|
Donald Maurice Kreis
No humanly created object does a better job
of symbolizing Vermont than the State House in Montpelier. Unique
among the nation's state capital buildings, it is nestled against
a verdant hillside - powerful testimony that people cannot outperform
nature but should aspire to harmonize with it. The unabashed classicism
of the building speaks to a sense of Yankee conservatism, and also
fidelity to the democratic principles Americans trace to ancient
Greece.
Closer inspection yields surprises, which also
have symbolic significance. Originally designed in 1838 by Ammi
Burnham Young, the State House burned in 1857 and only Young's portico
remains. The subsequent reconstruction at the threshold of the Civil
War memorializes Vermonters' tenacity. Nearly every state house
has a dome, but only Vermont's is purely vestigial - the dome performs
no function from the perspective of the building's interior - which
says something about Vermont whimsy. Essentially invisible from
the famous Barre granite facade that fronts State Street are three
additions, dating from 1888, 1900 and 1987 - each a pitch-perfect
expression of its architectural era rather than a mere imitation
of the Greek Revival epoch in which Young so successfully labored.
And, a meticulous restoration of the State House's
grand interiors, funded by an alliance of public and private benefactors,
is just now reaching its culmination. A grand unveiling is planned
on October 26. The artisans who participated in the restoration
are the honored guests, a fitting tribute to the virtue of good
work.
People are affected by the buildings they inhabit.
Vermont's legislators work inside a structure that embodies cherished
values like democracy, respect for nature, love of history, humor,
flexibility, creativity and labor. So their legislation tends to
reflect these values, and today Vermont's reverence for civil rights,
equal educational opportunity and the environment is noted around
the world.
So when the time comes to add to the State House,
and thus to append a new expression of Vermont virtues to this great
architectural icon, it is no small or trivial thing.
Late this month, four architectural firms are
scheduled to present their proposals for a State House addition
to a "technical advisory committee," reports David Schutz,
the historic preservationist who serves as the building's fulltime
curator. And that group, in turn, is scheduled to present the four
designs next spring to a committee consisting of the chairs and
vice chairs of the House and Senate institutions committees plus
Commissioner Thomas W. Torti of the Department of Buildings and
General Services. It is that politically-oriented panel that is
charged with recommending one of these designs to the Legislature
for possible construction.
The process, as it has evolved, is cause for
both concern and hope.
First, the concerns. The organizers of this
architectural competition had hoped to attract a world-class architect
to this project, and the word in Vermont architectural circles is
one of disappointment that no such designer emerged. Looking ahead,
the two tiers of committees that must vet the competitors might
be too bureaucratic to allow excellence and innovation to rise through
the hierarchy and reach the Legislature. Process matters when it
comes to public design commissions; it's the difference between
the dynamic and refreshing border station the federal government
has built at Highgate Springs and the boringly mediocre state courthouse
proposed for Rutland.
On the other hand, there is reason to derive
guarded optimism from the list of architectural firms that are competing
for the State House job.
The most famous name on the list is that of
noted preservationist Allan Greenberg from Washington. He is a strident
classicist, calling this age-old style "still the most potent,
the most appropriate, and the most noble language to express the
relationship of the individual to the community in a republican
democracy."
The other non-Vermont firm in the competition
is Finegold Alexander and Associates of Boston. They, too, specialize
in preservation and restoration, with a client list that includes
Harvard, the Ellis Island restoration in New York Harbor and Union
College in Schenectady, where Finegold Alexander restored the school's
signature round building, the Nott Memorial.
The two Vermont firms are more associated with
contemporary design solutions. One is Smith Alvarez Sienkiewycz
of Burlington, architects of the new Center for Lake Champlain now
under construction on the city's waterfront. The other firm is the
Burley Partnership of Waitsfield, which is responsible for designing
the highly contemporary and successful 1987 State House addition.
How interesting that the competition lines up
so starkly, between two non-Vermont firms that will certainly propose
historicist solutions and two local firms that are oriented toward
adding to the State House in a manner that resonates with the past
but strives for an eloquent architecture of the present. The result
of this clash will say much about the Legislature's sense of itself
in relation to the past and the future.
It appears the politicians will be getting good
advice along the way. "As a preservationist, I'm particularly
conscious of wanting to retain the State House's scale, and its
relation to the buildings around it," says Schutz. "We're
looking for out-of-the-ordinary solutions that are going to be sensitive
to the existing State House. . . . It isn't really considered a
good thing to add to a historic building by creating a false history
and repeating the design of the building itself."
Steve Smith, president of Smith Alvarez Sienkiewycz,
speaks highly of the competition as it has unfolded thus far. He's
pleased that all four firms will receive a $10,000 honorarium for
their work, a sum that will barely pay the cost of materials for
the four design models but which at least recognizes that the creative
effort expended on even unsuccessful competition entries has real
value. Smith is excited about what he calls a "huge opportunity,"
but concedes that "one problem is trying to focus on a single
idea" - in order words, to come up with a design proposal -
"without any client contact."
That's the trouble with architectural competitions.
Arguably, it's better to scour the world and find the best available
architect and, only then, to ask the designer to create something
in the context of intense communication and collaboration with the
client. Competitions are premised on the questionable assumption
that by pitting creative minds against one another the best and
brightest ideas will emerge and prevail. Competitions also provide
political cover, because the decisionmakers can point to evidence
of the fairness and openness of their deliberations.
As it is unfolding, the process here seems to
favor The Burley Partnership. Principal Robert Burley is a Fellow
of the American Institute of Architects, which signifies star-quality
achievement. So Burley is a good compromise between those who want
a famous designer and those who think a local architect should get
the job. More importantly, his 1987 State House addition is so good
that it almost makes lunch at the cafeteria, which the addition
houses, worth the trip. The Burley addition is all glass and unadorned
granite, offering an intimate panorama of the hillside behind the
building and with it a placid, meditative feeling that is unprecedented
in a building whose program is really about the pomp and grandeur
of lawmaking.
Burley is also a good compromise between the
modernists and the preservationists. When next in New Hampshire,
check out his library at Colby-Sawyer College in New London. It's
a restored historic barn, but with cuteness wholly abandoned in
favor of an exploration of how timber-framed spaces can be made
to evoke the simplicity and sophistication of contemporary design.
From the public's standpoint, though, the imperative
is not to handicap a winner but to make sure that the Legislature
does what's right. For all its glories, the State House is cramped
and the quality of government is suffering as a result. Prior legislatures
built wisely and courageously in this place, but today public buildings
can too easily end up cheaply done or, worse, descend into superficial
Disney-esque glitz. This is a legislative era typified by great
things, like Vermont's recognition that everyone deserves the benefits
of marriage as well as equal opportunity for a quality public education.
These times deserve an enduring architectural statement at the State
House of comparable quality.
back to top
|
