AR / Patrick Doan / Kar je pod površino

Introduction

In 2002, the Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth (or the Modern as it is called in Ft. Worth) located in the museum district of Ft. Worth, Texas, opened to the public. Designed by the Japanese Architect and Pritzker Laureate, Tadao Ando, the new museum was conceived and built to serve as the Modern’s new home; replacing the existing museum building which had become too small to hold the museum’s vast and growing collection.

Situated across the street from the Kimbell Art Museum designed by Louis Kahn, immediate similarities and nods to the Kimbell can be read in the Modern: a relationship of garden to building, galleries planned and articulated in bays, and emphasis placed on the integration of natural light introduced into the gallery spaces through the ceiling and roof structure. Ando’s use of exposed cast-in-place concrete walls are featured prominently within both the conceptual development and the physical realization of the museum, drawing immediate comparisons to the care taken in the design and construction of the Kimbell concrete walls.

However, appearances can be deceiving. A deeper examination into the constructive tale of the Modern reveals that over fifty percent of the form tie holes that articulate the finished face of the exposed concrete walls are cosmetic. They are present only to maintain the visual articulation and continuity of the finished concrete surface and pattern Ando desired, playing no active role in the physical construction of these walls.

In light of this revelation, would Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie be considered a case of architectural blasphemy, where the form tie’s constructive nature is reduced to visual imagery, especially in the face of Kahn, whose presence casts a large and influential shadow on questions surrounding a building’s making? Or could this be a situation where the use of the cosmetic form tie is not about a disregard for ‘constructive honesty’ on Ando’s part, but rather suggests a different sensibility in the consideration of the wall, where surface expression governs.

This paper will address Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie at the Modern examining the significance of the constructive, formal, spatial, and experiential conditions and questions that emerge from its application.

In Situ

The Modern is situated within the museum district of Ft. Worth, Texas, nestled within a dense and rich architectural array of museums and civic institutions that include The Amon Carter Museum of American Art designed by Philip Johnson, the Kimbell Art Museum designed by Louis Kahn with a just recently completed addition designed by Renzo Piano, and the Will Rogers Memorial Center that includes a 2,800 seat auditorium and a contiguous series of exhibit halls that total 94,000 square feet. The Modern is the oldest established museum in Texas chartered in 1892 as the Fort Worth Public Library and Art Gallery. Prior to the commissioning and completion of the museum’s new building by Ando, the Modern’s home was located one block to the southwest of the Kimbell. Its first permanent facility was completed in 1954 and offered 12,000 square feet of exhibition space. Because of its growing and extensive collection, a new museum was needed.1

In 1996 the Modern held an invited competition asking six architects to provide design proposals for a new 150,000 square foot museum. The six invited architects were Tadao Ando, Arata Isozaki, Ricardo Legoretta, Richard Gluckman, Carlos Jimenez, and David Schwarz. Of the six submissions, the jury unanimously selected Ando’s in May of 1997.

Construction began in 2000 and in 2002 the new Modern opened its doors to the public. The Modern sits on an eleven-acre site across the street from the Kimbell Art Museum and provides 53,000 square feet of exhibition space.2

Exposed

On March 2, 2004 a symposium entitled Architectural Concrete — Pursuit of Perfection was held at the University of Texas at Arlington in Arlington, Texas. Organized and moderated by W. Mark Gunderson, AIA — an architect practicing in Fort Worth, Texas — a panel comprised of Fred Langford, consultant to Louis I. Kahn on the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth and the Capital complex at Dacca; Tom Seymour, past president of Thos. S. Byrne, Inc., responsible for the construction of the Kimbell Art Museum from 1969–72; and Paul Sipes, Vice President of Linbeck and Senior Project Manager for the construction of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, discussed how Ando and Kahn considered and used concrete in these two museums.3

It was from this symposium that the use of the cosmetic form tie in the Modern was revealed. Typically, the form tie is considered a constructive necessity to the making of a cast-in-place concrete wall. They work in combination with the formwork system to secure the forming panels in place during the placement and curing of the concrete. The formed holes left in the finish face of the concrete wall is the constructive mark left by the form tie.

The reduction of required form ties was enabled using a wood girder wall formwork system developed by PERI, a provider and manufacturer of concrete formwork and scaffolding systems. The PERI – VARIO GT 24 was the specific system used in forming the concrete walls at the Modern. The strength offered by this formwork system to resist the hydrostatic loads generated during the placement of the concrete allowed for a reduction in the number of form ties necessary to secure and hold the formwork in place.4 To compensate for the reduction of required form ties, and maintain the ordered expression of the wall that Ando desired, the cosmetic form tie, or ‘blind plug’ as the PERI website described them, was introduced — secured to the face of the formwork and designed to match the diameter and depth of the ‘active’ form tie holes.5 Starting from the finish floor every even row of form tie holes is cosmetic in the Modern.6

The ‘active’ form tie openings as well as the cosmetic form tie depressions were sealed and finished with a cementitious grout. The face of the grout was held back from the finish face of the concrete wall one quarter of an inch to provide depth and shadow; bringing emphasis to the pattern the form ties created on the walls surface. Once the wall was completed, it became virtually impossible to distinguish between the two [ 1 ].

In discussing the use of the cosmetic form ties at the Modern, Paul Sipes explained that the primary reason they were considered was to,

“…eliminate a major item that could create a form leak problem and therefore produce a less than desirable concrete. Keeping the ties sealed to prevent concrete leakage at the tie hole location of the formwork is more difficult than keeping the formed corners from leaking. The eliminating of a process not needed to produce the result and increase the quality of the concrete was readily accepted by the project team. It did cost less to install the dummies, and the formwork was assembled in less time.”7

Sipes noted that in conversations regarding the concrete walls, Ando’s primary focus was on the finish of the concrete. He wanted to achieve and maintain a continuity of surface that minimized both pour and form panel lines left by the formwork. Ando was not concerned over the type of ‘active’ form ties specified or the use of the cosmetic form tie, only that what was used would provide the diameter of the form tie hole he desired and that their spacing and arrangement was in keeping with his design intentions.

It was during the initial construction phase of the Modern that the use of the cosmetic form tie was discussed as a viable option. During this time, Sipes was in consultation with PERI in the design and development of the shop drawings for the formwork system. Ando was aware of and approved the use of cosmetic form ties.8

It should also be noted that the use of the cosmetic form tie is not unique to the Modern or Ando’s work. The Pulitzer Arts Foundation in St. Louis, Missouri completed in 2001 and the Langen Foundation in Neuss-Hombroich, Germany completed in 2004 are two examples of other buildings of his that have integrated the use of the cosmetic form tie in the casting of the concrete walls. The PERI system was used in the forming of the concrete walls for these museums as well.9

Commenting on Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie at the Modern, Fred Langford mused at how Kahn may have reacted to its consideration:

“One afternoon we were walking with Dr. Salk and his son through the courtyard and talking about this very subject. "Well, we've got to plug these things with something unusual," and so the kid said, "How about gold?" We used to repeat that story. To continue with what I learned today at the Modern, I didn't know that every other row was a dummy set. We never used any dummies. Kahn would do back flips if you put a dummy in. He would say, “We'll find another way. Find another expression." If you don't need the tie in there, then don't use it.”10

Kahn and the Kimbell

Across the street at the Kimbell, a similar constructive tale pertaining to the expression of structural verse formal expression was played out during the design of the north and south exterior elevations [ 2 ]. In recounting the development of these elevations, Marshall Meyers, Kahn’s project architect for the Kimbell, explained that Kahn called for a piece of glass, called a lunette, to be placed between the concrete cycloid shaped diaphragm (the thickened end of the concrete cycloid vault) and the travertine infill wall to make a clear separation and distinction between the building’s structure and the non-bearing walls. According to Komendant’s initial design, the diaphragm was to maintain a uniform depth of twelve inches. The glass lunette Kahn proposed was to maintain a uniform depth of six inches.

As the project developed a structural revision to the diaphragm made by Komendant changed its depth so that only at the apex of the cycloid vault did the diaphragm need to be thickened to twelve inches. The remainder of the diaphragm could taper in depth. Komendant took the position that this was the correct visual expression of these structural forces. Kahn saw this issue differently and was insistent that the diaphragm maintain its uniform depth of twelve inches. As Meyers points out,

“…to Kahn, this absolute expression of a minor structural condition was not his inclination. He preferred to express the more general aspect of a structural member rather than every nuance. As an example, he would design cantilevered concrete beams with a constant height for the full length rather than reduce the beam’s section the farther it cantilevered.”11

While Kahn was determined on changing Komendant’s mind, it was Komendant who prevailed in the end. Responding to this new structural condition Kahn kept the glass lunette in place and allowed it to follow the tapering profile of the diaphragm. The lunette became the mediator between the formal expression of the non- bearing walls and the structural expression of the diaphragm [ 3 ]. Meyers noted that this type of detailing, which was so unlike Kahn, “generated great attention in the completed building and was a superb demonstration of his artistry.”12

What this tale from the Kimbell helps to illustrate is that Ando is not alone in trying to manage and balance the challenges of technological and constructive demands with structural and formal expression — a line that is (literally and metaphorically) not always so clearly or easily defined and asking the questions: at what point in the architect’s decision making are certain architectural conditions selected to be expressed, concealed, or even engaged cosmetically? To what scale are these decisions scrutinized and acted upon?

Mistaken Identity

On the surface, the revelation of Ando’s use of the cosmetic form tie appears to be at odds with a body of work that seems to favor tectonic expression demonstrated through the masterful use of exposed cast-in-place concrete. By allowing the form tie to become a ‘negotiable’ condition within the making of the wall brings this perceived tectonic position into question. Underlying Ando’s work might be an inherent preference for the (a)tectonic – a position that may have always been present yet overshadowed by his use of exposed concrete. The concession of the form tie becomes a silent admittance to the desire of maintaining and favoring surface over the ‘honesty’ of constructive expression or technological advancements.

In writing about architecture’s constructive nature, Ando is careful to point out that it is the architect who must control how technology is considered and folded into their work. A point he articulates in the following passage from his essay, The Traces of Architectural Intentions:

“I believe it is important to be sensitive to the weight, hardness, and texture of materials and to have an intuitive grasp on the technical limits in their fabrication. Above all, the architect must define his own vision with respect to technology. Without precise individual aims, the architect will become subject to the economic logic and banal conventions that dominate technology. Technology is nothing more than knowledge. The architect’s intentions and ideas control knowledge; these are more essential.”13

Ando’s use and deep understanding of a select material palate, comprised primarily of concrete and glass, helps to bring an acute awareness and focus to his crafting of spatial conditions and building details. The ordering and rhythm of the panel impressions and form tie holes left in the concrete wall establish a measured order and a scaled relationship of the formed spaces to the human body. The dense opaque boundaries that define the exterior walls provides a backdrop for an inward focused orchestration of spatial relationships, sequences, and encounters. Walls of concrete and glass frame, bound, and filter, bringing into focus and intensifying the experience of place through the lens of architectural space. The surface and order of the wall establishes a continuity of architectural thought Ando iteratively maintains from one building to the next. It could be speculated that the opportunity to change both the formal and constructive composition of the wall through a technological advancement in formwork would compromise his larger vision [ 4 ].

“I attempt to use a modern material – concrete and, specifically, concrete walls – in simplified forms to realize a kind of space that is possible because I am Japanese. This rests on a simple aesthetic awareness cultivated in me as a Japanese person. It seems to me that at present, concrete is the most suitable material for realizing spaces created by rays of sunlight. But the concrete I employ does not have plastic rigidity or weight. Instead, it must be homogeneous and light and must create surfaces. When they agree with my aesthetic image, walls become abstract, are negated, and only the space they enclose gives a sense of really existing. Under these conditions, volume and projected light alone float into prominence as hints of the spatial composition.”14

Seen in this light, the word cosmetic seems an apt way of describing Ando’s walls. While cosmetic deals with surface, its etymological roots are found in cosmos – “an ordered and harmonious system of ideas, existences, etc., e.g. that which constitutes the sum- total of ‘experience.’”15 His treatment of the wall surface begins to suggest a painterly sensibility where surface depth, color, geometry, and order define and govern the walls physical and formal presence and attributes. Ando’s sensibilities could be compared to those of the American artist, Donald Judd:

“There is also, of course wholeness and unity of Judd’s art itself, both in individual pieces and in the entirety of the work. For Judd, art was a totality, and to be this it had to be clear, with things resolved, and put together in a clear and exact way. (He would be compulsive about detail, and I remember trying to persuade him, to no avail, that it was probably impossible to join one-ton slabs of concrete in the Marfa field without a seam showing.)”16

Detailed Consideration

Edward Ford writes in his book, The Architectural Detail, that,

“The good detail is not consistent, but non-conforming; not typical, but exceptional; not doctrinaire, but heretical; not the continuation of an idea, but its termination, and the beginning of another.”17

What could be taken away from Ford’s words is that a condition such as the cosmetic form tie can stand as a detailed counter point within an architectural work, running contrary to building conventions and at times not bringing about a desired harmonic resolution. A dissonance emerges in the play between the formal, constructive, and performative forces coupled with architectural desires and intent. It is in these detailed struggles where the architect’s true position is revealed.

If Ando had not built next door to Kahn, perhaps this question surrounding his use of the cosmetic form tie would not resonant so deeply (at least with this author) and might have otherwise been seen more as a construction anomaly in his other buildings. The initial knee-jerk reaction to blasphemy and deception especially in the presence of Kahn gives way to a surprisingly more empathic reading and consideration of its use. The cosmetic form tie is not a technicality, technological residue, or a victim of value engineering or indifference. Rather its use is intentional and controlled; asserting a position rooted within an (a)tectonic expression of an enveloping spatial totality. For Ando the cosmetic form tie’s presence resonates at all scales; revealing that it does matter and is consequential — offering another lens in which to view and consider Ando’s work.

“Details express what the basic idea of the design requires at the relevant point in the object: belonging or separation, tension or lightness, friction, solidity, fragility…. Details, when they are successful, are not mere decoration. They do not distract or entertain. They lead to an understanding of the whole of which they are an inherent part.”18