Serial Art Building Repurposing, Pt. 1
To start: The elevator.
The architects just told me that each stop on an elevator in a repurposed building represents between $20,000 and $30,000. The relationship an individual has with how she moves vertically through a space is important, it's true. As a result of code requirements, financial concerns and "creative architectural problem solving" the elevators of Mass Moca, Dia: Beacon and P.S. 1 play an important role. The result is a staple in art museum building repurposing: the stainless steel elevator intended for both freight and pedestrian use.
The previous shafts for all three museums were pillaged in order to make room for a fancy and resilient stainless upgrade. Not only for safety were the new elevators installed, but also because freight elevators are not compliant with accessibility code (doors must open hot dog, not hamburger by the push of a button). Hence, what with heavy, macho art being hoisted to and fro, all three accessibility elevators double as the museums' freight lifters. This obviously differs from museums that are built out of the box that have ample elevators for passengers and separate freight elevators for personnel to use.
Most of these spaces have at least 4 floor stops amassing what we can assume is at least an $80,000 elevator upgrade per building. Probably more.
Domestic code can be hard to work around, especially because -- let's be honest here -- safety is actually a concern. Is there a way to sidestep this elevator brand when repurposing a space intended for exhibition? The problem is that the elevator sinks its teeth into the idea of legitimacy. Does an institution mess-up that notion by putting an installation inside the elevator (hello P.S. 1)? Or, is there another way to disguise it?
When programming a space that has an intent of displaying art, so many questions need to be answered. How much detritus do we leave around? Do we cover up all of the "character" of the space? What historicity is important?
Are the above questions to be ignored when it comes to issues of building code? Or, is building code a way for architects to insist on their authority?
In the case of MASS MoCA and P.S. 1, the institutions treat the elevator itself as a "piece." It resembles a large SubZero refrigerator on display in the midst of the exhibition as if to communicate that not only is the art expensive, but also is this elevator/appliance.
MASS MoCA:
Notice the rusted arty stylings:
Dia: Beacon, the slightly more subdued:
And P.S. 1:
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Also: I'm sorry for not knowing how to start talking about all of this building stuff and being kind of silent recently. For obvious reasons I've had to be relatively protective because I/we don't know the power of all of it. For the last six months I've spent the majority of my time attempting to understand the problem that has been presented to us by the acquisition. I've been very lost in the obtuse language and practice but am starting to understand slowly how to approach it all within that environment.
One way that we can start to talk about it prematurely is in relation to other models. These programs will differ quite from our plan and missions. However, a common root in re-architecture'd space will tie relationships.