mercer Suite, Layout Designer Laurie Churchman, Designlore, Art Director

4 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

EDITOR’S LETTER

SCRATCHING THE SURFACE ON COLLABORATION DAVID B. BROWNLEE, FSAH Shapiro-Weitzenhoffer Professor of the History of Art, University of Pennsylvania, and CONTEXT Editor TODD WOODWARD, AIA Principal of SMP Architects and CONTEXT Editor

We don’t believe in the myth of the lone Architect.

We have found that the projects and buildings we admire often

The conception, design, and operation of buildings and environments

involved special partnerships between design firms, thoughtful work with

is becoming increasingly complex. And yet, there is still the persistent

contractors and craftsmen, and close relationships between designers and

stereotype of the singular brilliant close up spaces around forward slash

clients. Purposeful collaboration between design professionals can result

who creates Architecture (with a capital A). In this conception, other

in surprising solutions and is necessary to achieve the high-performance

people might be necessary to realize the work, but their roles are seen

outcomes that we need. In this issue of CONTEXT, we have tried to start

as smaller and less valued. Although the myth of the solo creator may

a conversation about collaboration – highlighting designers working

serve the interests of certain kinds of architects, we don’t think this is

together within firms, across disciplinary boundaries, and, of course, with

how contemporary practice works. In fact, we don’t think truly successful

clients. We realize that we have only scratched the surface of this topic

work was done this way in the past either.

but hope that what is presented here contributes to a larger discussion

Collaboration – working together to achieve outcomes not possible

about our attitudes toward the effective practice of architecture. n

by working separately – is a skill that is usually required in the practice of architecture and other design disciplines. Design professionals collaborate together, collaborate with clients, and work with countless others in the process of translating ideas into built works. But we don’t typically think about collaboration as a skill, one that can be taught and one that can be developed and improved over time and with practice. A shortcoming of many academic design programs is that, given the emphasis on individual performance and evaluation, teaching collaboration as a skill and practice is completely overlooked.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 5

COMMUNITY

Hello Friends and Colleagues: We started off this year on a high note, having just celebrated our 150th in glorious fashion at the Fillmore. The plan was to build upon last year’s successes while building up for A’21, and I was EXCITED for what was ahead. To say things have gone off the rails is an understatement, but all plans aside in many ways I’m still EXCITED for this year and the new challenges ahead. This is uncharted territory for many of us and will test our ability to adapt and adjust. The strides that I have seen made, the outreach from our colleagues and consultants, and the discussions being had will have an everlasting effect on our profession. Who would have thought that we’d show up to work on a Monday, then close the doors and go remote the next day? Life and work do not stop, it goes on, and we are all trying to figure out how to balance the two from the comfort of our homes. On the plus side, business casual has taken on a new meaning.

While this is not turning out to be the year that I described or envisioned back in January at our Board Induction, I do see this as a time in which AIA Philadelphia can rise to the top and shine. Already, and thanks to our amazing staff, there has been a major PIVOT to move our presence to the digital world, determine how to maintain fundraising goals, and adapt to the current financial and social distancing world. It will prove to be a time in which we will come back with a goal to build-back up and adapt to new realities, and in which resiliency will prove critical.

In my induction speech I described some of the reasons I was EXCITED for 2020. I spoke about the 2030 challenge and how we can and should be doing more to bring attention to the issues facing our planet. A silver lining of the quarantine is the amazing recovery we are witnessing all around us; waters in Venice are clearer than they have been in years, there are noticeable emissions reductions over areas of Asia and Europe, and there has been a reduced load on the energy grid with offices and retail locations closed which may change the way we think about energy production and usage. The challenge will be to build upon this recover, and not just revert to the way things had been. I also addressed member engagement, and how we can rethink the way in which we connect with and get participation from our membership. Never did I think we would be in this situation, but it does offer us an opportunity to explore new ways of engagement in a digital age and reconsider the way in which we connect with and share our messaging.

I want to stay positive and think of the ways in which this will make us a better organization, and I hope that you will as well. There will be hardships, and there will be negative impact as a result of Covid-19’s effect on our way of life. While we are all apart please maintain contact and support the chapter, our members, our colleagues, employees/employers, consultants, friends, family, and selves in any way you can. We can be thankful for the internet, FaceTime, webex, email, and all the other luxuries that we have at our disposal that allow us to stay connected. While you are home try to take some time to reflect, relax, and recharge, for when we reemerge, we’ll all be looked upon to lead the charge within our built environment.

I look forward to the day we are all meeting in the same room again, but until then please be safe, healthy, and continue to look ahead.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Avazier, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, NCARB President, AIA Philadelphia Associate Principal, Atkin Olshin Schade Architects

6 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

Seeking Programs + Tours for the 2020 Forum on Architecture + Design The Forum on Architecture + Design (Forum) seeks program and tour ideas for the 2020 Forum taking place in early October. Now in its third year, The Forum brings robust programming to the architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and planning community in Philadelphia. The program is focused on curating multidisciplinary educational content for designers, civic leaders, product manufacturers, technology providers, and real estate developers - all the industries that contribute to shaping our built environment. The Forum will be held ideally in person, but we are investigating virtual options in event that COVID-19 is a continued threat and that format is necessary.

Sponsorship + Exhibitor opportunities are also now available. Please contact Jermaine Jenkins, Director of Development and Strategic Partnerships, jermaine@aiaphila.org for more information.

More information and the link to the submission form can be found at aiaphiladelphia.org/forumarchitecture-design. Please contact Julianne Foley, Member Services & Events Manager, at juli@ aiaphila.org if you have any questions

PHOTO: CHRIS KENDIG

PHOTO: KAT KENDON PHOTOGRAPHY

COMMUNITY

CALLING ALL EVENT, OPEN HOUSE, AND DESIGN DISPLAY PARTNERS...

Registration for the 2020 DesignPhiladelphia Festival is now open. Let the countdown begin, just over 100 days until the deadline to submit is upon us on June 29. Join our community of over 100 designers, firms, organizations, and companies that participate in the DesignPhiladelphia Festival. Open your space to the public for a workshop, talk, reception, or exhibition.

Last year's Festival participants saw:

PHOTO COURTESY OF DESIGN ADVOCACY GROUP

•

Over 43,000 people in attendance, 30,000 of which explored Cherry Street Pier.

• Our social media content reached over 300,000 people throughout the year, with the highest reach immediately before and during the festival.

• Our website saw 239,000 unique page views.

• We had 26 different media placements that reached 28,875,340 people.

• Read more about the accomplishments of the 2019 Festival in our blog post.

To learn about becoming an Event Partner, Exhibitor at Cherry Street Pier, or Sponsor for the 2020 Festival, visit designphiladelphia.org/ partner.

Call for Tours for 2021 National Convention in Philadelphia The American Institute of Architects National organization has selected Philadelphia as the site for the 2021 Convention. AIA Philadelphia is looking for great tour ideas to take place throughout the Convention between June 16 - 19. They should be between 2 - 4 hours and should be entertaining, engaging, and have a focus on design and architecture. Tours can be fun (not for CE credit) or educational (for CE credit). Proposals are being accepted through May 21, 2020 by 11:59 PM. Look for our news item on the AIA Philadelphia website under News, or type the following link in your browser to go directly to the submission form: https:// form.jotform.com/200564594833965

Join AIA Philadelphia, the Center for Architecture and Design, and the Community Design Collaborative as we produce a virtual annual meeting and volunteer fair bringing you all the information you need to determine how you would like to get involved. The event will be shared through Facebook Live and recorded for those not available during the broadcast. Keep an eye on the AIA Philadelphia event calendar page for more information as it becomes available.

Collaboration is the coin of the realm for all of us working to safeguard Philadelphia’s physical realm. The Design Advocacy Group (DAG) started with six members in 2000; today we count more than 1,800 design professionals, planners, preservationists, neighborhood activists, committed urbanists and many affinity groups among our valued collaborators and partners.

We’d like to collaborate with you! Consider joining one of our four advocacy task forces: Design Equity, Historic Preservation, Complete Streets or Waterfronts.

Learn more at designadvocacy.org or email dagfellow@gmail.com.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 7

COMMUNITY

8 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

neighborhood – a neighborhood with a low life expectancy - the Collaborative recommended that they partner with New Kensington Community Development Corporation and Impact Services. These two community groups have been embedded in the Kensington community for many years. Working together, the partners’ goal was to use creative placemaking to engage with community members where they live to promote health and wellbeing.

A volunteer team of design professionals from KieranTimberlake, Ballinger, and Cohere used information gathered through a pilot test of a rented trailer which enabled the partners to investigate different locations, programming, design elements, and layouts in the Kensington community. A group of Jefferson summer interns staffed the trailer and conducted a number of different activities ranging from blood pressure clinics to lemonade giveaways on hot, humid days. The interns made observations on weather

patterns, the average age of program attendees, and the needs and expectations of community members visiting the Airstream.

Major takeaways from the testing period were the Airstream’s need for flexibility, wheelchair accessibility, and approachability. To address these needs, the designers proposed two gullwing “flip-ups” cut into one side of the trailer. In addition to accommodating non-ambulatory access, these gullwings help the Airstream balance privacy and a sense of welcome. The design team provided a blueprint for infrastructure modifications, interior fit-out, and branding.

The completed outreach vehicle was officially unveiled at DesignPhiladelphia 2019. Its first activations have ranged from medical screenings for high blood pressure and HIV to family friendly activities such as storytime for kids and nutrition demonstrations for adults.

The vehicle also exists to encourage conversations that lead to even bigger impact.

One example is a new food access and education program titled Recipe For Health, which is a collaboration between Sunday Suppers, Esperanza Health Center, and the Jefferson Health Design Lab. This one-of-a-kind program takes families through 12 sessions where they enjoy a restaurant-style meal together, learn about nutrition, health, and cooking topics, and take home supplies so that they can recreate recipes on their own.

For Jefferson and its partners, CoLab Philadelphia is just the beginning. This shiny trailer is a model for the type of communitycentered collaborations that can make our city healthier.

PHOTOS: THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HEALTH DESIGN LAB

Can new creative partnerships build healthier communities and improve the well-being of Philadelphians? Philadelphia is one of the unhealthiest cities in the United States.

One alarming statistic is the 20-year difference in life expectancy among Philadelphians. A Philadelphian who lives in the 19106 zip code can expect to live for 88 years. That number drops to 68 years in the 19132 zip code. Where you live has a profound impact on your health.

Although Philadelphia is home to world class healthcare institutions, little progress has been made in improving health outcomes for our poorest neighborhoods. Bringing health programming beyond the walls of the hospital and into communities that need it most is the goal of CoLab Philadelphia. This unique collaboration has forged new connections among public and private sector groups, healthcare systems, community-based organizations and the design community.

With seed funding from TD Charitable Foundation to purchase a vintage Airstream trailer, the Health Design Lab at Thomas Jefferson University came to the Community Design Collaborative for assistance. Jefferson sought a design to retrofit the trailer to accommodate a wide variety of programs and activities in neighborhoods across the city.

Because Jefferson was interested in piloting CoLab Philadelphia in the Kensington

COMMUNITY

A NOTE ON THE IMPACT COVID-19 HAS HAD ON TODAY'S COLLABORATION

BY TODD WOODWARD, AIA

We worked on the content for this issue of CONTEXT before the novel coronavirus and its associated disease, COVID-19, changed the fabric of our daily lives. We, like you, are now working hard to adjust to new routines, to learn new ways to do our jobs, to make the best of a situation that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago. It seems clear that our common practices of working together will not be the same in the coming months, with possible long term implications. We will reconsider our need to meet in groups of any size. We may no longer shake hands when meeting or re-connecting with a colleague. We will rely to an even greater extent on our devices and internet connections to mediate interactions.

Collaboration as we envision it will change and there will be new obstacles to collective action.

However, collaboration may also become more important. As design professionals, we need input from a wide range of stakeholders, providing

diverse perspectives and differing viewpoints on our work. For collaboration to be productive, you cannot work only with people who share your background, your beliefs, and your approach. Diversity is important for productive work and creating meaningful change. An unfortunate side effect of our current isolation is that the diversity of our interactions and our daily encounters has necessarily decreased. This is to our detriment and we will have to develop creative responses to this new reality. Life is, and will remain, a collaborative effort. It will take all of us working together to figure out what that means and how it informs our collective practice of architecture.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 9

KIERANTIMBERLAKE AND OLIN

BY JOANN GRECO Although informal gathering spots weren’t part of the design mandate for the new Embassy of the United States in London, pretty early in the process architects at KieranTimberlake conceived of a series of interior gardens that would serve that purpose for the 800 or so employees — from nearly 50 agencies — who would work in the building. “We felt it was incredibly important to have places for social and professional interchanges,” says Richard Maimon, KieranTimberlake Partner, and a principal architect for the project.

“Working off of this approach, we developed an array of iconic American landscapes, such as the Gulf Coast or Canyonlands, that we wanted to evoke,” adds Hallie Boyce, Partner at landscape architects OLIN, which was part of the design team since the beginning. Sitting in a conference room in KieranTimberlake’s showstopping Northern Liberties office — once a beer bottling plant for Ortlieb’s— the two seem happy to revisit their working relationship during the project.

10 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

“Then KieranTimberlake and OLIN started considering architectural elements like steel “trees” and Corten staircases that might enhance the settings and further reference the landscapes,” continues Maimon.

“And worked to select plantings which would thrive in the interior spaces,” concludes Boyce.

Maimon and Boyce and their teams would find themselves engaging regularly in this kind of dialogue, of back and forth and consensus building, over the course of a project that went on for the better part of a decade— from the launch of a competition by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) in December 2008 to completion late in 2017.

It would forge a beautiful friendship between the two veteran Phillybased firms; they worked together on Dilworth Park (it would open four years before the Embassy) and a master plan for the Central Delaware, and are currently completing institutional projects in D.C., Pittsburgh and Seattle.

PHOTO: THE MERCER SUITE

DIPLOMATIC TIES:

PHOTOS: RICHARD BRYANT / ARCAID IMAGES

UP CLOSE

It’s fair to say, though, that few if any of their gigs will ever rival the $1 billion Embassy development, which, overall, involved about 35 staff members at KT, ten at OLIN, plus a team at DOS and another 15 or so consulting firms and designers, including Gensler, which handled office interiors. Although poised on a relatively small site of less than five acres along the south bank of the Thames, the cube-shaped building carried with it significant demands beyond the clear mandate to replace the outdated Eero-Saarinen-designed embassy on Grosvenor Square.

Not only did the building need to be a modern workplace that was transparent and welcoming, it had to provide a sense of public welcome that was open to and inclusive of the surrounding community, and it had to do so while offering protection and state-of-the-art security measures. The city of London and DOS also envisioned the building as a hub that would spur the economic revitalization of the Nine Elms Opportunity Area, a former light industrial precinct in the city between the Vauxhall and Battersea bridges. “We were given a massive amount of background material,” Maimon says, laughing and holding his hand at his waist to indicate the height of the stack of papers. “It was a very complicated project filled with requirements that at first glance could seem contradictory."

Design-wise, sustainability was an absolute, with the State Department requiring both LEED Gold and BREEAM Excellent (the UK equivalent for non-residential buildings, as established by the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). The architects took care of that in a number of ways, and established a target for still-higher designations of Platinum and Outstanding (currently under certification). A notable feature is the remarkable outer envelope, which is made of a transparent film called ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) that minimizes solar gain and glare while imparting a distinctive faceted appearance to the building’s facade.

Landscape design was always going to be a key basis for the design and — no matter which architectural firm won the commission — OLIN

had been almost guaranteed a collaborative role. Along with KT, two of the other four finalists also included OLIN on their teams. “The best architecture has always been inspired by the landscape,” says Maimon.

“But what has pushed the idea of the disciplines as co-equals, as two halves of the same whole, is more complex demands from clients.”

Boyce picks up on that thought. “Climate change and environmental concerns have begun to reach the broader public, and there’s a real insistence on the part of clients now that landscapes be multi-functional,” she explains. “That’s not to say that a design doesn’t also need to inspire and be beautiful as well.” In fact, two-thirds of the site is given over to landscape, and while its design symbolizes American meadows, woodlands and wetlands —as well as embracing British landscape typologies and the traditional elements of London’s urban parks—the landscape also works hard to capture stormwater, mask sound, protect against floods and check off all of today’s other sustainability/resiliency markers. Also hidden behind the scenes is another assignment: the landscape design integrates the many layers of required security elements and transforms these into site amenities.

The picturesque hedges conceal security bollards, and comfortable low walls are great for seating but also provide protection.

“OLIN brought to the table the decades of practice that this project needed,” Maimon says. “That was all-encompassing, from the interior gardens that support the architecture to the green roofs, and deep knowledge and research about the landscapes of the United States and United Kingdom.” Boyce returns the compliment.

“With KieranTimberlake, there was a constant search for excellence and an openness to collaborate and to going beyond the brief for sustainability.”

When asked about the secrets of success, the two mention a willingness to listen, to be responsive and to respect deadlines as critical. “Most of all, all parties have to stick to the strong conceptual vision that they’ve created together,” says Boyce.

Adds Maimon, “You should never lose sight of the guiding vision; at the beginning of every single meeting, before we ever got into the weeds over a discussion about the Embassy project, we put up a slide of our goals.”n

JoAnn Greco is a freelance writer and frequent contributor for PlanPhilly, the Philadelpia Inquirer, and Philadelphia Daily News.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 11

BEING A GOOD CLIENT IS COMPLICATED

BY DEREK GILLMAN, ANNE PAPAGEORGE AND TIMOTHY RUB

Great design is not just the work of designers. Throughout history, and today in Philadelphia, achieving greatness requires clients who are able to manage their own side of the partnership, challenge their architects with well-formulated problems, and support them in the search for innovative solutions. While this is especially hard for complicated institutional clients, in recent years some of Philadelphia’s biggest institutions have created some of our greatest architecture.

The leaders of these institutions include Derek Gillman, who came here in 1999 to serve as Provost and then as President and Director of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, from which he moved to head the Barnes Foundation in 2006-13. Having honed his clienting skills at the Sainsbury Center in the UK and the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia, he oversaw the conversion of a 1916 automobile factory and showroom into PAFA’s Hamilton Building (Dagit-Saylor Architects) and the design and construction of the Barnes’ new home on the Parkway (Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects).

Anne Papageorge, Vice President for Facilities and Real Estate Services at Penn, came to Philadelphia from New York in 2006. A licensed landscape architect, she previously managed the planning, design, and construction of the World Trade Center memorial,

12 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

museum, and visitor's center and served as New York City’s first deputy commissioner of Design and Construction. Working with Penn’s University Architects David Hollenberg (recently retired) and now Mark Kocent, Papageorge has overseen almost countless capital projects, including the Singh Center for Nanotechnology (Weiss/Manfredi), Shoemaker Green (Andropogon), and the Patient Pavilion for Penn Medicine (Foster + Partners).

Before taking up the directorship of the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 2009, Timothy Rub led the Hood Museum of Art at Dartmouth College, the Cincinnati Art Museum, and the Cleveland Museum of Art. In Cleveland he worked on the completion of the first phase of the Rafael Viñoly-designed remaking of that early twentieth-century neoclassical building, experience that, combined with his own training as an architectural historian, Rub has brought to collaborating with Gehry Partners on the colossal (but largely interior) transformation of Fairmount’s tawny temple.

DAVID B. BROWNLEE, FSAH Frances Shapiro-Weitzenhoffer Professor of the History of Art, University of Pennsylvania

PHOTO COURTSEY OF DEREK GILLMAN

DEREK GILLMAN Distinguished Teaching Professor, Art History and Museum Leadership, and Senior Adviser to the President for University Collections, Drexel University

When I changed major at the end of my freshman year, my life might have taken a different path had I not been studying at one of the few British universities without an architecture department. Yet that inclination to design has been at least partly satisfied by my being centrally involved in the creation of five museum and art school buildings.

All of the architects and designers with whom I’ve had the privilege to work have helped me develop as a client, through their intelligence, ingenuity, thoughtfulness, and willingness to spar, whether gently or fiercely. But fellow clients can also be critical. In the late 1980s, as Keeper of the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, I learned as much about the crucial importance of lighting in museum projects from Sir Robert and Lady Sainsbury as I did from Norman Foster and George Sexton.

That knowledge was carried forward to two National Gallery of Victoria buildings in Melbourne, to the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and then onto the Barnes. If the client can articulate what is truly important to the project beyond the baseline of fiscal responsibility, in this case the lighting, then the project has a good chance of succeeding. Tod Willams and Billie Tsien were extremely receptive to the critical need to light the Barnes Collection as well as possible, through daylight and artificial light sources, and they acceded to my request that a specialist lighting firm be appointed as early as possible. That the new Barnes has superb lighting, and clerestories in every second floor gallery, is a product of the fine working relationship between Tod and

Billie and Paul Marantz. The client responsibility was to get that ball rolling.

One key and obvious area where a client can really help (or hinder) the architect is in facilitating adjustments to the original brief as detailed design unfolds. At PAFA, Peter Saylor’s team came back to me for help after they’d solicited space needs from the School’s faculty and received requests for double the square footage available within the shell. So I offered faculty leaders two choices: to halve it themselves or to let me to do so. They opted for the former and successfully delivered an effective series of classrooms, workshops and studio spaces. That process required the usual managerial wherewithal: knowing not only what’s physically possible but also culturally so. Clients need to build sympathetic, respectful relationships with their architects and also with their own colleagues, understanding and respecting roles and boundaries in order to minimize friction and optimize creativity.

It’s surely important for the client to combine design sensibility with a sound knowledge of the particular field (museums are different to performing arts centers, to sports stadia, to hospitals, etc.).

What I didn’t have back in 1986 when I first started working with Foster Associates at the Sainsbury Centre was any experience of being a client, and experience also counts for something.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 13

ANNE PAPAGEORGE University of Pennsylvania

Penn’s beautiful and historic campus, with its extraordinary legacy of excellence in open space and architectural design, is our client. We in turn serve on its behalf as clients to others, fortunate in our ability to hire extraordinary design talent. It is our responsibility as clients to maximize their ability to exercise the talent for which we hired them, while all the time providing them with clear institutional perspective and guidance on quality, schedule, and budget. As clients, we must look out for the design excellence of not only individual building and open space projects, but the overall physical character of the entire university.

To guide the Penn “transformation by design,” a comprehensive campus planning process created the 2006 Penn Connects Plan, which has been updated every 5 years. Remarkably, all of the projects in those three successive Penn Connects Plan have been completed or are currently in some phase of design or construction.

As a large multi-headed and administratively decentralized client, Penn annually develops a five year capital plan which incorporates individual School and Centersubmissions. This is reviewed by Facilities and Real Estate Services (FRES) staff from the offices of the University Architect, Design and Construction, and Operations and Maintenance.

It next goes to the Provost's Office and the Budget and Finance Offices, and it is finally approved by the university leadership and the Trustees.

A typical year sees more than $350 million in overall capital costs, spread across the University in hundreds of projects with a very broad range of budgets.

Individual projects over $500,000 are initiated through FRES, where

14 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

a management team is assigned to work collaboratively with the school or center representatives to develop the scope of work, select the architect and other consultants, and manage the design, procurement, and construction processes.

For major new construction and renovation projects, feasibility studies are frequently conducted to develop the program and establish the budget. University leadership meetings are held at design phase milestones, and quarterly meetings are held with FRES and school/ center leadership throughout design and construction to ensure compliance with the design and programmatic goals of the project, schedule and budget.

Given the size of the capital program, Penn has established Design Principles, Engineering Standards, and a Climate and Sustainability Action Plan for its portfolio of buildings and open space. Design quality is ensured through: a) careful selection of qualified consultants; b) regular monitoring by the Office of the University Architect; c) review by the Design Review Committee (comprising the Weitzman School of Design Dean and other faculty, local practitioners, and FRES staff); and d) a rigorous process, refined over the years, involving regular project meetings with many levels of University leadership. The selection of experienced construction managers early in design and monthly monitoring of progress ensure timely resolution of issues, construction quality, and budget and schedule compliance.

PHOTO COURTSEY OF ANNE PAPAGEORGE

Vice President for Facilities and Real Estate Services,

PHOTO COURTSEY OF TIMOTHY RUB

TIMOTHY RUB The George D. Widener Director and Chief Executive Officer, Philadelphia Museum of Art

Being a client is complicated. Being a good client even more so. It is also essential if a building project is to be successful, architecturally as well as programmatically. In the several large projects in which I have been involved, it is first and foremost a managerial task, one that requires the oversight and coordination of many people and many different processes. This responsibility rarely receives the attention it deserves; but it is critically important given the complexities of design and construction and how these affect—and, in turn, are affected by—a host of different and, at times, competing operational requirements. To put this another way, project management matters and is not something that can be delegated wholly to either an architect or a construction manager.

Holding such practical issues aside, what I have always tried to keep in mind as a client is that architecture is the most complex of the arts, one that requires spatial imagination (a cognitive skill that is rare) and the ability to understand that it is experienced through movement— that is to say, in time. For these reasons, it is not enough to focus on programmatic requirements, although these are, by definition, always the starting point, or, for that matter, on the plans and elevations produced during schematic design. Rather, it is in design development that architecture truly comes to life and the intricate calculus of organizing and interweaving different functions into an integrated whole comes to the fore. And, not surprisingly, it is precisely at this moment when the relationship between architect and client can and should be at its most creative.

The big ideas—in plan, structure, or program—that make a building (or, in the case of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a renovation)

work are given architectural form in design development, and it is the client’s task as much as the architect’s to make sure that a proper expression is found for each. In this regard, it is important to remember that the making of great architecture is not only a collective enterprise, but also an iterative one. Working patiently, and stubbornly, to ensure that the right solution emerges can be challenging in a process in which nearly everything is subject to the pressures of staying on schedule and on budget. But it will be, invariably, time well spent.

So, too, will be the attention that is paid to minor matters. Mindful of the old adage that “God is in the details,” this may seem an obvious point to make. Nevertheless, it is an essential one, because it is difficult as well as costly to alter something such as the profile of a molding or the location of a lighting fixture after the fact, and omitting a critical detail or getting it wrong can compromise the most thoughtful design and mar its effect. It’s surprisingly easy overlook such things, but they are hard to forget once an error of omission has been committed. Again, an investment of time in considering every aspect of a design will be richly rewarded.

Finally, most cultural institutions build or renovate infrequently and don’t typically possess the knowledge or experience required to handle projects of any magnitude. Therefore, collaboration is the order of the day, and the key partners in this process are a project architect who is not only a thoughtful designer but also a good problem-solver and an owner’s representative who understands both the programmatic and aesthetic goals of his client. With those two pieces in place, any client should have a reasonable expectation of success. n

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 15

PHOTO: ATHENAEUM OF PHILADELPHIA

Philadelphia Museum of Art perspectives, Julian Abele 1919.

COLLABORATION ON FAIRMOUNT

BY DAVID B. BROWNLEE, FSAH

The immensely complex collaboration that created the Philadelphia Museum of Art is only hinted at by the four signatures on the pair of lively perspectives that were drawn when construction at last began in 1919. The signers were the trio of senior architects whom the Fairmount Park Commission had chosen in 1911 to design the building (Horace Trumbauer and the partners Charles Borie and Clarence 16 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

Zantzinger), and Julian Abele (1881-1950), the chief designer in Trumbauer’s office and the author of the two drawings. All four men were involved in the design of the museum, but its story is even bigger than them.

Abele, whose signature appears to have been added later, was the first African American architectural graduate of the University of

PHOTO: FREE LIBRARY OF PHILADELPHIA

Trumbauer office ca. 1907.

Pennsylvania. He joined Trumbauer’s office in 1906 as assistant to chief designer Frank Seeburger, whose balding pate rises above the stack of drawings on the table in a staff portrait of ca. 1907. Abele, fourth from the left in the photo, rose quickly through the ranks and succeeded Seeburger in 1909. His talents were widely recognized by Philadelphia architects and architectural clients, although Trumbauer (who was not in this group portrait) did not celebrate him publicly. Race was surely a factor in this, but Trumbauer never acknowledged the contribution of any of his highly skilled design staff. With the rise of large corporate firms in the late nineteenth century, authorship became collaborative and is generally hard to ascertain.

The confidently signed photographs also fail to disclose the deep artistic rift between the two firms that had been jointly awarded the design contract. Trumbauer had built his immense practice on his versatile staff’s ability to create whatever his Gilded Age clients wanted— picture perfect English country houses, medieval castles, or neoclassical public buildings. The work of Zantzinger’s firm, on the other hand, was infused with the rational problem-solving ethos of the

Ecole des Beaux-Arts. But the difference wasn’t just artistic. Trumbauer refused even to talk to Zantzinger, and from the start, the two firms worked separately. It was the design devised in the Trumbauer office (presumably by Abele) that was chosen by the clients for development and presentation to the Art Jury (the forebear of today’s Art Commission) in 1912.

The Trumbauer/Abele design, unveiled with great fanfare to the press in 1913, could be mistaken for a large English mansion. Zantizinger and Borie probably viewed this predictable design with disappointment and jealousy, but they got back into the project when site preparation work discovered a cliff on the city-facing side of the Fairmount hill.

The architects were now told to reconsider the design, and both firms assigned the problem to newly hired junior staff--two classmates who had earned their master’s degrees from Penn in 1913 and who have been largely invisible to history: Howell Lewis Shay (1884-1975) in Trumbauer’s office and William Pope Barney (1890-1970) who worked for Zantzinger.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 17

Philadelphia Museum of Art perspective 1912.

Philadelphia Museum of Art, Barney May 1915.

Clockwise from top left: Julian Abele (Athenaeum of Philadelphia), Howell Lewis Shay (Athenaeum of Philadelphia), and William Pope Barney (University of Pennsylvania Archives)

Philadelphia Museum of Art model, Shay 1914.

18 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTOS: PMA ARCHIVES

Barney and Shay both embraced the opportunity to rethink the design entirely. In the fall of 1914, Shay created what he called “a circular scheme,” which could be built in phases, starting with a slender, two-story building facing the parkway. It stretched its façade down the face of the cliff to street level, where a lobby would welcome museum goers. The design could be expanded to form a quadrant (hence “circular”) plan. Its rather austere, modern-looking façade offered a gentle rebuke to his boss’s more overt historical referencing.

Shay’s classmate Barney, before joining the Zanzinger firm, had worked briefly for Paul Cret, the Penn classmates’ formidable French-born teacher. Between March and May 1915, he sketched a different solution to the museum’s cliff-edge problem, accommodating the multiplicity of the museum’s collections in a gathering of quasiindependent buildings around a court of honor. The gallery blocks might be erected one-by-one, as the budget allowed. In his design, two elevators would descend from the frontmost pavilions to lobbies at the level of the parkway. This provision for street-level access would also be a feature of the final design—realized as the great vaulted tunnel under the building that has just been re-opened to the public.

Barney and Shay worked without much urgency until the spring of 1915, when the Fairmount Park Commission, having unexpectedly received the first installment of construction funding, demanded a design—a single design—in just three weeks. Although it is quite possible that Shay and Barney had been looking over each other’s shoulder from the start, they were now compelled to collaborate. The task of working out a compromise was assigned to Shay, and late in life he colorfully recounted the meeting at which he brought the two firms together: Mr. Trumbauer wanted one monumental building to be at the end of the Parkway, like the one with the flat facade he had worked out before [apparently Shay’s “circular” design]. But Mr. Zantzinger and Mr. Borie wanted the Fairmount “Acropolis” to be more like the Acropolis at Athens, with several “temples” around at random [as Barney had sketched].

“All right,” I said. “Now, Mr. Zantzinger, you’d like to have it like the Acropolis at Athens. . . .well, let’s start with one big temple, right on the axis of this mile-long Parkway. I think that the

PHOTO: YEAR BOOK OF THE…T SQUARE CLUB [1916]

tallest temple in the world is the Temple of Zeus, with columns 60 feet high—so let’s make these columns 63 feet high, tallest in the world, a fitting terminus for the long vista.”

“Let’s put one more temple on this side,” and I sketched it in, “and another on this side, facing each other.” And Mr. Zantzinger and Mr. Borie were pleased, but Mr. Trumbauer had two more buildings than he wanted.

Then I reminded them, “Now we have to think about climate.

Greece has very little rain, and mild temperatures. You can go between the temples on the Acropolis easily. But here we’d have rain and snow and you’d have to put on your galoshes. So why don’t we connect these three temples with a series of galleries— exhibition galleries to house some of the art, big enough so full-scale rooms could be brought in—and connect these, forming a forecourt? That would make a beautiful approach from city hall down the Parkway.”

Shay was given the go-ahead to develop this proposal, and at Christmastime an enormous model went on display in a special pavilion in City Hall courtyard. While this was recognizably the museum that would open in 1928, the final design would be shaped by yet more collaborative consultation.

PHOTO: GRAYDON WOOD

Philadelphia Museum of Art model 1915.

The Art Jury gave provisional approval to Shay’s compromise design, but after the City Hall exhibit, they sought the advice of a panel of three experts nominated by the American Institute of Architects. Its members were renowned classicists: John Russell Pope (who would later design the National Gallery and Jefferson Memorial in Washington), Burt Fenner (a senior designer in the firm of McKim, Mead, and White), and the late Daniel Burnham’s sometime partner, Arnold Brunner. The committee made important suggestions, including the redesign of the river-facing façade of the main block of the building, which Shay had left blank. Recognizing that this “back door” of the museum would become important as more and more visitors arrived in their new automobiles, the experts recommended revision, to which Shay responded by adding a portico of eight columns, like that which faced the city.

It was this design that began to be built in 1919. With Barney and Shay now working elsewhere, preparation of the construction documents was entrusted to the Trumbauer office, where the work was overseen by Abele. But responsibilities were divided between the two firms. The project’s usual public spokesman was Charles Borie, who had to fend off sustained complaints about the work’s slow progress and suspicions of corruption, and he also guided the final, highly important phases of the museum’s design development. Under Borie’s direction,

Western Civilization, Paul Jennewein

what had been first conceived as a white marble or grey limestone building was transformed into golden yellow—the color of Mankato and Kasota dolomite. Moreover, it was Borie who hired both color consultant Leon V. Solon and sculptor Paul Jennewein. Solon guided the creation of the building’s comprehensive array of colorful terracotta ornament, and Jennewein’s polychromatic Western Civilization, in the pediment of the northeast pavilion, was the first and only part of the planned sculptural program to be completed.

Of course, an account of the complicated, largely invisible and sometimes strife-filled collaboration that created he Philadelphia Museum of Art must also include the role of the clients, which was enormous. The chair of the Fairmount Park Commission’s building committee was Eli Kirk Price, a civic-minded lawyer, who convened the committee only twice and ran the project out of his back pocket.

Fiske Kimball, who became director of the museum in 1925, recorded in his unpublished memoirs that “it was Price’s building. Every line was subject to his approval and to his revision.” And Kimball himself played a determinative role in the interior configuration of the museum, organizing the upper floor as a “main street” of art history, which used period rooms and fragments of real architecture as settings for the other arts. His goal was to make the museum welcoming and intelligible to a large, new audience.

Like many large and great buildings, the Philadelphia Museum of Art was created by a large, complicated, and not always peaceful collaboration. n David B. Brownlee teaches architectural history at the University of Pennsylvania. He has won numerous fellowships, and his work has earned three major publication prizes from the Society of Architectural Historians.

Brownlee is a recipient of the University of Pennsylvania's Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching.

Note on Sources: a longer discussion of the design of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, with full citation of sources, is in chapter 3 of David B. Brownlee, Building the City Beautiful: The Benjamin Franklin Parkway and

the Philadelphia Museum of Art, second edition (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2017).

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 19

INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN STUDIO TEACHING: AN EXPERIMENT

BY DAN WILLIS AND PAUL DANIEL MARRIOTT In December 2018, during the final jury review of student design projects at Penn State, guest critic Hugh Trumbull, design partner at KPF, complimented two students on their design solution assuming they were architecture majors. They weren’t.

In reality, the two students were studying landscape architecture, participating in a pilot interdisciplinary studio combining upperlevel architecture and landscape architecture students working in collaborative teams. The students Trumbull mistook for architecture majors had just described their design for a winter garden—one of the master-planned public spaces identified by the student team for a mixed-use development in downtown Cleveland. Their presentation so effectively integrated the public space into their team’s overall design, that his mischaracterization demonstrated to us that the social and pedagogical divide between the allied design disciplines at Penn State’s Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture had been breached—or at least optimistically blurred—through interdisciplinary engagement.

We have taught this interdisciplinary studio for two consecutive fall semesters. It began when Dan Willis, proposed an idea to Kelleann Foster, then the director of the school, to create an interdisciplinary studio focused on improving the quality of life for communities in dense urban areas. As a result, Willis was awarded an internal grant to develop the Stuckeman Sustainable Urban Density Studio (SSUDS)

20 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

initiative. In order to teach a joint studio, Willis needed a partner—a landscape architecture professor with expertise in urban design and a willingness to collaborate with an architect. Foster suggested Dan Marriott, then a visiting landscape architecture professor, with a record of working in the public realm. In addition, emeritus landscape architecture professor Dan Jones was enjoined as a real estate development expert. Willis, based on a relationship with an architecture alumnus in Cleveland, identified the redevelopment site.

Thus, in the fall of 2018 the SSUDS studio, immediately christened “the Dans Studio” by the students, was born.

What follows is a description of the studio and a summary of the lessons we, the instructors, learned.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDIO Phase 1, the Research Phase, pairs architects and landscape architects in groups to study the site and city of Cleveland. The focus is on research and not design—allowing the students to get to know each other. The culmination of the Research Phase is a two-night trip to Cleveland to visit the site and learn about design and planning in the city. The Cleveland visit has a greater advantage of placing the students in a neutral location off campus. Interdisciplinary events – a bowling outing in 2018 and a theater excursion in 2019 – cemented friendships.

Phase 2, the Master Plan Phase, had the students assemble into teams of five (two architects and three landscape architects). Students were given a detailed mixed-use program for the site that included some modifications to reality for pedagogical goals—including a larger than typical requirement for open space and a smaller than typical requirement for parking. For this phase each group had to determine an overall design ethos for the site, identify relationships to the existing fabric of Cleveland and develop an overall site plan for public space and building massing.

Phase 3, the Preliminary Design Phase, proved to be the most painful phase of the studio. For this phase the students begin to develop forms and details to make the master plan a reality—with each team responding to conflicts of opinion differently. A few teams retreated into their traditional disciplinary corners, often developing design ideas without consulting their peers, while others worked more collaboratively. In general, we observed an increasing level of interdisciplinary communication as the phase progressed.

At the midpoint we focused on the teams with ongoing inter and intradisciplinary communication problems. The phase concluded with architecture and landscape architecture concepts best described complementary—clearly the result of collaboration, but still not fully integrated as a wholistic design statement as our mid-term jury observed.

Phase 4, nominally the “Final Design Phase,” produced refined schematic designs and illustrative drawings—the most we could ask from a brisk fifteen week project. Nevertheless, the students produced floor plates for the towers and detailed sections for the open spaces sufficient to capture the complexity of their designs. Importantly, this phase saw robust and collegial internal critiques among team members resulting in the better integration of the design elements.

With the lines of communication well-established, and an “all hands on deck” spirit of cooperation filled the studio as the teams entered charrette mode the last days before the final critique.

MUTUAL RESPECT The success of an interdisciplinary studio, and the ethos of mutual respect, is directly tied to the collaborative relationship between the faculty. Leading the SSUDS studios, we have two faculty with a deep understanding and respect for each other’s discipline. As a result, the students quickly learned each professor was conversant across disciplines—and we worked deliberately during the early weeks to establish this expectation. By the middle of the semester, students were drawing on the specific skills each faculty member offered, but also comfortably engaging with both on general questions of overall design. Rather than an architect and landscape architect, the students had two design professors. This, we believe, was critical to the success of the studio.

COLLABORATION MUST BE LEARNED Although interdisciplinary collaboration is now a popular goal in higher education, our traditional curricula do little to prepare students to work with another discipline—or even collaborate within their own.

For most of the landscape architects, this was their first collaboration with other landscape architects on a design project. The architecture students had been exposed to more group work, starting with firstyear design-build projects, but they had no experience working across disciplines. While all had worked on group research projects in previous classes, design collaboration within, let alone between, disciplines required nuanced skills of communication and compromise that few had. For all of our students, this was the first time they were required to establish a design ethos as an interdisciplinary group and execute a comprehensive design with a division of labor. With no individual the sole determiner of vision, they had to learn to work as a team.

Although we were aware of numerous “team building” and collaboration-enhancing strategies from professional practice, as well as examples from other design programs, the short duration allotted for our ambitious design project prevented us from devoting time to teaching these practices. Instead, we drew on our own professional practice skills, Willis with project management and Marriott with community engagement, reacting to each instance of team friction as it occurred and—importantly—debriefing daily. Ideally, we believe spreading our project over two consecutive semesters would allow us to include more instruction regarding collaborative strategies.

FRICTION: WITHIN OR BETWEEN DISCIPLINES? As the studio progressed, it was important for us to determine whether points of student angst were interdisciplinary or intradisciplinary. Many landscape architecture students expressed reticence in approaching their architecture peers to request changes or accommodations to the building design. Given the perceived friction between the disciplines that is endemic in design schools, we initially attributed this reticence to interdisciplinary friction. On closer analysis, we realized that it was more about an emerging awareness of their own fundamental inability to argue for a design direction or solution— compounded, certainly, when crossing disciplinary lines. Interestingly, we encountered more complaints about teammates within disciplines than across boundaries.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 21

RENDERING: BECCA AMENDOLA, MEGAN BRIDGES, NATALIE DUERR, ANDREW HENNING, AND ALEX KEISER

For interdisciplinary conflicts, we asked the students to approach their architecture or landscape architecture teammates and solve the problem internally without a faculty intervention. This was suggested after first helping the students to articulate their issues, concerns and needs. For example, one landscape architect was concerned that a change in a building footprint would inhibit a carefully choregraphed pedestrian sequence through their primary space. The student was further frustrated over an interior change within the same building—a change that had a negligible impact on the landscape. The student was asked to identify their priority (the building footprint) and sent to communicate this concern to the architects on the team. Much to the student’s surprise, the architect agreed to maintain the original footprint.

FLAWS IN HOW WE TEACH The interdisciplinary studio has raised issues with our individual departments’ teaching methods. We discovered instances where standard pedagogical approaches presented challenges when applied to a collaborative studio project. For example, our landscape architects have generally interacted with architecture as a neutral form of a particular size and proportion: gray rectangles of building footprints that simply define edges, rather than intersections. When confronted with the specific buildings and facades developed with the Cleveland studio, the landscape architecture students had little experience in designing intersections with actual, rather than generic, architecture. The default graphic technique we observed among our students was to portray the landscape and building ground floor plans as separate, rather than as a spatial/experiential continuum. The flip side of this phenomenon is that to architecture students, common landscape and infrastructure elements—trees, planting beds, paths and roadways—are often either absent from the students’ designs, 22 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

or included extremely late in the design process, without much thought. These elements are not viewed as integral to the architectural design concept, and are instead treated similar to north arrows and graphic scales—included only to make the site plan “believable.”

In both instances, our conventional studio practices appear to be unintentionally erecting barriers to truly integrated site and building designs.

OUR TOOLS HAVE BIASES The architecture students’ most widely used digital drawing tools, including SketchUp, Revit, and Rhino, proved to be much better at representing buildings than land forms and landscape elements. There is an intermediate level of representation beyond the concept diagram but not yet schematic design (historically the realm of the hand-drawn sketch), where the landscape architecture students seemed to be at a digital disadvantage. This had the unanticipated effect of making the preliminary architectural designs appear more advanced than the site designs.

RENDERING: BECCA AMENDOLA, MEGAN BRIDGES, NATALIE DUERR, ANDREW HENNING, AND ALEX KEISER

OCCUPIABLE GREEN SPACE DIAGRAM

RENDERING: RYAN LO, EMILY BONANNO AND HANNAH GOMEZ

PLANS FOR THE FUTURE We intend to offer the collaborative studio again in the fall of 2020.

We are hoping to better adjust the number of students in the studio to create teams of two architecture and two landscape architecture students. In addition, we would like to build stronger communication skills both within and between student architects and landscape architects. We are also exploring the participation of the graphic design department in the Stuckeman School to further develop pedagogical concepts for interdisciplinary design. Our enthusiasm for collaboration has not waned, and we look forward to continuing to refine our teaching methods and to learn from our students and colleagues in another iteration of “SSUDS” next fall. n

RENDERING: BECCA AMENDOLA, MEGAN BRIDGES, NATALIE DUERR, ANDREW HENNING, AND ALEX KEISER

Dan Willis is registered architect and Professor of Architecture at Penn

As we moved into schematic design, we organized a two-day workshop for the students on Grasshopper parametric software. The strength of this software is not so much for initial form generation, but in allowing designers to develop a complex three-dimensional form as it might actually be realized as a framework, in panels, blocks of paving, or panes of glass. In theory, there is no reason this tool is not equally useful for landscape designs. In practice, however, the sculpting of land is not nearly so constrained by the need to divide a shape into “units” as is the assemblage of architectural forms. We found the landscape architecture students to be much more comfortable drawing by hand or using 2-D software, such as AutoCAD. Generally speaking, perhaps because they had been trained to imagine 3-D forms from topographic contours, the landscape architecture students designed primarily in plan, while the architecture students relied more heavily on 3-D drawings.

Possibly due to the short duration of our studio, the architecture students waited until very late in the semester to explore alternative versions of their building designs. In neither iteration of the studio did students in either discipline take full advantage of the capabilities of the parametric software. The fact that the two disciplines preferred different tools/techniques to represent their design ideas presented us with an unexpected obstacle to seamless collaboration.

State University. Paul Daniel Marriott, PhD (Dan), is a licensed landscape architect and Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at Penn State.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 23

BOOK REVIEW

ERIN CARRAHER AND RYAN SMITH, WITH PETER DELISLE Wiley, 2017

BY TODD WOODWARD Leading Collaborative Architectural Practice (referred to as LCAP for the rest of this article) is billed as “the leadership handbook for today's design and construction professionals” on the publisher’s website. The authors note in the introduction that there are extensive texts regarding collaboration and leadership in non-architectural fields, but that they are conspicuously missing within the discipline of architecture. LCAP explicitly attempts to fill that gap.

The book and the authors recognize that architectural practice, as well as that of our associated design disciplines, is changing to reflect the increasing complexity of both our buildings and the milieus in which they are constructed. Buildings are the result of many stakeholders metaphorically or sometimes actually gathered around one table. How 24 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTO COURTESY OF CORNELIA HAHN OBERLANDER

LEADING COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO COLLABORATE AND THE COSTS OF "UNDER-COLLABORATING" ARE SURELY GREATER AND POTENTIALLY MORE CATASTROPHIC TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.

should that table be constructed and what are the rituals that govern interactions at the table?

Generally written with an audience of practicing architects in mind, the book feels to me a little too textbook-like (and, unfortunately, so does the cost of the volume) to be widely embraced by this intended audience. This is a shame given the range of research that is summarized and quality of the insight offered in the volume. LCAP is certainly appropriate for a professional practice class, or a continuing education course on design practice leadership, but one wonders if a more succinct volume might benefit the typical architecture practitioner in need of professional guidance.

While the themes of collaboration and leadership are intertwined throughout the writing, the book is organized in five sections – two addressing “collaboration”, two addressing “leadership”, and one entitled “Communication and Conflict”. This last section (Part 4 in the book) directly addresses strategies that both leaders and followers might employ to navigate all of the additional human interaction required by an intensive collaborative work effort. The authors’ treatment of the history and state of collaborative practice – including review of both contractual and informal means of collaboration – is a well researched and thoughtful take on what is means to practice architecture today.

The latter part of the book, which is a sort of primer on, or history of, research into leadership, was less successful in my mind (that of a practicing architect) though not less thoroughly researched.

Early on, the authors have a surprising insight regarding followership – that the “qualities that define effective leaders and effective followers are largely the same” – which is mentioned initially but unfortunately not fleshed out in any detail. Though perhaps outside the purview of the book, it might have benefited from some of the recent popular business management writing and thinking of, say Daniel Pink on motivation in the workplace, Adam Grant on “giving and taking”, and Kim Scott’s Radical Candor.

The book is extensively illustrated with diagrams depicting the leadership and collaborative concepts under discussion. The diagrams provide visual breaks from the text, and some time for reflection on the written sections, which are often packing a lot of detail into short stretches of writing. On the whole, these illustrations are undeniably

a positive in a book written for design professionals and very often the diagrams successfully build upon the arguments and descriptions made in the text. But there are times when the infographics leave one wondering, and unsuccessfully attempting to decipher the meaning behind the images.

LCAP includes a series of sidebars and case studies, generally ending each of the individual sections with a discussion of a real-world example or application of the principles discussed in that section.

While undoubtedly contributing significant value to the overall work and message, the case studies, especially those in the “collaboration” sections of the book, tended to consider large or very large projects.

A bit more diversity in project size would have illustrated that the principles were relevant to a wide range of practitioners and not only those engaged major multi-disciplinary institutional projects. Smaller projects (and indeed smaller offices) might demand more flexibility in project structure – and certainly cannot afford to rent dedicated project specific office space – but still require the hard work of working together to achieve design and performance goals.

In 2020, it is sometimes amazing that buildings get built at all, given all of the voices and stakeholders that are a party to the process.

Collaboration does have its costs. In the concluding passage, the authors note that “Collaboration is not necessary at all times and in all situations. Over-collaborating can be detrimental to productivity.

This is because collaboration takes time and resources (financial and human) to be done successfully.” While I understand the intent of this caution, I think it would be more accurate to argue that collaboration is actually and increasingly an aspect of all building projects, regardless of size or program. Choosing whether to engage in collaboration is not really an option. We cannot afford not to collaborate and the costs of “under-collaborating” are surely greater and potentially more catastrophic to project development. Developing better collaboration skills should be on the “to do” list of any architect looking to create meaningful places. n Todd Woodward, AIA is a Principal of SMP Architects and co-chair of the Context Editorial Committee.

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 25

DESIGN PROFILE THE FREE LIBRARY OF PHILADELPHIA

DIGSAU

The Free Library of Philadelphia procured A series of installations throughout several local public library branch locations with a goal to reimagine the learning environment while serving as a pilot and example for a how a community-engagement process can result in place-based, transformational change.

To best integrate these new immersive environments within the spatial and cultural context of each library, the multi-disciplinary design team’s scope of work was broad, including community engagement, programming, design, fabrication, installation, staff training, and assessment.

The team was responsible to lead workshops with community members and staff, develop a curriculum for librarians, and provide ongoing training and observation to support this new initiative and to assess its impact.

The result of this collaborative design process is an ecosystem of components that consist of small-scale, interchangeable elements shared between branch locations and large-scale, fixed installations unique to each individual site. The small, manipulatable common elements include magnetic letters, sets of large, soft tangram blocks that can be assembled into seating and structures, and bookshelves with “nooks” that can be inhabited. To the librarians’ enthusiasm, the nooks double as storage for the tangram blocks. The bookshelves reflect the existing shelving in material and proportion, allowing the new installations to seamlessly integrate with the old. n

Cecil B. Moore Library

LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA CLIENT: The Free Library of Philadelphia PROJECT TEAM: DIGSAU (Architect) Studio Ludo (Community Outreach & Play Consultant) Smith Memorial Playground & Playhouse (Curriculum, Training & Assessment) Erector Sets (Fabrication & Installation) House Industries (Typeface Design)

Whitman Library

26 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTOS: HALKIN | MASON PHOTOGRAPHY

PROJECT: The Free Library of Philadelphia

Wyoming Library

Cecil B. Moore Library

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 27

INTERDISCIPLINARY LIFE SCIENCES BUILDING

BALLINGER

28 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

COMMONS BUILDING PHYSICS BUILDING COMMONS PLAZA

QUAD

ILSB

TENNIS COURTS

COMMONS GARAGE

RENDERING: BALLINGER

The Interdisciplinary Life Sciences Building (ILSB) at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) employs art and architecture to inspire a spirit of inquiry. The new 131,000 SF campus building is a center for research, active learning, innovation, and inspiration, supporting UMBC’s mission of student success and research discoveries.

Beyond regular design team based collaboration between architects, engineers, landscape architects and interior designers, this project was conceived to highlight a public art installation that was based in a collaborative design process between the artist, client, and design team. Oregon-based artist Volkan Alkanoglu was selected from a call for proposals that started with almost 300 responses. His digital design process was based on user input about ongoing research at UMBC. His work “In Flight” is a dramatic piece that establishes a memorable identity for the central student commons. n

PHOTOS: HOACHLANDER DAVIS PHOTOGRAPHY

DESIGN PROFILE

PROJECT: Interdisciplinary Life Sciences Building LOCATION: Baltimore, MD CLIENT: University of Maryland, Baltimore County PROJECT SIZE: 131,000 SF PROJECT TEAM: Ballinger (Architecture, Interior Design, Lab Planning, Engineer) Volkan Alkanoglu (Artwork) Acentech (Acoustics) Columbia Engineering (Structural Engineer) Conspectus (Specifications) Facility Dynamics Engineering (Commissioning) Forella Group (Cost Estimating) Jensen Hughes (Code/ Life Satefy Consultant) The Lighting Practice (Lighting Design) Mahan Rykiel Associates (Landscape) PLDA (Interior Design) RWDI (Wind) Schnabel Engineering (Geotechnical Engineer) Site Resources (Civil Engineer) Sustainable Design Consulting (LEED Consultant) WFT Engineering (Consulting Engineer) Wiss Janney Elstner Associates (Envelope) Whiting-Turner (Construction Man)

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 29

ST. JOSEPH CHAPEL

Bernardon

30 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTOS: DON PEARSE PHOTOGRAPHERS, INC.

The goal of these alterations was to improve the intimacy of the existing chapel, improve accessibility for participants at mass, and improve the thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort throughout the worship space.

Lighting and acoustics were identified as characteristics of worship that were “getting in the way” of the worship experience. The existing lighting of the chapel was noted as being especially weak in the side aisles, and although LED lamps were installed in many of the existing light fixtures, a more thoughtful approach to lighting throughout the chapel was explored. The design solution included the addition of a corona above the new altar - a “crown” that reinforces the sense of communing and creates a more intimate lighting scenario for smaller daily celebration of mass and prayer.

In conclusion, the design improvements sensitively reshaped the transept area to create a space within which the Sisters can gather around the altar and experience an intimate and unifying sense of worship, while maintaining and enhancing the beauty and splendor of the chapel; providing for expanded capacity of 400 or so when needed; providing air conditioning quietly and unobtrusively; and improving lighting, acoustics, accessibility, and seating comfort. n

PHOTOS: DON PEARSE PHOTOGRAPHERS, INC.

DESIGN PROFILE

PROJECT: St. Joseph Chapel LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA CLIENT: Congregation of the Sisters of Saint Joseph PROJECT SIZE: 5,400 SF PROJECT TEAM: Bernardon, Paul Andrew Sgroi, AIA, LEED AP and Douglas Perry, AIA, LEED AP (Architect) W.S. Cumby Construction (Construction Manager) The Lighting Practice (Lighting Design) Bala Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Mechanical / Electrical Engineer) Metropolitan Acoustics, LLC (Acoustical Consultant) International Consultants, Inc. (Cost Estimator) Condy and Wynn (Liturgical Appointments Design/Build Team)

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 31

DESIGN PROFILE BALD EAGLE ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER

SMP Architects

32 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTOS: HALKIN | MASON PHOTOGRAPHY

The project ultimately included the renovation of the existing small office building and construction of a new two-story addition, where the upper level corresponds to the original floor level. The two story building was handled creatively from a site design and building code perspective and provides a differentiated user experience of the building. Visitors requiring park information, directions, or a visit to park staff enter at the upper level. Groups arriving for events in the Environmental Learning Center park and enter at the lower level.

The collaborative workshops also provided the basis for environmentally responsible decisions throughout the project. The design solution allowed for a smaller footprint, less total building envelope, and appropriate solar and site orientation. Overall, the park will spend less to maintain and operate the facility than if it were two separate structures. The new Environmental Learning Center spaces will better serve park visitors and environmental education staff with an improved education room, offices, and outdoor space. The design of the building responds to the natural beauty of the park, provides expansive views of the landscape, and reflects the architectural character of recent park construction. n

PHOTOS: HALKIN | MASON PHOTOGRAPHY

PROJECT: Bald Eagle Environmental Learning Center LOCATION: Bald Eagle State Park (Centre County, PA) CLIENT: PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PROJECT SIZE: 6,600 SF PROJECT TEAM: SMP Architects (Architect) Viridian Landscape Studio (Landscape Architecture) HF Lenz Company (Civil, Structural, and MEP Engineer)

AIA Philadelphia | context | SPRING 2020 33

DESIGN PROFILE ORINOKA CIVIC HOUSE

Jibe Design PROJECT: Orinoka Civic House LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA

CLIENT: New Kensington Community Development Corporation PROJECT SIZE: 70,400 SF PROJECT TEAM: Jibe Design, Juliet Whelan (Project Architect) BWA (Consulting Architect) Domus (General Contractor) Innova Services Group (Owner's Rep) Larsen & Landis (Structural Engineer) AKF Group (M/E/P Engineer) Cornerstone Consulting (Civil Engineer)

34 SPRING 2020 | context | AIA Philadelphia

PHOTOS COURTESY OF JIBE DESIGN

The renovation of Orinoka Mills, one of the last behemoths of textile manufacturing in North Kensington, signaled a powerful first injection of investment in a struggling area. Constructed in the early twentieth century, Orinoka Mills serves as an icon of long past boom times and at the same time the potential for change. Located on the “wrong” side of Lehigh Avenue, property vacancy, high unemployment, and open-air drug trafficking are perennial struggles for the area. Orinoka Mills tells the story of Kensington’s industrial character, both its economic successes and environmental challenges, and also begins the reversal of forty years of disinvestment with its transformation into an ambitious mixed-use development branded Orinoka Civic House.

The lower levels of the building serve as the new home for NKCDC’s central offices. Having long served the areas of Kensington immediately south of Lehigh, this new affordable housing, administrative, and public gathering space places NKCDC in the midst of its new target population north of Lehigh and ensures that the positive development on view south of the Avenue continues northward both in concert with and in service of its North Kensington community. n

Boston|HQ

Philadelphia

Los Angeles

Charlottesville New York

Rediscover the Many Benefits of Concrete Block.

Single Wythe Concrete Masonry is not only innovative, it’s also fire safe, affordable and beautiful.

Visit our online Design Resource Center for the very latest in masonry design information - videos, BIM resources, design notes, and CAD and Revit® tools.

YOUR LOCAL CONCRETE PRODUCTS GROUP PRODUCER:

resources.concreteproductsgroup.com

Mixed Metals by ISA, Sam Oberter Photography

Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business Architect: Moore Ruble Yudell | Photo: © Albert Vecerka / Esto

Structural Engineering and Design Evaluation of Existing Structures Construction Support Services Historic Preservation Facade Reviews 11 W. THOMPSON STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19125 215.232.7207 | LARSENLANDIS.COM

Philadelphia, PA 610.677.2400

Boca Raton, FL 561.994.7310

White Plains, NY 914.681.8700

Miami, FL 305.728.3590

Woodbury, NY 516.712.4000

Newton, CT 914.681.8700

Jersey City, NJ 201.433.0778

LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE DESIGN COMMUNITY

h