NORTH CAROLINA MUSEUM OF ARTTHOMAS PHIFER + PARTNERS

Report by Lucas Glissendorf and Alev Demirel

“For so long, buildings were brutal. They cut people off from nature. What we want to do is to open that experience up to the changing atmosphere of the light, the changing seasons, the changing time, so that you think time through changing light. It really is all about the light, and how to get people to be a part of their own environment.”

- Thomas Phifer, Architect Magazine, 2007

In addition to his convictions regarding people’s connection to the natural environment, Thomas Phifer’s work embodies a sensitivity to light and an architecture produced by simple gestures. Phifer takes the position that “simplicity leads to economy, efficiency, and improved performance.” A graduate of Clemson University, Phifer moved to New York and went to work for Gwathmey Siegel and Associates as an apprentice, before taking up a long stint with Richard Meier and Partners (many of his latter years as a senior partner). Phifer established his own practice in New York in 1996. He cites his experience working on buildings in Europe as a primer for his attitude for the importance of environmental factors - especially natural light - in design. “The laws there require you to put people close to windows so that they can get natural light and natural ventilation.” Phifer advocates for a collaboative design process that engages multidisciplinary practitioners, from engineers to ecological scientists, even manufacturers. He cites this collaborative appraoch as one of the most important factors driving the success of the North Carolina Museum of Art. (Mays 2007).

Firm Profile:

Thomas Phifer and PartnersNew York, New YorkEst. 19964 Directors4 Associate Directors4 Associates

Market Sectors/Building Types:Corporate OfficeResidentialInstitutionalHigher Education

Notable Projects:Boulder HouseClemson University Lee Hall ExpansionRice University Borchstein PavillionSteelcase Office BuildingUnited States Courthouse, Salt Lake City

The North Carolina Museum of Art certainly exemplifies Phifer’s interest in the use of light. The project also illustrates his commitment to multidisciplinary collaboration.

The original museum gallery occupied a brutalist building directly south east of where the new building was to be constructed. Lawrence Wheeler, director of the museum, described a vision for the new building as one that “called for a light-filled building open to the surrounding landscape and free to the public, in which art would be presented in a less constricted environment than the existing building allowed.” (Hart 2010). He cites the institutions “democratic values” as a major driver in the conception of a new art building that is open, light-filled, and connected to the landscape (Minutillo 2010). Phifer describes the vision as one for “a beautiful environment for experiencing the museum’s diverse collection of art, both in galleries and out in the landscape.” One architectural critic for Architecture Magazine cites Phifer’s southern roots as an influence in his desire to acknowledge the region’s historic attachment to the landscape, “designing a museum that would be an iconinc landmark for the state without overwhelming the site’s established identity” (Hart 2010). Phifer has cited Louis Kahn’s Kimbell Arts Museum, and its ability to bring large amounts of diffuse, natural light in to the galleries, as a major inspiration for the museum.

Phifer’s concept for the new museum included a large rectangle to be penetrated by smaller rectangles that would allow the surrounding park to infiltrate the building. These penetrations would include sculpture courtyards, reflecting pools, and gardens. Window walls would allow views from interior galleries to art installations outside, achieving “liberal access in and out” (Hart 2010). Additional decisive elements of the design include massive aluminum panels, arranged like pleats, that clad the precast concrete wall panels of the steel frame structure, and an array of coffered skylights that bathe the galleries in controlled naturally light. The exhibition galleries were planned as to not follow any explicitly controlled path, rather, the open floor plan allows visitors to weave throughout the galleries freely (Minutillo 2010).

Digital sketch models of the North Carolina Museum of Art

In order to achieve the desired openness of the floor plan, the building was constructed of a steel frame serving as the primary structure. Most of the interior gallery walls are entirely free from any primary structural loads. In fact, many of them do not even reach the ceiling, rather, they are left open.

At the envelope of the building, precast concrete panels are attached to the primary steel frame structure. Those panels are clad with anodized aluminum panels which measure 5 feet 2 inches by 24 feet per panel, the largest alumi-num panels fabricated in the U.S. at the time the museum was being built. The aluminum panels overlap at an angle. A highly polished, stainless steel insert occupies the resulting gaps between the aluminum. This detail reflects sun’s rays on to the adjacent panel. Without such a detail, the wall would appear monolithic and impenetrable, rather than appearing dematerialized as reflections of the natural context dance across the surfaces of the aluminum (Hart 2010).

Plumbing and Circulation Plans at 1/64” = 1’

The composite wall section results in an exterior wall that is 2 feet thick. This thickness in-cludes rigid insulaiton behind the cladding and a cavity between the precast concrete panel and the interior wall. Conditioned air is pumped through the cavity and supplied to the galler-ies at the ceiling. Exhaust air is returned near the floor (Hart 2010). Air is circulated throughout the building via plenums in the interior wall cavities, again with supply occuring above the occupants and return happening near the floor. The ductwork runs beneath the floor of the museum.

Additionally, the building’s 362 iconic oval-shaped coffered skylights are integreated in the the primary structural sys-tem as well. Waves of louvers on the roof allow only indirect (northern) light to enter the insulated skylights, set deep into the molded coffers. The skylights form oval oculi which are covered by protective fabric scrims. The gently curv-ing coffers prevent shadows, causing the art to seemingly emerge from the walls and pedestals into high relief.

Since UV light degrades pigments and textiles over time, Phifer created a lighting budget not defined by cost, but by how many hours over the course of a year artwork can safely be exposed to natural light. Using Rhino and complex com-putations, Phifer, engineers at Arup, and a local boat builder (advising on resin technologies for the fiberglass vaults) col-laborated for more than 18 months on the coffers, produc-ing nearly 100 computer-generated models. As a result, the deep oval-shaped fiberglass coffers direct tempered light downward, through lighweight, interchangible fabric scrims that filter the light.

In addition to the coffers, the glass curtain walls are fritted to keep out UV rays while allowing visible light to flood galleries. 50% of the gallery lighting is natural daylight. Pho-tocells mounted on the roof track cloud over the sky condi-tions, raising and lowering mechanically controlled shades accordingly (Hart 2010).

Aluminum panels Precast concrete Primary steel frame

Secondary roof structure

Fiberglass coffered skylights

Fabric scrims

Additionally, the building’s electric lighting and sprinkler systems are integrated in to the coffered ceiling system. Track lighting occupies the obtuse edge where the coffers meet. The sprinklers are laced between the coffers. Both inverentions are extremely discrite.

A thoughtful and rigorous approach to systems integration allowed Thomas Phifer to maintain the open, light filled, democratic space with connections to the natural environment that he and the client, Lawrence Wheeler, desired. In doing so, Phifer created a seemingly boundless field that blends in to the landscape, one that museum visitors can wander through at their own disclosure. Though the structure itself is extremely simple, the detailing and commitment to integration helps Phifer achieve a high level of clarity and sophistication.

References

Hart, S. (2010). North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, N.C. Architect (Washington, D.C.), July v. 99, n.7, p. 69-76

Minutillo, J. (2010). Shedding Light: North Carolina Museu of Art. Architectural Record, July, v.198, n.7, p. 61-69.

Mays, V. (2007). Everything is illuminated: Thomas Phifer and Partners. Architect (Washington D.C.), Apr., v.96, n.4, p. 78-85