RESTORATION of SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM

Running Head: RESTORATION of SOLOMON R.
GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM
Conservation Theory
Esma Nur Demir
Abdullah Gul University
Figure 1 Front View Of Gugenheim Museum
Author Note
Esma Nur Demir, Department of Architecture, Abdullah Gul University
Contact: esmanur.demir@agu.edu.tr
Running Head: RESTORATION of SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM
TABLE OF CONTENT
RESTORATION OF SOLOMON R. GUGENHEIM MUSEUM .................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
DESIGN OF MUSEUM........................................................................................................................................ 3
HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION ....................................................................................................................... 4
FOUR INTERVENTIONS AT THE GUGGENHEIM .................................................................................................. 5
MAIN RESTORATION PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................... 6
STRUCTURAL REPAIR ........................................................................................................................................ 7
RAINWATER PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................ 8
WINDOW UPGRADE ......................................................................................................................................... 9
EXTERIOR COLUOUR....................................................................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 12
REFERRENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 13
FIGURE LIST: ................................................................................................................................................... 15
RESTORATION OF SOLOMON R. GUGENHEIM MUSEUM
Introduction
Solomon R Guggenheim who was an American businessman is tasked Frank Lloyd Wright to
design museum for his own art collection which included pieces from Paul Klee, Piet
Mondrian and Wassily Kandinsky.
Frank Lloyd Wright designed the
museum in 1943 and construction of
building completed in 1959 (Gibson,
2017). In 1990, After thirty-one years
from its construction it is named as an
official New York City landmark.
Now it is the one of the most iconic

Figure 2TheSolomon R. Guggenheim Museum after restoration
building of New York City.
DESIGN OF MUSEUM
Wright did not want to design traditional
museum which people visit space one by
one, instead of that he designed museum
with a continuous ramp which goes from
top to bottom. To achieve that he designed
Figure 3 Interior of Guggenheim Museum

it in organic architecture style which makes it more noticeable in the crowded streets of
Manhattan where building is always have sharp
edges (“The Frank “, n.d).
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum's outer
pillars consist of white reinforced concrete
cylinders that curl up into the sky. The building,
which is rising, creates a unique atmosphere

Figure 4 Section Drawing of the Museum
inside and outside the building. The increase in
construction was made on an architectural scale at Wright's design stage, a 'single spacious
space on a continuous ground'. When you enter the building, the first encountered space is the
large gallery space of 28 meters in height. This atrium is covered with a glass dome. Right
next to the gallery space is a ramp rising 6 floors. Thanks to this ramp, the connections
between the floors are provided much more fluidly and the visitors are able to observe the
works of art hanging on the walls as they go up to the floors (Perez, 2010).
History of The Restoration
Figure 5 The Guggenheim undergoing of renovation

Throughout its life span Guggenheim museum had several restoration and
conservation work. In 1965, after six years from its construction completed, the Monitor
building which is in the second floor is renovated to accommodate the museum’s growing art
collection. In 1968 a four storey tower designed by Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation/Taliesin
Associates Architects for required art storage and offices. Between 1968 and 1972
Thanhauser Gallery is renovated.In 1975, By Donald E. Freed the driveway converted to a
bookstore and a restaurant, and the sculpture garden transformed into an outdoor café. The
Fifth Avenue entrance is also modified and enclosed in glass (“The Frank “, n.d).
Wright designed the alcove in the second floor to keep museum models and drawings,
however, space is used as storage are and employee lunch room. By Richard Meier &
Associates this place is converted to the Aye Simon Reading Room in 1978.
In 1990 museum closed its doors to visitors for two years of restoration. However, in
an international art tour, art pieces are exhibited in the cities are like Venice, Madrid, Tokyo,
Australia, and Montreal. The restoration is made by Gwathmey Siegel and Associates
Architects. They replaced the four storey tower designed by Frank Lloyd Wright
Foundation/Taliesin Associates Architects to an eight-story tower.
The biggest restoration and conservation work in the museum is held on 2005 and last
until 2008. It got repaired for 50th anniversary of the Museum. The restoration is included four
specific design challenges posed by the museum like structural repairs, rain water protection,
exterior color issues and fenestration upgrade (Pogrebin, 2007).
During the innervations on the building 2 different approach of restoration are used which
were based on preservation of original design intent and historic fabric.
Four Interventions at The Guggenheim

By considering established preservation philosophies, recent conservation works at
Guggenheim museum showed up environmental, architectural, structural conservation
conditions and also revealed some potential repair solutions. In the final stage of renovation
and conservation upgrade of building system and exterior wall assemblies, concrete repair and
recoating, removal of exterior coatings, skylight and window replacement is achieved
(Jerome, 2008)
Main Restoration Principles

The innervation on the Guggenheim is made by the project architect WASA/Studio A
by following the procedure determined by the United States Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1964 Venice Charter for the Conservation
and Restoration of Monuments (The Venice Charter), the 1979 Australia ICOMOS Burra
Charter (as revised in 1999), the 1994 Nara Document in Authenticity. (Jerome & Ayon,
2008)
The principles for intervention included:
• retaining original materials;
• retaining changes that occurred over time;
• preserving distinctive features;
• repairing rather than replacing, and replacing in kind if necessary;
• avoiding radical changes in work designed to meet current code and energy requirements;
• ensuring that treatments are not injurious;

• ensuring that new work is reversible and differentiated from historic building fabric.
This preservation philosophy guided the project team’s responses to the complex challenges
posed by Wright’s building.
Structural Repair
Figure 6 Surface Texture and Coating Failures
First restoration intervention was in the structural repair. The uppermost Rotunda
wall’s horizontal reinforcement of was discontinuous which was causing cracks in the surface
of the wall. Project team is considered several structural repair solutions to get the continuity
of the reinforcement. One of them was the covering the exterior surface with carbon fibre
reinforced polymer (CFRP) which was going to coat the original formwork marks. Wright’s
design intent was having continuous smooth curves, however, because of the lack of
technology and contractor’s failure the building had formwork marks. With the passing of
time the formwork marks became significant because it was showing the evidence of
craftmanship and how Wright was ahead of its time. By
considering these factors, protecting the authenticity of
walls got ahead of the architects first design intent. The
projects structural engineers applied CFRP to only
interior face of the walls to achieve continuity of the
horizontal reinforcement.
Figure 7 Original Formworks Marks From

Rotunda
Rainwater Protection
The second restoration step
for same project was related to the
rainwater protection. During the
documentation process, they find
out that tilted geometry that
uppermost wall has causing the
rainwater to spill over the wall.
This was later causing moisture on
the concrete surfaces and causing

Figure 8 Carbon Fiber Reinforcement at the interior face of Rotunda’s
uppermost wall
problem in the long-term
durability of concrete. To ensure long term durability of the original cementitious fabric,
research carried out and they came up with adding a metal drip edge to run off water from the
wall. This solution, would have fully eradicated the rainwater from the wall surfaces.
However, the metal drip edge would have been visible from the street which would be
contradict with the design intent of Wright, simplicity of the Guggenheim. In the
circumstances despite of metal edges which would have solved rainwater problem effectively,
they have chosen a custom made cementitious topping designed by WASA/Studio A AND
William B. Rose & Associates. The cementitious topping doesn’t fully solve the problem of
rainwater, but it preserves the Wright’s first design intent which was more important in this
case.
Window Upgrade
Figure 9 The New Windows replicated the existing in thermally broken steel
There were steel framed galvanized glass walls in the monitor building. During the
documentation process, they were accepted as in good condition. However, during the winter
time, these uninsulated walls were causing energy loss which also required extra air
conditioning to keep museum environment stabile and protect art pieces from changing air
conditions. Because it was going to
require larger size of equipment
project team have decided to first
refurbish to wall frames.
(Jerome&Ayon, 2008).
WASA/Studio A and William B.
Rose & Associates
have considered using

Figure 10 Replicated Steel Frames
nanotechnologies like thermal
protection coating, heated glass and insulating blankets, however, at the and they have
decided it was going to completely change the appearance of the steel frames. It would have
harmed Wrights design intent and at the same time it wouldn’t have the solve the problem
efficiently. As a result, project team have decided to fabricate the same walls by upgrading it
thermally. At the end, they have produced and installed the glass walls and kept the original
ones in the museum collection. In this case they have achieved protection of both design
intent and original historic fabric (Pogrebin, 2007).
Exterior Coluour
It has been documented arguments for Wrights’ wish to paint exterior and exterior in the
same color. However, interiors were finished in a white color – contrary to the original intent
of the architect, and determined by Integrated Conservation Resources (recent conservators
of the Guggenheim), to coat the exterior (cocoon) in a yellowish “buff” color. This choice of
Wright was questioned but soon after seeing his photograph of the balconies of exterior
rotunda, it became obvious that he not just commissioned and approved this step, but also
was alive to see the original coloring of the cocoon (Ayon, 2008).
The matter of color has been an issue even after the building’s completion: in 1964 when
they decided to repaint the exterior of the museum, which was followed by several
overpainting of the original buff color; four year late the building experiences a change by
concrete-frame set-back exterior finish was overpainted again in 1975.
There were some other major interventions in later years: 1978, 1980, and 1992. In 1978
Richard Meyer transforms the original architectural Archives into the Reading room. During
1980-1992 Gwathmey Siegel & Associated Architects renovated the museum while adding
steel-frame tower above the reinforced concrete.(Jerome&Ayon, 2008).
The first renovation which intervened in a building as a whole was conducted in 1992. It was
consisted of renovating and expanding museum while enhancing the original building
enclosure. More recently, grey was mistakenly chose to be the original one. Same color was
chosen as a refinish by the Gwathmey & Siegel Associate Architects while attempting to
differentiate the new addition of limestone-clad tower.
Decision about the exterior finishing became controversial. The original color was covered
by ten subsequent layers which made argumentation almost impossible. In this issue the
Venice Charter made it clear to respect each and every contribution on the building of a
monument. All these resulted in a statement that the monument have the “progressive
authenticity”. More specifically, it means that the building is an evolving object and its
structural value is not limited only to its origins(Pogrebin, 2007).

Conclusion
As seen in the Guggenheim restoration, one principle cannot guide in the restoration
process, more holistic approaches should have been appreciated during the process of
interventions. Value-carrying features should be considered during the interventions.
According to 1994 ICOMOS document ‘The Nara Document on Authencity’ it has been
emphasized that the essential qualifying factor is the concerning the values such as substance
and material, form and design, function and use, techniques and tradition, feeling and sprit
and other internal and external factors. In the case of Guggenheim this factor were integrity,
durability, system performance, craftsmanship, mass production, original expression and
contributing changes. The sustainable preservation approaches shouldn’t avoid from
interventions just because of protecting historic fabric. Because this building is an important
element for future generations so because of that if we are protecting integrity of the
historic building character, interventions should not be problem. Angel Ayon is mentioned
that a sustainable preservation approach should consider replacing (with in-kind materials
where possible) original yet poor-performing historic building fabric with improved systems
that meet sustainable performance standards and retain the building’s historic character.
In conclusion, in the restoration of The Guggenheim Museum as much as the
Wright’s first design intent , the sustainability of the building was also highly taken into
consideration, as seen in the four interventions emulated above. Because maintaining
sustainability of the building would help the building’s future preservation. For my point of
view, renovation of the Gugenheim museum was an inspiring renovation project, because
each problem that the museum has been faced with evaluated each and everyone of its
different renovational approaches were applied. I believe that these holistic approaches
should have been applied in all of the conservation projects, because like each design, each
problem that buildings face is also unique, so it requires different approaches. In this regard
the lifespan of the buildings are increased and hence more generation can be touched by the
building.
Referrences
Ayon, A.(2009).Historic Fabric vs. Design Intent, Journal of Architectural Conservation, (pp:
41-58).
Retrived From:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2009.10785054
Gibson, E. (2017, June 9). Frank Lloyd Wright subverted typical art-gallery layouts with spiral
Guggenheim museum. Dezeen.
Retrivied From:
https://www.dezeen.com/2017/06/09/solomon-r-guggenheim-museum-frank-lloyd-
wright-new-york-city/
Jerome, P. (2008, June). Restoring Frank Lloyd Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim’s Museum.
Retrieved From:
https://www.aicomos.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009_UnlovedModern_Jerome_Pam
ela_Frank-Lloyd_Paper.pdf
Jerome, P.& Ayon A. (2008, June). Restoration and facilities enhancement of Frank Lloyd
Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York . News in Conservation.
Retrived From:
https://www.iiconservation.org/system/files/publications/journal/2008/b2008_3.pdf
Matero, G. F.&Fitzgerald, R. (2007, January). The Fallacies of Intent: "Finishing" Frank Lloyd
Wright's Guggenheim Museum
Retrived From:
http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_papers/8
Perez, A. (2010, May 18). Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum / Frank Lloyd Wright. Arch Daily.
Retrived From:
https://www.archdaily.com/60392/ad-classics-solomon-r-guggenheim-museum-
frank-lloyd-wright
Pogrebin, R. (2007, 10 September).The Restorers’ Art of the Invisible. Art&Design.
Retrived From:
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/arts/design/10gugg.html
The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Timeline.(N.D.). Guggenheim.
Retrieved From:
https://www.guggenheim.org/the-frank-lloyd-wright-building/timeline
Figure List:
Figure 1: Gibson, E. (2017, June 9). Frank Lloyd Wright subverted typical art-gallery layouts
with spiral Guggenheim museum. Dezeen.
Retrivied From:
Figure 2: Jerome, P. (2008, June). Restoring Frank Lloyd Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim’s
Museum.
Retrieved From:
https://www.aicomos.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009_UnlovedModern_Jerome_Pam
ela_Frank-Lloyd_Paper.pdf
Figure 3: Gibson, E. (2017, June 9). Frank Lloyd Wright subverted typical art-gallery layouts
with spiral Guggenheim museum. Dezeen.
Retrivied From:
Figure 4:
Perez, A. (2010, May 18). Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum / Frank Lloyd Wright. Arch Daily.
Retrived From:
https://www.archdaily.com/60392/ad-classics-solomon-r-guggenheim-museum-
frank-lloyd-wright
Figure 5: Pogrebin, R. (2007, 10 September).The Restorers’ Art of the Invisible. Art&Design.
Retrived From:
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/arts/design/10gugg.html
Figure 6: The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Timeline.(N.D.). Guggenheim.
Retrieved From:
https://www.guggenheim.org/the-frank-lloyd-wright-building/timeline
Figure 7: Jerome, P.& Ayon A. (2008, June). Restoration and facilities enhancement of Frank
Lloyd Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York . News in
Conservation.
Retrived From:
Conservation.
Retrived From:
Conservation.
Retrived From:
Conservation.
Retrived From:

RESTORATION of SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RESTORATION of SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Running Head: RESTORATION of SOLOMON R.

Esma Nur Demir

Abdullah Gul University

Figure 1 Front View Of Gugenheim Museum

Esma Nur Demir, Department of Architecture, Abdullah Gul University

RESTORATION OF SOLOMON R. GUGENHEIM MUSEUM .................................................................................. 3

RESTORATION OF SOLOMON R. GUGENHEIM MUSEUM

Mondrian and Wassily Kandinsky.

Frank Lloyd Wright designed the

museum in 1943 and construction of

building completed in 1959 (Gibson,

2017). In 1990, After thirty-one years

from its construction it is named as an

official New York City landmark.

Now it is the one of the most iconic

Wright did not want to design traditional

museum which people visit space one by

one, instead of that he designed museum

with a continuous ramp which goes from

top to bottom. To achieve that he designed

Figure 3 Interior of Guggenheim Museum

Manhattan where building is always have sharp

edges (“The Frank “, n.d).

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum's outer

pillars consist of white reinforced concrete

cylinders that curl up into the sky. The building,

which is rising, creates a unique atmosphere

History of The Restoration

Figure 5 The Guggenheim undergoing of renovation

Thanhauser Gallery is renovated.In 1975, By Donald E. Freed the driveway converted to a

Foundation/Taliesin Associates Architects to an eight-story tower.

exterior color issues and fenestration upgrade (Pogrebin, 2007).

were based on preservation of original design intent and historic fabric.

Four Interventions at The Guggenheim

By considering established preservation philosophies, recent conservation works at

Guggenheim museum showed up environmental, architectural, structural conservation

recoating, removal of exterior coatings, skylight and window replacement is achieved

Main Restoration Principles

The principles for intervention included:

• retaining original materials;

• retaining changes that occurred over time;

• preserving distinctive features;

• repairing rather than replacing, and replacing in kind if necessary;

• ensuring that treatments are not injurious;

posed by Wright’s building.

Figure 6 Surface Texture and Coating Failures

craftmanship and how Wright was ahead of its time. By

considering these factors, protecting the authenticity of

walls got ahead of the architects first design intent. The

projects structural engineers applied CFRP to only

interior face of the walls to achieve continuity of the

Figure 7 Original Formworks Marks From

for same project was related to the

rainwater protection. During the

documentation process, they find

out that tilted geometry that

uppermost wall has causing the

rainwater to spill over the wall.

This was later causing moisture on

the concrete surfaces and causing

conditions. Because it was going to

require larger size of equipment

project team have decided to first