Architecture or Sculpture? Case Study of the Roof and Skylight Replacement on the Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY

Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Baskaran and Ko – 139
Architecture or Sculpture? Case Study of
the Roof and Skylight Replacement on
the Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY
Roof Consultants Institute
Dennis C. Spina, AIA
Bell & Spina, P.C. Architects – Planners
Syracuse, New York
ABSTRACT
The Everson Museum of Art was designed by I.M. Pei in 1965 and occupied
in 1968. When it opened it was (and still is) considered a work of art in itself.
It is perceived as a piece of sculpture placed on a podium that one walks
around. Indeed, one of the comments often heard is that it’s difficult to find
the entrance – almost forcing visitors to walk around it to experience the
structure. ( Architectural Forum – June 1969.)
By 2002, the museum had a long history of water infiltration. Bell & Spina
was retained to design the replacement of the roofing and skylight systems.
What we thought would be a rather straightforward project turned into a twoyear
study to “do the right thing” for this landmark building, the museum,
and its collection. This is a case study of the technical exploration to solve a
number of waterproofing issues, along with the aesthetic concerns that presented
themselves. It is also a study of the process and the discussions of the
various strongly-held points of view, and of the compromises made to solve
both aesthetics and waterproofing issues.
SPEAKER
DENNIS SPINA is principal in charge of the project and senior roof consultant for Bell & Spina.
He has spent a year with the building committee exploring options and facilitating the discussion
on what the right thing is for the museum, its collection, its mission and the long-term integrity
of the building’s structure and the desire to retain the original design esthetic.
Spina – 140 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention
INTRODUCTION
The Everson Museum of Art
was designed by I.M. Pei in 1965
and occupied in 1968. When it
opened it was (and still is) considered
a work of art in itself. It is
perceived as a piece of sculpture
placed on a podium that one
walks around. Indeed, one of the
comments often heard is that it is
difficult to find the entrance –
almost forcing visitors to walk
around it to experience the structure.
(Architectural Forum – June
1969.)
By 2002, the museum had a
long history of water infiltration.
Bell & Spina was retained to design
the replacement of the roofing
and skylight systems. What
we thought would be a rather
straightforward project turned
into a two-year study to “do the
right thing” for this landmark
building, the museum, and its
collection. This is a case study of
the technical exploration to solve
a number of waterproofing issues,
along with the aesthetic concerns
that presented themselves. It is
also a study of the process and
the discussions of the various
strongly-held points of view, and
of the compromises made to solve
both aesthetics and waterproofing
issues.
SETTING THE STAGE
Existing Conditions
There are ten separate roof
areas, four galleries, a central
sculpture court, an administrative
wing, the auditorium, separate
stair tower, and two canopies.
There are five skylights – two at
the sculpture court and three on
the administration wing. Each
presented a different design challenge.
The existing roof membrane
was a fully adhered EPDM, which
was installed over tapered insulation
on top of the original coal tar,
built-up membrane, which was
installed directly to a reinforced
concrete structural deck.
The skylights are divided by
mullions at 40 inches on center.
This skylight mullion grid matches
the building’s structural grid,
which is designed on a ten-foot
module subdivided into 40-inch
increments.
All of the building’s HVAC air
intakes and exhausts are at roof
level.
Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Spina – 141
Architecture or Sculpture? Case Study of
the Roof and Skylight Replacement on
the Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY
Photos by Ezra Stoller.
The Building Committee
The museum had established
a building committee of 14 people.
Like a typical committee, the
make-up consisted of representatives
from the museum, the museum’s
board, and the community.
It included the museum’s director,
finance and facilities staff, six
architects, two engineers, a contractor,
a developer, and the
chairman:
• Mark Robbins, dean of the
School of Architecture at
Syracuse University
• Toby Nadel, AIA, a roof
consultant
• Manny Barbas, AIA, The
deputy commissioner of
facilities for Onondaga
County
• Cal Bowne, AIA, principal
of the firm that was the
associated architect during
the original construction.
• David Nutting, AIA, principal
of VIP Structures, a
large design/build firm.
• Bob Haley, AIA, Ashley-
McGraw Architects
• Ravi Raman, PE, an electrical
engineer and principal
of Ram Tech Engineers,
a large engineering
firm.
• Edgar Galson PE, a mechanical
engineer and the retired
principal of Galson
Engineers, a large engineering
firm.
• Jim Taylor, president of
J.D. Taylor Construction
Co.
• Gary Pickard, president of
a development company
• Ed Kochain, chairman of
the committee and also
the deputy county executive
of Onondaga County.
In the initial meeting, October
30, 2002, the building committee
directed that we make the building
watertight while respecting
the original design intent. We also
consciously imposed constraints
upon ourselves not to impact the
original design.
Design Intent
The first thing we did was to
review the existing conditions and
original construction documents.
The integration of the mechanical
systems with the structure is
impressive, and the systems are
well hidden. The detailing on the
skylights is also unique. To keep
the pure geometric form of the
design, the skylights have minimal
slope. For example, skylights
over the sculpture court are
detailed at a slope of 1/2 inch
over a distance of 6′-8″, or about
1/16″ per foot. Detailing on the
original contract documents indicate
no mullions were intended.
The triangular skylights in the
administration wing (skylight #3)
are the only skylights without
mullions and appear to closely
conform to the contract documents.
With the skylights having
such minimal slope, the caps
block the flow of water. The skylight
glass would have to be
cleaned five to six times a year, as
dirt and algae would accumulate.
Existing configurations and
details of the skylights match the
shop drawings.
Design Conditions
Weather conditions in upstate
New York can be extreme. It
snows a lot. Last year (season),
Syracuse received 181 inches of
snow, which was not a record. It
is also cold, with a low design
temperature of minus 10 degrees
F in winter; and for the summer,
90 degrees F, for a delta T of 100
degrees. The freeze/thaw cycles
are many over the course of a single
season. The American Association
of Museums’ recommendation
for interior climate conditions
is 75 degrees F and 50% relative
humidity. These interior conditions
are set to protect paintings
and are a requirement in order to
receive some traveling exhibits.
PROCESS
Our analysis of existing conditions
found challenges that
revolved around the lack of height
to adequately flash and counter
flash the roof membrane and the
skylights. The single glazed skylights
had the potential for condensation.
All of the galleries and
the sculpture court lacked overflow
protection. It was obvious
that the key design element was
Spina – 142 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention
the skylights. Solve those issues
and the rest should fall into place.
We started to brainstorm
ideas to provide the original
design intent – i.e., a transparent,
weather-tight separation between
galleries. Our research lead us to
contacting several glass manufacturers.
We settled on a point load
glazing system for the following
reasons:
• Insulated laminated glass
was able to be provided.
• Provided allowance for
movement. (Glass moves
independent of frame system.)
• Proven track record.
• Single point responsibility.
• Ten-year watertight warrantee.
Schematic design proceeded
with concept sketches and analysis.
We applied for and were
awarded a grant through SATOP,
the NASA-sponsored “Space Alliance
Technology Outreach Program,”
to enlist the help of Syracuse
University to determine the
potential for condensation of the
point-loaded frame system and
glass under design conditions. We
found that the heat transfer
through the concrete mass would
keep the frame system from condensating.
We also found numerous
thermal shorts at the galleries
that were outside our project
scope to correct as it would require
renovating the interior. Our
$1.2 million budget was approved
and we proceeded to design development.
A week after we presented the
design development (DD) report,
there was another meeting at
which the committee voiced its
concerns over a system that
would be custom designed for the
museum by a firm from outside
the country. Their concerns
included that the museum may
have difficulty getting
timely response for
replacement of broken
glass or repair to any
leaks or to problems
with the system. The
primary concern was
a great hesitancy to
rely on gaskets and
sealant as a primary
watertight component.
CONSTRAINTS LIFTED
Our office expressed confidence
in the design while sharing
the concerns of the committee. We
also stated that given the constraints
it was a viable solution.
The committee then decided to
give us latitude to solve the design
problem without any constraints.
Back to the drawing board. We
came up with two possible solutions:
Option 1
H a y d e n
Planetarium in
New York City
gave us an idea
that on the sur-
Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Spina – 143
Point load glazing examples.
Space elevations.
face may seem extreme, but when
analyzed, is actually a good solution.
Placing a glass structure
around the Everson would give
the museum its original design
intent of a clear void between galleries,
the bonus of additional
exhibit space, and a strong fresh
visual presence. After all, why not
put a “sculpture” in its own museum?
At $25 to $30 million, the
committee passed on this solution.
Option 2
Our second exploration involved
the elimination of all horizontal
glazing by turning the skylights
into clerestories. Placement
of clerestories extenuated the
original design. The concept
focused attention on the entrance
and would make the building
more visible at night. It also had
no pretense of being part of the
original design. However, the
existing skylight over the director’s
office is not visible from the
exterior. Placing a clerestory at
the director’s office would not
extenuate an original design element,
but add one. The proposal,
therefore, was to eliminate that
skylight and create a faux skylight
inside with lighting.
Half of the committee liked the
concept; the other half were concerned
that it was too much of a
departure.
SUCCESS REDEFINED
The “Mission” of any museum
is to: “house, protect, preserve,
and present to the current and
future generations.”
The discussion
was wideranging,
but
boiled down to
the fact that:
• I n t e r i o r
d e s i g n
conditions
cannot be
o b t a i n e d
(i.e., humidity
of
50% without
additional renovations
and even then the humidity
level may have to modulate
with the exterior
temperature so as not to
condensate), limiting the
shows that the museum
can exhibit.
• The skylights have leaked
since the building opened.
• The concerns identified
need to be addressed, or
conditions will continue to
be detrimental to the art
and the building.
All the above led to the discussion
that the museum is not able
to fulfill its mission if the building
cannot be made watertight.
Criteria established by the museum
building committee, in order
of priority:
1. Watertight integrity of the
building.
2. Concern of aesthetics.
Other criteria:
1. Utilize a “standard” manufactured
skylight system.
2. Installer should be local,
within a 100-mile radius,
with the ability to provide
and install replacement
glass.
Standard Manufactured
Skylights
A “standard” skylight from
most manufacturers has a minimum
slope of 17 to 18 degrees.
Using the minimal slope, we
established some heights and presented
the results, which our
office and all members of the committee
felt were not acceptable.
One manufacturer (Naturalite)
offers a low-pitch skylight with a
minimum slope requirement of
1/2-inch per foot. This system
also could be integrated with a
curtain wall system. Computergenerated
elevations indicating
Spina – 144 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention
Option 2
concept.
the visual impact were presented.
All thought the visual
impact was acceptable.
This solution was proposed
to and approved by the
State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) as required by
one of the grant sources.
With the skylight manufacturer
selected, we proceeded
to tackle the details
of integrating the roof system.
DESIGN
Asbestos Abatement
The residual asphalt mastic
on the parapets and the insulation
on some of the roof drainage
piping had to be abated.
Drains
The location of the existing
drains did not present a logical
solution using tapered insulation
board. We proposed to use an
insulated, lightweight concrete
system to provide slope to drain.
This system also allowed us to
abandon the four scupper drains
on the center sculpture court.
Debris plugs scupper drains
more easily than standard
roof drains. Indeed, on one
site investigation visit we
found six inches of standing
water on the sculpture court
roof. The need for overflow
protection was apparent. The
gallery parapets varied in
height from 16 to 60 inches.
Overflow protection on the
galleries was provided by core
drilling through the walls, and
on the sculpture court, with
overflow drains. Scupper
drains on the canopies were
retrofitted.
Access
There are two roof access
hatches – one in gallery “B”
and one in gallery “C.” A ladder
to the center sculpture
court roof was available from
gallery “C.” Gallery “D” was
accessed by walking across the
skylight or placing a sheet of plywood
across the skylight. Access
to Gallery “B” was by plywood over
the skylight and then by ladder.
We designed fixed ladders that
swing into position to provide
access across the skylights. All
other roof sections, stair, auditorium,
administration wing, and
canopies are available only by ladder
from the ground.
Membrane
The ten roof areas were each
small enough to typically be made
watertight in a day. However, the
lightweight system used to provide
slope to drain would have
residual moisture. Therefore, a
PVC membrane using the 2001
System that allows drying out
over time was chosen. The system
also had the advantage of hurricane
wind ratings of 120 mph –
extra insurance for the museum,
even though winds of that speed
are not experienced in the area. In
Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Spiina – 145
Exploring options: low pitch skylight.
Below: cracks.
the future, when the membrane needs to be replaced,
other options for a membrane will be available to be
placed over the dry, lightweight fill.
Skylights 1 and 2
There were no real waterproofing compromises
made in the detailing of the sculpture court skylights.
Minimum flashing heights and counter flashing were
able to be achieved and allowances for movement provided.
All the above sailed through the committee.
Committee membership changed and the new members
started asking the same questions we had asked
ourselves months earlier. Answering their concerns
resulted in the committee revisiting the following
issues.
Parapet/Edge Detail
There was much debate over the need to cover the
building’s concrete parapet coping and the visual
impact it would create. Multiple options were explored,
such as use of a coating and cutting a reglet into the
top of the parapet. In addition, five coping samples
were made in stainless steel, freedom grey, black, and
bronze. These samples were then placed on the upper
and lower parapets and viewed by the committee members
from street level. Surprisingly, all the samples
placed on the upper sections appeared the same and
disappeared against the overcast sky. In the end, the
committee voted.
There were three edge details proposed: coping
mock-up #1, which did not break the edge and relied
on sealant for protection; coping mock-up #5, which
had been previously approved; and a variation called
5A that had a straight rather than 45-degree drip,
intended to present less of a shadow line.
Each committee member voted and explained his
reasoning:
• We must cover the edge – 5A
Spina – 146 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention
• Agree likes – 5A
• Coping #1 needs maintenance,
therefore 5A
• The criteria established by
the commitee was watertighness
first; the second
was aesthetics. Coping #1
flips the order of that criteria;
therefore – 5A.
• The drip edge is a better
solution – 5
• There is a need to inspect
every year; therefore, I
suggest a compromise of
the lower sections using
detail #1 and in the upper
gallery sections, use 5 or
5A.
• Any metal added to the
building is a detriment to
the aesthetics of this
building. I do not believe
any coping cap is required
on the upper gallery roofs.
The lower areas need a
cap but should be zero
visibility #1 or earlier proposed
modified detail with
a reglet.
• Prefers nothing but is of
the opinion that we will
lose the lower parapet
walls; therefore, detail 5A.
• Would like to see nothing
on the walls but does not
want to rely on fool-proof
maintenance; therefore, 5A.
Total vote: six for detail #5A;
two for detail #1, one for detail #5.
Administration Wing Skylights
Options for the disposition of
Skylights #3, 4, and 5 were previously
agreed to and followed the
clerestory proposal option 2.
Skylight 3
The issue with this skylight
was that the curb had to be raised
to accommodate the lightweight
fill and to properly counter flash
the membrane. The glass had to
be an insulating type. Keeping the
existing glazing slot location
would require enlargement and a
reduction of the light well width to
accommodate sill to roof counterflashing.
Raising the skylight and
keeping the same slope would
result in the peak of the triangular
skylight being above the concrete
fins. In the end, we raised
the skylight, lowered the slope,
and provided insulated glazing in
a frame system.
Skylight 4
The difficulty here was lack of
slope and height to flash. Also,
this skylight had a vertical glazing
component that was installed in a
slot in the concrete. The glass had
to be installed from the top. At
only 20 inches wide, it did not
make sense to make it a triangular
skylight. The committee
desired not to change this design
element and voted to keep this
skylight in its current configuration
with the recognition that it
will be below the manufacturer’s
minimum slope requirements and
would not be guaranteed watertight.
Skylight 5
This skylight was similar to
skylight 4, with a lack of slope
and height to flash. It had previously
been agreed that the director’s
office skylight would be eliminated.
The committee desired to
keep this design element and
voted to keep it with the recognition
that it would be below the
manufacturer’s minimum slope
requirements and would not be
guaranteed watertight.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Next month it will be three
and a half years since we started
this project. What have we
learned that we can pass on?
• In order to have water run
downhill, you must provide
the hill. (Positive
slope is a requirement.)
• Do not rely on sealant as
your primary line of defense
against water infiltration.
(You should flash
and counter flash.)
• Involvement of your client
is a good thing. (This committee
was engaged and
Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention Spina – 147
helped define success.)
• There is no such thing as
only one solution. (We
explored many solutions.)
• Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. (Solutions that
bothered some aesthetically
were embraced by
others.)
In the end, we collectively
endeavored to preserve this landmark
building, the museum’s
mission, and its art collection.
Spina – 148 Proceeedings of the RCI 21st International Convention
Skylight 5 was completely
covered over. The light
well became more gallery
space.