The Prado Museum Extension. Rafael Moneo. 1996-2007 A review by Juan Ramón Cárceles Román

SUMMARY

Introduction 4 PART 1. THE NEW EXTENSION 1. The context 6

2. The program 9 PART 2. PERSONAL REVIEW 1. The intervention in an overview approach 11

1.1. General configuration 12

1.2. Public space 12

1.3. The triangular rooftop garden 13

2. The main building and the existing cloister 14

2.1. Embracing the cloister 14

2.2. The skylight 16

2.3. A compact and closed volume 17

2.4. Materiality 17

2.5. The door? 18

3. Circulation spaces and internal organization 20

3.1. General distribution of the complex 20

3.2. Inside the new box 21

3.3. The exhibition rooms 22

4. Conclusions 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY 26 CREDITS 27

4

Introduction In the following pages I’m going to talk about the new extension to the Prado Museum in Madrid by the spanish architect Rafael Moneo. During all the text the old building by Juan de Villanueva and all his previous extensions will be left as undertone, and just in the issue of the entrances I will treat the whole. This project of extension for the renowed museum has been a very debated work, as it is the relevance of the place of intervention. It is a work that have had as its maximum a research to a good integration with the context, of which will be obligued to take care even in a big scale, understanding with sensibility the tissues of the city, the connexions, flows, landmarks and masses that demand the site. This essay means to critically analyse the project, in terms of relation to the existing and on the new itself. To do this, the structure of the essay is divided into two parts:

− PART 1. THE NEW EXTENSION: treats specifically of the project. It consists of a presentation of the situation going on when the project was undertaken as well as its requirements, and is divided into two chapters: The context and The program;

− PART 2. PERSONAL REVIEW: consists of an analysis of the project, both as a whole and as independent elements through different aspects. This part is divided into four chapters: The intervention on a urban scale look, The main building and the existing cloister, Circulation spaces and internal organization and Conclusions.

5

PART 1. THE NEW EXTENSION

6

1. The context The architecture of Moneo has always impressed me for its serenity, and I think it’s possible to say without going wrong that one of its main characteristics is the rightness and timelessness of his works, which don’t follow tendencies and that seem to be always current. Making difference from other great architects nowadays. Since its creation in 1819, the Prado Museum has been subjected to a number of extensions, but never before of this range. This comission has been the biggest one of them, due to the claims of the organization of the museum of a need for more spaces. The proposal of the extension was bringed to an international contest for first time in 1995, but after a number of problems, the contest reached a stalemate phase until 2001 when it reappears with a more defined bases about the area of extension. It sets the integration with important surrounding buildings of the museum, really apreciated by the inhabitants of the city, as the church of the Jerónimos and its cloister (Figure 1.1.1), which gets completely embedded in the new area of extension; as well as the coformation of a new museological campus including the Casón and the Salón de Reinos which are isolated buildings placed little beyond, old vestiges of the Palacio del Buen Retiro. Due to the difficult context and the relevance of the intevention, an important action in the definition of the bases of the contest was set by the minister of culture and the Archbishopric of Madrid. This was accompained also by some other number of later pressures, and even the final solution was subjected to some suggestion of the jury.

7

«The greatest freedom arises from the greatest rigour», quotation of Paul Valéry that Rafael Moneo uses when referring to this project. All this sets a clear view of the difficulties and pressures around this work, which has generated a big debate. In the end all this factors gived shape to the final configuration of the winnig proposal of Moneo, of which I’m going to talk about.

Figure 1.1.1 This photograph shows the state of the Prado Museum in the beginning of the 1990. In the back it is visible the Jerónimos church and its cloister. Photograph by Octavio Mestre Arquitectos.

8

2. The program The new area embodies 15.715 square meters of surface, which is an increase of more than a 50% to the existing. This provides a better organization of the different public services and fuctions related with the exhibition and conservation of the collections of the muesum. This new wing for the Prado, as the bases of the contest established, would help to liberate the old building from some secondary servicies, allowing it to gain more area for permanent exibitions of its collections, as well as essential new services as the Educational Area to have an appropiate location. Before, whenever an exhibition went up, some of the permanent collection had to come down, as well as uncomfortable problems as galleries becaming storage rooms. The program of the extension provides a new entrance which leads into a main lobby unifying a big added area with the old Velázquez entrance hall (1.609,17 m2) and where are also placed the visitor service areas as the café, the shop and some information points (782,75 m2). In the same floor, moving away from the former building is located the new auditorium and conference room (457,74 m2) and beyond reaching the new building are located the temporary exhibition rooms (1.389,92 m2), which are sidelong conected by a pair of scalators to the upper levels where is located as traditionally the cloister of the Jeronimos, used now as an exposing space for sculptures (524,57 m2). In the last levels as well as vertically hidden in the opposite side are the restoration workshops (831,98 m2) a drawing and engraving office (230,58 m2) and some repository for the artworks (1.111,51 m2). An extension program of such qualities, in my opinion plays against a

9

museological interest of the proposal, and is as an important conditionant and one of the biggest reasons that made the project become a lot of square meters of architecture in comparation to the ones of exhibition.

10

PART 2. PERSONAL REVIEW

11

1. The intervention in an overview approach The museum extension is developed between the rear facade of the museum and the closer Church of the Jeronimos and is composed by a set of volumes. An intervetion that seems to get shaped from adapting each part to its own circumstances. The main new building is set as a giant and autonomous cube in the neighbourghood, with a big staircase in the facade playing an independent role to reach the entrance of the nearby church. Also a triangular landscaped platform just on the rear of the existing museum covers the new entrance hall as well as other facilities (Figure 2.1.1).

Figure 2.1.1 Volumetry and decomposicion, from www.plataformaarquitectura.cl

12

1.1. General configuration As a first aproach it seems like a group of different interventions, which in my opinion is extrange in a project of this relevance. A design as unitarian action, more related with the existing would have been really apreciate and definitely more interesting at least at first sight. With the fact of conforming a recognizable new extension as a whole I mean the fact of clearly had design it with more personal lines that define the intervention as one gesture. Eventhough in this case it is understandable the hazard of acting this way beacuse of the sacred context where is placed and which should be respected in many different ways. That’s why I don’t want to go on with such kind of critics by this fact, as I have heard and read a lot of them. I better prefer to try to understand and learn from it and the reasons it had to work this way, such as the evident behaviour of complete respect for the context and an inconspicuous role on each of its parts (Figure 2.1.2). 1.2. Public space One of the great features of the intervention is the new external public area for which Moneo gives a great solution. Starting from a

Figure 2.1.2 Prado Museum extention site plan drawing. Author, Rafael Moneo, from www.arcspace.com

13

reorganization of the flows of traffic, which after getting redirected behind the block of the cloister and the church allows the birth of a pedestrian area of connection between the two buildings, as well as a more dignified front for the church. This new public space for the city helps also to dignify the rear facade of the old museum, which had been forgotten for years due to a bad programmed number of extensions, which always had leaved it with a scondary role as instalation areas. With this change it returns to life, reconciling itself with the city. 1.3. The triangular rooftop garden This element is in my opinion another succesfull feature of the new museological area, which plays an important role in the exterior image of the whole, fitted seamlessly into the streetscape, and planted with handsome box hedges. It is a great solution because with a simple gesture solves the thorny problem of how to shoehorn various basic services underground and behind the old building, as are the hall, the shop and the restaurant among others, as well as offering a new urban landscape perspective as a reinterpretation of the gardens of the XVIII century, and melting it with the old and closer Real Jardín Botánico of Madrid (Figure 2.1.3). A blunder is that despite its good mentioned image its functionality is reduced, which is tried to be solve in a poor design of paths that lead into nowhere. As Moneo says «This terrace has some of what was the first topographical condition of the Prado, when the museum was literally embedded from the Jardín del Buen Retiro until the Paseo del Prado»10.

10 A. Astorga, «No era ocasión de hacer un edificio a la mayor gloria del arquitecto»,

ABC especial, El Prado del siglo XXI, OCTOBER 2007, p. 8-9.

Figure 2.1.3 Schematic representation of the integration of the green area.

14

2. The main building and the existing cloister The main building is configured by simple lines as a display of different elements, like the colonnade in front of a glazed surface, the monumental door and an attached staircase, which thanks to the alineation of its facade with the one of the church, allows to reach easily its entrance level (Figure 2.2.1). 2.1. Embracing the cloister It is designed around a very important element of the surroundings, the existing arches of the old cloister near the church, which as the bases of the contest set, was obligued to be imbibed in the new extension. As a central piece to be considered, it clearly generates the main lines of the building, creating a cubical volume with an embraced L brick mass, this geometrical configuration is hardly to be detected from the street. On an approach to the exterior view of the specific volume that involves the cloister, it is visible how the intention has been to effectively differentiate it by the material, using the stone, as well as giving a gesture to recognize the existence of it from the exterior, creating the

Figure 2.2.1 Schematic representation of the volume with its main and representative parts.

15

arch shaped openings (Figure 2.2.2). It makes me suggest that a more daring action like leaving it to a more clear view from the exterior, and consequently puting it more in relation with the city – as it had been for so long – could have been really interesting and valued. On the other hand, it is true that with this solution the new extension has a complete respect for the cloister, molding itself until a perfect adaptation. The design is developed all around of it as if the arches became a big feature of the exibition in the interior. It is not the first time that the architect works in realtion with heritage remains, as he had great expirience particulary from the project of the Roman Art Museum of Mérida, where – altough not the same situation – the Museum was softly set above the ancient rests to create the internal exhibition space as well as giving shelter to them. Eventhough his experience, in this case Moneo received big critics by the fact of devoting the space of the cloister to an expositive use, accusing him of creating a narrow and claustrophobic space, with which I disagree (Figure 2.2.3).

Figure 2.2.2 Frontal view of the limit between the new volume and the church, one of the few points where is visible the volume that wraps the cloister. Photograph by Thomas Mayer, from www.arcspace.com

Figure 2.2.3 View of the interior exhibition space of the cloister. From, www.museodelprado.es

16

2.2. The skylight One of the important aspects is the central void in the new cloister rooms, which crossing three levels allows the natural light arrive until the underground galleries (Figure 2.2.4). This is maybe one of the most succesful and intelligent gestures on the design of the new museum extension, as it reduces the enclosing sensation of the galleries underground. Moneo has always a special paper for light on his projects as happens in a similar situation in the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. In this project the architect demonstrate his high sensibility with the use of natural light allowed him to win the contest. The element for the entrance of light itself has again a central presence, squared skylights that create independent spaces (Figure 2.2.5). Also in this museological project the already mentioned fact of respect for historic buildings, as the museum stands close to some on the surroundings but without trying to stand out from them.

Figure 2.2.5 Section of the exhibition rooms with its corresponding skylight. Moderna Museet, Stockholm, 1991-1998. Rafael Moneo.

Figure 2.2.4 View of the interior mid level exhibition room with the crossig skylight. From www.museodelprado.es

17

2.3. A compact and closed volume The building presents to the exterior a very much enclosed appearence, which mades it in some way seem too abstract. Reinforced by the only main glazed surface situated rear the colums on the facade, wich allows to see from the exterior part of the restored arches. I think that may be the fact of leaving almost closed to the exterior the treasure of the old cloister, just showing a little to a vivid eye, is an aspect poorly exploited from the reserved exterior. In this aspect I think is interesting to see one of the other proposals which where presented to the contest in which the cloister remain visible to the city as a landmark (Figure 2.2.6). Of course the solution of Moneo developed vertically and completely embracing it has the advantage of a good preservation of this piece of national patrimony. 2.4. Materiality The materials used, clearly representative of the exterior of the building (Figure 2.2.7), are part of the usual repertory of Moneo’s works, specially the brick used for example in the already mentioned masterpiece Museum of Roman Art of Mérida as well as in the Bankinter building also in Madrid. In the last one the use of the brick mixed also with a strong geometry gives to it an important presence. It represents also a curious and similar aspect including in the same plot of the project an old building of the XIX century, which seems to be at the

Figure 2.2.6 Proposal for the first contest by the venezuelan architect, Oscar Tenreiro, 1995. Despite the inapropiate huge volume in the middle, on the left we can se a flat development around the cloister, leaving it self visible.

18

end source of insipartion for Moneo (Figure 2.2.8). As well as in the case of the brick, the predominant presence of Colmenar stone – granite – and bronze gets a special meaning acting as a linking strategy, as we can read confrontating it with the constructive qualities of the primitive fabric of the former museum building of Villanueva, and which I think is right as a response allowing dialogue between them, instead of compete. Also as an isolated new piece in the urban scene the use of this materiality, added to the already commented clear lines of the volume, gives to it a relevant presence in the context, while not being silent nor calling the attention it presents a sober nature.

2.5. The door? One special feature of the exterior of the building is the big door in the facade, opening to the new public urban space in which acts as a theatrical flourish. This entrance is like a hoax, because it has a strange role in terms of access points and circulation, even worse it helps to desorientate the visitors, and the fact is that according to the architect the idea was to create just a ceremonial entrance. It is the creation of a fake, and in fact giving more redundance to the uselessness of the entrace it

Figure 2.2.8 Bankinter, Madrid, 1972-1977. Rafael Moneo with Ramón Bescós

Figure 2.2.7 View from the new square to the brick and stone volume. Photograph by Roland Halbe, from an article of Igor Maglica.

19

was decored with a pair of luxuriant and monumental bronze doors molded as thickets of vines, made as an especial comission of the architect to the spanish sculptress Cristina Iglesias, remains of the first and more daring proposal (Figure 2.2.9). The doors move by themselfs regularly during the day, as a part of a continuous performance that in my opinion looks to interact with the public in a poor way.

Figure 2.2.9 Frontal view of the doors from the square, as they are in one of the four different positions that take during the day, to interact with the public in the exterior.

20

3. Circulation spaces and internal organization 3.1. General distribution of the complex Which is also relevant to put on the table, as maybe one of the successful topics of the new extension is the issue of the entrances to the museum, the project add to the current situation two new rear entrances which lead stright into the large looby. This area besides providing the main facilities for the visitors, also connects the two buildings, reviving the use of the main traditional entrance of the Villanueva building, the Velázquez door which is located in the main facade (Figure 2.3.1). The discussion around the topic of the entrances is not a new one and has never achieved a clear solution. since the main entrance was displaced to the Goya door in the northern facade. By a conjunction of existing and new spaces, in a cross action that goes through the old building, allows a great interaction with the existing central basilical room as a mid transition space, giving a sense to the whole. The new use of this particular space, with

Figure 2.3.1 Schematic general distribution of the floor plan extension, highlighting the succesful aspect of the relation with the existing building, reviving the main entrance as well as giving an important role to the central basilical room.

21

its strategic location in the center, setting it free from the function of assembly hall to become a new space for the public – the Musas Space – makes an interesting public area as first place to welcome in the museum, becoming the axis of the new distribution. 3.2. Inside the new box The circulation spaces, as the functional distribution, are quite easy to understand, giving response to simple connection ideas, maybe its main inconvenience in circulation terms is the steep and narrowness of the double scalators that connect the three public levels of the new building, and which lead the visitors straight into the eastern facade with a forced gesture due to the immovable cloister. This is strictly related to another disappointing aspect, which is the use of the different levels of the new building, despite is true that the program for the extension did not include so much exhibition square meters, – as has already been said the idea was to liberate the former building of secondary functions – their concentration is mostly in the lower levels if not underground, in particular from the minus one level until the first, while the last ones, although is true that are smaller, are for other private uses (Figure 2.3.2). What I want to argue may be is more clear looking at the section, as we can understand easily that the major reason of the distribution is due to the gap between the two and the consequent purpose to establish a direct connection with the current main level of the exhibition

Figure 2.3.2 Schematic section of the intervention in wich are represented the exhibition areas – orange –and the restoration ones – pink –. This organization is one of the most conditioned aspects by the program of the extension.

22

rooms in the museum as well as the new hall. I think that a more high internal distribution could have helped to reach a major implication wiht the arches as well as the advantage of the use of more natural light and great views to the old building of Villanueva and the new external public area of connexion. 3.3. The exhibition rooms The few spaces intended for the display of artworks, eventhough it’s true that were requiered to be projected in terms of pure flexibility to hold temporary displays, are quite insipid, with no special interest. Also the already commented lack of natural light in the lower rooms due to its verticality and enclosure

from the exterior, is one of the main disadvantages, eventhough is true that nowadays use to be more requested museums with closed rooms that avoid completely the natural light, leaving it to a complete controlled use of the artificial light. The feature of the vertical crossing lantern already

Figure 2.3.3 Temporary exhibition «El joven Van Dyck» in the lower room of the extension, 2012. From Jesús Moreno & Asociados www.jmasoc.com

Figure 2.3.4 View of the lower room. The skylight has a great impact in the interior mood of the room. Photograph by Thomas Mayer, from www.arcspace.com

23

commented – 2.1 The skylight – is really appreciated, also as a visual connection through the rooms of the building, leading from the lower rooms to the heart of the building, the room conformed by the cloister, which is used for a permanent display of the sculptures of Leone Leoni, and in my opinion is the most succesful interior space (Figure 2.3.5), with its double height and uniform natural illumination gives a breathe of peace to the visitor, offering a nice place to rest. It also allows visibility through the arches to the upper levels where are set other functions, creating an interacction with other activites that are carried out in the museum.

Figure 2.3.5 View of the interior exhibition space of the cloister. From, www.wikipedia.com

24

4. Conclusions This project of museum extension of Moneo for me is mainly undersood as an intervention with a high concern for the existing context, due to the difficult position it takes between two heavyweights of the city of Madrid as are the Prado Museum and the church of the Jeronimos, with whom is obliged to deal with, taking a position of respect and subordination, more than trying to compete. Despite the architectural low creativeness and inovation arguments with whom had been criticized the intervention, for not representing any vanguard work of architecture I would like to give more value to it, understanding it as humility respect gesture for a national symbol, and while recognizing that on the one hand maybe is true that it was easy to expect more from the spanish master due to his experience and the budget of the project, I really apreciate it for being a piece of mature architecture, with logic and without big fuss, understanding it as a subtlety and anonymous act, that’s not easy at all to be done in an age of great mad designs. On the words of the master: «It is not a project that makes from the personal expression its flag, It has been a research on the tone that had to have the extension, to maintain the integrity and the identity of the Villanueva building as well as to improve the existing conditions»11. Definitely I can say that despite not being a represetnative work of the master, with a low relevance in terms of museum interior spaces, as he himself has recognized for different reasons. It presents another great

11 A. Astorga, «No era ocasión de hacer un edificio a la mayor gloria del arquitecto»,

ABC especial, El Prado del siglo XXI, OCTOBER 2007, p. 8-9.

25

example in his career of his peculiar style that aims for a new classicism and creates timeless spaces that stand out for being austere, promising to endure for a long time without resenting from its construction or being out of fashion.

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY AA.VV., Museo del Prado. Propuestas presentadas al concurso internacional de arquitectura del Museo del Prado. Catálogo de la Exposición, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Área de Cultura, Madrid 1996. AA.VV., Rafael Moneo 1967-2004: El Croquis, Monografía, El Croquis Editorial, Modena, Madrid 2004. ASTORGA, Antonio, «No era ocasión de hacer un edificio a la mayor gloria del arquitecto», ABC especial, El Prado del siglo XXI, OCTOBER 2007, p. 8-9. Museo Nacional del Prado, Web Site, www.museodelprado.es «La ampliación». MARTÍNEZ GARCÍA, Alberto «Ampliación del Museo del Prado de Madrid / Rafael Moneo», www.plataformaarquitectura.cl, 29/DECEMBER/2008, Published in the categories: Museos y Bibliotecas, España, Madrid, Rafael Moneo. «Prado Museum Extension», www.arcspace.com, 27/OCTOBER/2008, Published in the categories: Rafael Moneo, Spain, Cultural, Extention / Redesign.

27

CREDITS Roman Art Museum, Mérida, Spain, Rafael Moneo. 1980-1985 Bankinter. Madrid, España, Rafael Moneo y Ramón Bescós. 1972-77 New Atocha Station, Madrid. Spain, Rafael Moneo. 1985-1988 Museum of Modern Art, Stockholm. Sweden, Rafael Moneo. 1991-1998