Many clothing retailers boast slogans such as “trends for less” or “high fashion, low prices,” but few deliver in both areas. Hennes & Mauritz (H&M), a Swedish clothing company founded by Erling Persson in 1947 has successfully combined fashion trends with very (sometimes shockingly) reasonable prices. H&M regularly updates their designs to keep abreast of current styles. They cater to a variety of people. Teens and their parents both shop at the store. Young professionals and expectant moms browse adjacent aisles. With such a wide consumer base in an international market, H&M has maintained its success, in large part, due to their approach to designer collaboration.
While the H&M Corporation employs 68,000 people in their corporate offices, design studios and 1,700 retail stores around the world, their in-house design team totals only 100. The designers work with buyers and merchandisers to choose clothing for the men’s, women’s and children’s departments, as well as H&M’s line of makeup and accessories.
All H&M stores offer three distinct types of clothing: trendy (mainstream styles, mostly casual items), high fashion (which tends to have a more creative or runway look) and classic attire. While all stores adhere to this differentiation, merchandise varies from store to store, even within the same city, depending on the demographics of the area.
In 2004 H&M redeveloped their design strategy by adding celebrity design collaboration to their brand. In that year, their first collaboration was with Karl Lagerfeld. Other well-known designers, such as Roberto Cavalli, Victor & Rolf and Stella McCartney, were soon to follow. Each designer appealed to a different consumer segment. Lagerfeld, having designed for fashion houses, Chanel and Fendi, drew an older, more conservative fashion conscious crowd, the same crowd that might be likely to shop in the classic section. Stella McCartney, who runs her own line underwritten by Gucci, appealed to a younger, eclectic demographic, customers who prefer the trendy items in H&M.
The public’s excitement for the new collaborations was obvious from the start with Lagerfeld. But three years later, when Roberto Cavalli began designing for the company, the collaborations were still a big hit. Fifty people lined up outside the Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan before 8 a.m. on the day of the opening. Some had been there since 7 p.m. the night before. Many came from New Jersey. The entire Cavalli line sold out within thirty minutes in New York City and within two hours in Milan, Hong Kong and London.
H&M closely monitors trends and markets in potential retail locations, as well as continuously monitoring current locations. The company prides itself in occupying major fashion districts in 33 countries around the world, including New York City, London and Hong Kong. H&M extensively researches demographics and socioeconomic aspects of potential retail areas prior to opening a store. As a precaution to changing demographics and trends, the company does not buy any of the buildings that they occupy in order to ensure that they can switch locations easily if issues arise. Fashion trends within geographic markets are also scrutinized. The offerings to the European market differ in style and from their American or Asian counterparts, yet the structure of the store and types of clothing offered are the same.
By collaborating with high profile designers and supplying their designs at affordable prices, H&M has created a quality and trend driven design model that enjoys a high degree of success. The collaborations lend prestige and bolster consumer confidence in their purchases. Offering Cavalli or Lagerfeld designs side-by-side with H&M designed garments creates an instant association for the consumer that enhances the company’s credibility and presence in the fashion community. Like Target and Design Within Reach, H&M uses big names to pull customers into their stores while supplying them with other, equally successful yet affordable, designs. But, unlike Design Within Reach, the designers aren’t selling their well known, high end pieces. They have designed garments specifically for H&M in their own distinctive style, but at a lower price point.
H&M’s physical store design also contributes to their success. Both the men’s and women’s departments are divided into three distinct sections: trendy, high fashion and business. Within these sections all items are segregated by color, not style, making it easier to select outfits and more likely that a customer will stumble upon an item they would not normally have noticed. The items from each section are easily interchanged due to the high quality of the fabrics and attention to detail. From day-to-night wear to the in-between, all of a fashionista’s needs are met within any H&M store.
Unlike some clothing companies, such as Forever 21, who take runway styles and replicate them verbatim in their own stores (causing negative feelings from the fashion community) H&M goes straight to the designer. This design sensibility has paid off. Dodging the financial pitfalls of attempting to appeal to too wide an audience (especially in the fashion retail business), H&M has been very successful with their design endeavors. By creating distinct niches, either within their H&M brand or their designer collaborations, the clothing array gives a mass audience the ability to experience fashion options and individuality, even if they didn’t know that’s what they wanted.
12.17.2008
Build It! : Controversy around the Tower Verre
From the Chrysler building to the Empire State building, hundreds of multistory office and real estate towers reign over Midtown Manhattan. Here, office buildings rise into the clouds while retail stores line the streets. Midtown is an area that has been built up again and again, continually reinventing and developing itself. The City is known for its skyscrapers but, few outsiders know that they are mainly in Midtown. So, when a developer decides to construct a skyscraper, what is the preferred location? Midtown seems to be a perfect fit, but some people disagree. Regardless of the height or aesthetics of these buildings, some residents refuse to allow another high-rise to take over their neighborhood.
In 2007 Hines Development bought the 17,000 sq. ft. “S” shaped lot at 53 53rd Street for $125 million. French architect, Jean Nouvel, was chosen to design for the oddly shaped property that spans 53rd and 54th Streets. Calling his creation the Tower Verre, the design is an imaginative swirl of glass and metal that tapers elegantly toward the sky.. The tower would house a hotel, condos, and 60,000 square feet of dedicated MoMA space. In order to achieve the planned height of 1,250 feet (100ft higher than the Chrysler building), Hines Development must buy air rights from adjacent buildings, St. Thomas Church, University Club and MoMA. The Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Council then must approve this transfer.
Fifty-third Street is a cultural artery in the heart of Midtown. St. Thomas Church and the University Club have landmark status. Others, including Pellii’s CBS building (nicknamed “Black Rock”) and MoMA’s sculpture garden, are studied for their urban significance. Notable architects who have designed structures within this block include Phillip Goodwin, Edward Durell Stone, Philip Johnson, César Pellii, and Yoshio Taniguchi. Nouvel’s stature and vision make him an excellent choice to join this distinguished company. He recently received the Pritzker Prize for his work on over 200 projects around the world. In New York City, he completed 40 Mercer, a condo building, as well as a proposed high-rise condominium located on 11th Avenue and 19th street, next to Frank Gehry’s IAC building
The 75-story tower itself is divided into four parts: the luxury condos, the hotel, MoMA galleries, and a public space (including a restaurant and lounge.) Although the condos will occupy a majority of the building, three floors have been devoted to the MoMA gallery expansion and will no doubt be a financial plus to the traffic and business in the tower.
The exceptional tower height requires more square feet of air rights than most existing lots allow. The space that Tower Verre hopes to occupy comes with only 210,000 sq. ft. of air rights. Because 1,250 ft translates to 786, 562 sq. ft. of air rights, Hines Development needs to gain an additional 576, 562 sq. ft. of air rights from adjacent buildings. That’s where St. Thomas Church and University Club come in. Although they agreed to the transfer in exchange for maintenance preservation and a façade update, community members who oppose the project are attempting to block the transfer as a means to stopping it. They argue that the transfer is not in the best interest of the area and that the buildings involved do not need the money to maintain their landmarked status.
Community members and Landmark councils oppose the Tower Verre on the grounds that it will be too tall in context with the immediate 53rd /54th street block, and will not fit harmoniously into its surroundings. They also believe that the building will impede on its neighbors in architectural aesthetics and will over-shadow the lower buildings. Community Board 5 voted 12 to 1 against the transfer of air rights from the church and the Club to the new site. Liz Kruger, State Senator, said that the residents of the tower will also add to congestion of the local infrastructure, namely, the subways, schools and hospitals.
Local New York City architects, Skidmore, Owings and Merrell, support the Tower Verre based on its grand architecture. Critics Nicolai Ouroussoff, of The New York Times, and Justin Davidson, of New York Magazine, have both praised it. Ouroussoff stated that the Tower Verre would be “one of the most exciting additions to New York's skyline in a generation.” Since the tower will be constructed in Midtown amongst other skyscrapers, it will not be out of context for the Midtown area at large. Although it will be able to accommodate 300 residential units, only 120 units are projected in the proposal. But even if the maximum number of condos becomes a reality, there will not be enough full time residents for the city to mandate that the developer do a socioeconomic and infrastructural survey of the area. This would seem to negate Senator Kruger’s objections.
If the Nouvel designed tower fails to gain approval, there is another tower waiting in the wings. And, that one has already been approved. The unnamed tower would stand under the height of the current museum tower, but an expansion rendering shows that this tower may also be enlarged in coming years. The preapproved tower is not by any means an architectural breakthrough. It’s a glass box like so many other New York buildings. Although it would not interfere with sunlight initially, the potential expansion of the tower to the same height as the Tower Verre eliminates any functional advantage that design might have. And, given it’s lack of aesthetic appeal, it pales in comparison to the Nouvel tower.
Despite strong opposition from community members, landmark and historical councils, the Tower Verre should be built. Although opponents narrowly define the neighborhood, the tower is in context with its extended midtown Manhattan locale, as well as other buildings in the immediate area. The presence of the Nouvel design on the street will compliment the adjacent architectural neighbors, and the tower will undoubtedly be an instant landmark. MoMA is a cultural institution on a street of culture and arts. Nothing but a significant piece of architecture should be considered. But architecture aside, MoMA will receive 60,000 sq. ft. of space in the tower to expand their galleries and storage space. This alone is a significant cultural benefit to the area, and is a generous allowance, especially from a real-estate developer. The infrastructure concerns that the tower evokes from community members are ill founded. The tower will house too few residential units to cause the city to mandate a preconstruction analysis from the developer. This affluent area presently contains many residential units and would be a suitable location for luxury condominiums. Building the tower on this block will not significantly impact the existing density of residential units, and may, in fact, prove to be financially advantageous for all concerned. And, it is for this reason that a developer interested in building affordable housing would be unlikely to choose this design for another part of the city.
The 53rd St. lot will eventually be developed regardless of design Why not make it one that excites the imagination? In New York City, where undeveloped space is virtually nonexistent, it is rare to see a project that the architect can start from the ground up. This empty space adjacent to a world-renowned museum dedicated to modern art should be valued, not wasted. Nouvel’s design should be embraced as the grand opportunity it is.
In 2007 Hines Development bought the 17,000 sq. ft. “S” shaped lot at 53 53rd Street for $125 million. French architect, Jean Nouvel, was chosen to design for the oddly shaped property that spans 53rd and 54th Streets. Calling his creation the Tower Verre, the design is an imaginative swirl of glass and metal that tapers elegantly toward the sky.. The tower would house a hotel, condos, and 60,000 square feet of dedicated MoMA space. In order to achieve the planned height of 1,250 feet (100ft higher than the Chrysler building), Hines Development must buy air rights from adjacent buildings, St. Thomas Church, University Club and MoMA. The Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Council then must approve this transfer.
Fifty-third Street is a cultural artery in the heart of Midtown. St. Thomas Church and the University Club have landmark status. Others, including Pellii’s CBS building (nicknamed “Black Rock”) and MoMA’s sculpture garden, are studied for their urban significance. Notable architects who have designed structures within this block include Phillip Goodwin, Edward Durell Stone, Philip Johnson, César Pellii, and Yoshio Taniguchi. Nouvel’s stature and vision make him an excellent choice to join this distinguished company. He recently received the Pritzker Prize for his work on over 200 projects around the world. In New York City, he completed 40 Mercer, a condo building, as well as a proposed high-rise condominium located on 11th Avenue and 19th street, next to Frank Gehry’s IAC building
The 75-story tower itself is divided into four parts: the luxury condos, the hotel, MoMA galleries, and a public space (including a restaurant and lounge.) Although the condos will occupy a majority of the building, three floors have been devoted to the MoMA gallery expansion and will no doubt be a financial plus to the traffic and business in the tower.
The exceptional tower height requires more square feet of air rights than most existing lots allow. The space that Tower Verre hopes to occupy comes with only 210,000 sq. ft. of air rights. Because 1,250 ft translates to 786, 562 sq. ft. of air rights, Hines Development needs to gain an additional 576, 562 sq. ft. of air rights from adjacent buildings. That’s where St. Thomas Church and University Club come in. Although they agreed to the transfer in exchange for maintenance preservation and a façade update, community members who oppose the project are attempting to block the transfer as a means to stopping it. They argue that the transfer is not in the best interest of the area and that the buildings involved do not need the money to maintain their landmarked status.
Community members and Landmark councils oppose the Tower Verre on the grounds that it will be too tall in context with the immediate 53rd /54th street block, and will not fit harmoniously into its surroundings. They also believe that the building will impede on its neighbors in architectural aesthetics and will over-shadow the lower buildings. Community Board 5 voted 12 to 1 against the transfer of air rights from the church and the Club to the new site. Liz Kruger, State Senator, said that the residents of the tower will also add to congestion of the local infrastructure, namely, the subways, schools and hospitals.
Local New York City architects, Skidmore, Owings and Merrell, support the Tower Verre based on its grand architecture. Critics Nicolai Ouroussoff, of The New York Times, and Justin Davidson, of New York Magazine, have both praised it. Ouroussoff stated that the Tower Verre would be “one of the most exciting additions to New York's skyline in a generation.” Since the tower will be constructed in Midtown amongst other skyscrapers, it will not be out of context for the Midtown area at large. Although it will be able to accommodate 300 residential units, only 120 units are projected in the proposal. But even if the maximum number of condos becomes a reality, there will not be enough full time residents for the city to mandate that the developer do a socioeconomic and infrastructural survey of the area. This would seem to negate Senator Kruger’s objections.
If the Nouvel designed tower fails to gain approval, there is another tower waiting in the wings. And, that one has already been approved. The unnamed tower would stand under the height of the current museum tower, but an expansion rendering shows that this tower may also be enlarged in coming years. The preapproved tower is not by any means an architectural breakthrough. It’s a glass box like so many other New York buildings. Although it would not interfere with sunlight initially, the potential expansion of the tower to the same height as the Tower Verre eliminates any functional advantage that design might have. And, given it’s lack of aesthetic appeal, it pales in comparison to the Nouvel tower.
Despite strong opposition from community members, landmark and historical councils, the Tower Verre should be built. Although opponents narrowly define the neighborhood, the tower is in context with its extended midtown Manhattan locale, as well as other buildings in the immediate area. The presence of the Nouvel design on the street will compliment the adjacent architectural neighbors, and the tower will undoubtedly be an instant landmark. MoMA is a cultural institution on a street of culture and arts. Nothing but a significant piece of architecture should be considered. But architecture aside, MoMA will receive 60,000 sq. ft. of space in the tower to expand their galleries and storage space. This alone is a significant cultural benefit to the area, and is a generous allowance, especially from a real-estate developer. The infrastructure concerns that the tower evokes from community members are ill founded. The tower will house too few residential units to cause the city to mandate a preconstruction analysis from the developer. This affluent area presently contains many residential units and would be a suitable location for luxury condominiums. Building the tower on this block will not significantly impact the existing density of residential units, and may, in fact, prove to be financially advantageous for all concerned. And, it is for this reason that a developer interested in building affordable housing would be unlikely to choose this design for another part of the city.
The 53rd St. lot will eventually be developed regardless of design Why not make it one that excites the imagination? In New York City, where undeveloped space is virtually nonexistent, it is rare to see a project that the architect can start from the ground up. This empty space adjacent to a world-renowned museum dedicated to modern art should be valued, not wasted. Nouvel’s design should be embraced as the grand opportunity it is.
Babies and Frank Ghery
Sitting in the Rochester International Airport (a name that is bigger than the airport itself), I am forced to listen to Warm 101.3, a local soft rock station. They are dutifully playing Christmas music. It’s just after Thanksgiving and snow has delayed my flight back to New York. I'm becoming nostalgic. Rochester was a great place to grow up in: shopping at Wegman's grocery store, fishing in Lake Ontario, attending school at Rochester Institute of Technology, all are fond recollections. But, as a child, one of my happiest memories was going to the Strong Children's Museum on Chestnut Street in downtown Rochester.
The second largest children's museum in the country, the Strong Museum was originally constructed in 1982 to house the eclectic collections of Margaret Woodbury Strong. Strong was an avid collector, especially of toys. Her large assortment remains the basis for the museum’s collection today. My first memories of the Strong Museum are of the 19th century Americana assembly of plates, vases, and other everyday household items. The Skyline Diner, a 1950s style trailer diner, was the only place to eat inside the museum. The next few times I visited the Strong Museum in the late 1990s, I accompanied my younger cousins and the museum was displaying more of their toy collection. The name had been changed accordingly to the Strong Children’s Museum. Now, the museum displays only toys, has five new places to eat and has acquired another name change, the Strong National Museum of Play.
The name change coincided with the renovation and expansion of the museum in 2006. The original museum building is a simple, concrete, rectilinear shape. The floor plan is confusing throughout most of the original building. This confusion is directly related to the multiple name changes, and changes in the museums identity. The expansions seem random in some places. These spaces seem to have been tacked onto different points of the building, making the experience even more disorienting. Despite this, the individual additions are spectacular in comparison to the original building. The most delightful and whimsical expansion was the butterfly conservatory, officially named Dancing Wings Butterfly Garden. The 126,000 square foot expansion and renovation, was designed by Chaintreuil Jensen Stark, a Rochester and Buffalo, NY based firm, This LEED certified construction that was added to the southwest side of the complex received the 2007 AIA-Rochester Design Award. It includes two sections, each representing in metal and glass an abstraction of a caterpillar and a butterfly.
The caterpillar section is a large tubular space that lies horizontally along the ground connecting the main building with the butterfly section. The caterpillar is made out of 60-90% recycled materials. Bronze colored aluminum forms the undulating 3 story high exterior walls. The 200-foot-long structure ends in a 70-foot-high glass portal facing Chestnut Street. Through this portal, the inner skeleton gives the illusion of a mouth with the metal structure forming teeth. The caterpillar section functions mainly as a grand entrance to the butterfly section, uniting it with the original building. From the atrium of the caterpillar section, visitors may access the upper level of the Museum of Play, a traditional arrangement of the toy collection in glass cases. The ground level of the caterpillar is devoted to seating and acts as a conduit to the butterfly section. The flow from the organic caterpillar to the structured butterfly represents the metamorphosis that children go through. Movement from one space to another is a natural progression, ushering children into the magical butterfly habitat.
In the butterfly building form mimics function as the housing contains 800 live butterflies, along with moths, goldfish, turtles, a tortoise, finches, and button quail. Tropical foliage overtakes the garden creating a dense natural habitat for butterflies native to Africa, Central and South America, Malaysia, the Philippines, and North America. The space is incredibly warm, in color and temperature. The introduction of plants and animals is as important to the building as the architecture itself. Because these exotic plants overtake the walls and floor, your sense of place is skewed. From inside the conservatory, the ceiling is the only fully exposed surface, making the architecture a secondary element. But, because this section is distinctly different from the adjacent building, the view from outside the structure makes it stand out from its neighbors. The conservatory itself is shaped like a butterfly (although the abstract shape makes it hard to tell from the street. This is a butterfly that’s better understood from an aerial view.) The “wings” of the structure are 30 feet high at the tips and 50 feet in diameter. The structure is made of thin metal covered with panes of glass, and as seen from above, forms a figure eight. The roof of the Butterfly Garden is a tension membrane structure, made of woven fiberglass coated in Teflon, similar to the membrane structure used to cover Denver’s International Airport terminal. This membrane roof allows for insulation of the “micro-environment” of the garden, but also lets ambient light in.
With so many butterflies in a relatively small space it is easy to imagine that the butterflies themselves may be in danger, but tour hosts and interactive educational exercises are available to ensure that children and adults alike respect the garden. Susan Trien, the Director of Public Relations and Advertising for the Museum, says that visitors do not jeopardize the butterflies and are actually intrigued and delighted when butterflies land on them. To ensure the safety of both butterflies and people, attendance is limited. Only 40 visitors are allowed into the garden at a time, and all need reservations for admission.
According to Susan Trien, visitor’s reactions are consistent. Comments range from, “Wow!” to “What a luscious space!” The reactions of parents and children alike are a direct result of the expansion’s distinctive architecture. Both the caterpillar and the butterfly structures are visually intriguing. But, when children experience the butterfly garden, the exceptional design of the space leaves as lasting an impression on them as the butterflies. Strong Museum likens the expansion architecture to that of “star-chitect” Frank Gehry. Since this was a stylistic departure for the expansion designers (many of their building have been high-end residential apartments and college buildings, particularly for Rochester Institute of Technology) their collaboration with the museum was exciting. The museum’s support of such an innovative experiment speaks to their commitment to celebrating the child-like qualities of play. Yet, for the museum to formally liken the expansion design to Gehry’s architecture would suggest a sophisticated vision that embraces playfulness within the idiom of style. Both sections are architectural puns. This perspective has the unintended result of further educating children and their parents about the possibilities of building design (the concept of metamorphosis that the buildings represent does this particularly well.)
The Strong Museum of Play is dedicated “solely to the study of play as it illuminates American culture.” The museum publishes a journal on the study of play and how it aids development in children. Because the Butterfly Garden is an atypical and aesthetically pleasing building, it solidifies a sense of importance and presence to a organization that has great aspirations for positively impacting the childhood experience.
The new expansion is a refreshing addition to the Rochester landscape. Due to Rochester’s rich heritage, it is home to many historically significant buildings including the George Eastman House (J. Foster Warner, architect) and the Eastman Theater (architectural firm of Stanford White). These are beautiful examples of architecture from the past century. The vibrant juxtaposition and visual complexity that is created with the contemporary expansion of the Strong museum greatly benefits the city and its inhabitants, forming a vision for the new century.
The second largest children's museum in the country, the Strong Museum was originally constructed in 1982 to house the eclectic collections of Margaret Woodbury Strong. Strong was an avid collector, especially of toys. Her large assortment remains the basis for the museum’s collection today. My first memories of the Strong Museum are of the 19th century Americana assembly of plates, vases, and other everyday household items. The Skyline Diner, a 1950s style trailer diner, was the only place to eat inside the museum. The next few times I visited the Strong Museum in the late 1990s, I accompanied my younger cousins and the museum was displaying more of their toy collection. The name had been changed accordingly to the Strong Children’s Museum. Now, the museum displays only toys, has five new places to eat and has acquired another name change, the Strong National Museum of Play.
The name change coincided with the renovation and expansion of the museum in 2006. The original museum building is a simple, concrete, rectilinear shape. The floor plan is confusing throughout most of the original building. This confusion is directly related to the multiple name changes, and changes in the museums identity. The expansions seem random in some places. These spaces seem to have been tacked onto different points of the building, making the experience even more disorienting. Despite this, the individual additions are spectacular in comparison to the original building. The most delightful and whimsical expansion was the butterfly conservatory, officially named Dancing Wings Butterfly Garden. The 126,000 square foot expansion and renovation, was designed by Chaintreuil Jensen Stark, a Rochester and Buffalo, NY based firm, This LEED certified construction that was added to the southwest side of the complex received the 2007 AIA-Rochester Design Award. It includes two sections, each representing in metal and glass an abstraction of a caterpillar and a butterfly.
The caterpillar section is a large tubular space that lies horizontally along the ground connecting the main building with the butterfly section. The caterpillar is made out of 60-90% recycled materials. Bronze colored aluminum forms the undulating 3 story high exterior walls. The 200-foot-long structure ends in a 70-foot-high glass portal facing Chestnut Street. Through this portal, the inner skeleton gives the illusion of a mouth with the metal structure forming teeth. The caterpillar section functions mainly as a grand entrance to the butterfly section, uniting it with the original building. From the atrium of the caterpillar section, visitors may access the upper level of the Museum of Play, a traditional arrangement of the toy collection in glass cases. The ground level of the caterpillar is devoted to seating and acts as a conduit to the butterfly section. The flow from the organic caterpillar to the structured butterfly represents the metamorphosis that children go through. Movement from one space to another is a natural progression, ushering children into the magical butterfly habitat.
In the butterfly building form mimics function as the housing contains 800 live butterflies, along with moths, goldfish, turtles, a tortoise, finches, and button quail. Tropical foliage overtakes the garden creating a dense natural habitat for butterflies native to Africa, Central and South America, Malaysia, the Philippines, and North America. The space is incredibly warm, in color and temperature. The introduction of plants and animals is as important to the building as the architecture itself. Because these exotic plants overtake the walls and floor, your sense of place is skewed. From inside the conservatory, the ceiling is the only fully exposed surface, making the architecture a secondary element. But, because this section is distinctly different from the adjacent building, the view from outside the structure makes it stand out from its neighbors. The conservatory itself is shaped like a butterfly (although the abstract shape makes it hard to tell from the street. This is a butterfly that’s better understood from an aerial view.) The “wings” of the structure are 30 feet high at the tips and 50 feet in diameter. The structure is made of thin metal covered with panes of glass, and as seen from above, forms a figure eight. The roof of the Butterfly Garden is a tension membrane structure, made of woven fiberglass coated in Teflon, similar to the membrane structure used to cover Denver’s International Airport terminal. This membrane roof allows for insulation of the “micro-environment” of the garden, but also lets ambient light in.
With so many butterflies in a relatively small space it is easy to imagine that the butterflies themselves may be in danger, but tour hosts and interactive educational exercises are available to ensure that children and adults alike respect the garden. Susan Trien, the Director of Public Relations and Advertising for the Museum, says that visitors do not jeopardize the butterflies and are actually intrigued and delighted when butterflies land on them. To ensure the safety of both butterflies and people, attendance is limited. Only 40 visitors are allowed into the garden at a time, and all need reservations for admission.
According to Susan Trien, visitor’s reactions are consistent. Comments range from, “Wow!” to “What a luscious space!” The reactions of parents and children alike are a direct result of the expansion’s distinctive architecture. Both the caterpillar and the butterfly structures are visually intriguing. But, when children experience the butterfly garden, the exceptional design of the space leaves as lasting an impression on them as the butterflies. Strong Museum likens the expansion architecture to that of “star-chitect” Frank Gehry. Since this was a stylistic departure for the expansion designers (many of their building have been high-end residential apartments and college buildings, particularly for Rochester Institute of Technology) their collaboration with the museum was exciting. The museum’s support of such an innovative experiment speaks to their commitment to celebrating the child-like qualities of play. Yet, for the museum to formally liken the expansion design to Gehry’s architecture would suggest a sophisticated vision that embraces playfulness within the idiom of style. Both sections are architectural puns. This perspective has the unintended result of further educating children and their parents about the possibilities of building design (the concept of metamorphosis that the buildings represent does this particularly well.)
The Strong Museum of Play is dedicated “solely to the study of play as it illuminates American culture.” The museum publishes a journal on the study of play and how it aids development in children. Because the Butterfly Garden is an atypical and aesthetically pleasing building, it solidifies a sense of importance and presence to a organization that has great aspirations for positively impacting the childhood experience.
The new expansion is a refreshing addition to the Rochester landscape. Due to Rochester’s rich heritage, it is home to many historically significant buildings including the George Eastman House (J. Foster Warner, architect) and the Eastman Theater (architectural firm of Stanford White). These are beautiful examples of architecture from the past century. The vibrant juxtaposition and visual complexity that is created with the contemporary expansion of the Strong museum greatly benefits the city and its inhabitants, forming a vision for the new century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
