The Museum

Metropolitan of Art
An History
Architectural
Morrison H. Heckscher

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin ®
www.jstor.org
 - -- -
' +*
~~~~~~.*'V ai i.- a- ..* ;',*' , '

The Me.tropoitan Museum, of Artl . . :- : B in

S'nnmer 1995

Jrr 4.

* ' * ' .' . I.L..

"

~. j. --~
~,~tt -O. . ...' -.-: : .a * '

A,----
- :r . c - :- . . . .
'L.=
-o s .- _-. -u F_.- _ _
l

aC Q-J- '''4-- ? --:. :. kTt I

.
~..i-.~ . 6 . --;.-" .:1 .

>-?-J4 s--swi =* ..,:X .- sw- o'' /-4i?C;r s..

JLAf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r

'
<FF Lt
IQ ' s-+-t!w
.

'~ flbr; ~" t

? k C~ ..
f- ? a

'
* " '
?i ?'- "?" '
'L
Irl
 s -"8

?-I
I

?d0 riltslD
'`:`lggoBlb"d r S

-i,. I
--
ii' ''
a s
a- "b a ii
e f;l !I
Pi,? g ilsl:r.
- t i ' rii
aa ti a a

C ;??vl
-' lr i'

?.- f
4,
n)(9
"- 69
CLILL

$
i----

I lri $'`i::$ t
piPg I
P

g """" 9,
kl ?--Dls pq

:% " c---?iasD--------
c,
-------- s.
-- 1
Cs
QglglD(
*~c"
-r; i?a

a.

28t8as Bpaiise B-Xdhp--? ?---

P
Y-g"S'
?s. ?a- ...1 I;
a 1 ;a
I

.,: g?;wi:
?-i rbS

k;-k?l;

-'89BLEPbB"

8??a
-;?-L?-?-

II- 'w?

; I
The Metropolitan
Museum
An Architectural
History
The Fifth Avenue facade of The Metropolitan
Museum of Art (fig. i) is one of the architectural
glories of New York.Yet this majesticand apparently
seamless classicalcomposition is in fact a melding
together, over seventy-five years, of the designs of
RichardMorris Hunt, Charles Follen McKim, and
Kevin Roche, the three architectsprincipallyrespon-
sible for the look of the Museum today.Extending
I,ooo feet from Eightieth to Eighty-fourth Streets,
the facademasksa structureof vast scale and startling
complexity.
Since 1874,when ground was first broken for the
Metropolitan'spermanenthome in Central Park,
construction,expansion, and remodeling of the
building have been more or less continuous. Over a
dozen architecturalfirms have worked on designs for
the Museum, and five differentmasterplans have
been approved.The resultingstructurethus represents
in microcosmmore than a centuryof American archi-
tecturalhistory.The richly texturedstory of how
the Museum came to be situatedin the parkand why
it looks the way it does today is recountedin the
following pages.
TemporaryQuarters
The Metropolitan Museum was incorporatedon
April i3, I870, in what Dickens might have called the
best of times and the worst of times. In the after-
math of the Civil War,New Yorkand the rest of the
nation were expandingrapidlyin an economic boom
that lasted until the Panic of I873.It was an era
notable for grand and creativeprojects,such as the
Atlantic Cable (i866) and the BrooklynBridge (begun
I869), and for the founding of many of the nation's
great culturalinstitutions. It was also a time of
blatant corruption.The administrationof Ulysses S.
Grant, elected president in I868,was markedby
of Art
scandal;the stock-manipulatingschemesby financiers
Jay Gould andJames Fisk made headlines in 1869;
and in 1870the depredationsof the New YorkCity
treasuryby state senatorWilliam Marcy ("Boss")
Tweed and the Tweed Ring were at last exposed.
For yearsNew YorkCity's liberal-mindedreform
leadershad talked about founding an art museum,
but there was no call for action until October 1869,
when, in an addressat the Union League Club,
George P. Putnam, the publisher,extolledNew York's
"noble"Central Park,the city's"worthyand credit-
able"academyof art, and "the treasures"of its histor-
ical society. And he asked,"Isit not time to begin
something in the shape of a permanentgallery and
museum of Art, which ... shall be worthy of the
great city of a great nation... ?"What was needed to
attractgifts of works of art, he asserted,was a
national institution "in a building spaciousin its
dimensions, and thoroughlyfireproof."These first
specificationsfor the new building-that it be big
and indestructible-have been honored over the
interveningyears.
During November distinguished representatives
fromNew York'sleadingculturaland educationalinsti-
tutionsmet to pursue Putnam'ssuggestion.William
Cullen Bryant,poet and coeditor of the New York
Evening Post,presided.Andrew Haswell Green,
treasurerand comptrollerof the board of commis-
sioners of "The Central Park";RichardMorris
Hunt, presidentof the New Yorkchapterof the
American Institute of Architects;and William J.
Hoppin, president of the Union League Club, were
elected vice presidentsof a citywide committee.
They resolved to take immediate measuresto estab-
lish a suitablygrand museum of art.
In January1870 an executivecommittee was
I. TheMetropolitan
formed with a mandate to preparea charter.The MuseumofArt,from
Metropolitan Museum of Art was incorporatedby Fifth Avenue, 1995
5
2. 681 Fifth Avenue, the New York State Legislatureon April I3, and its
theMuseum'shomein constitution was adopted on May 24.John Taylor
1872-73, ca. 900o
Johnston, railwaymagnate and art collector,was the
first president;Bryant and Green were among the
nine vice presidents.
An immediateissuewas whetherto borrowworks
of art for a temporaryexhibition.The executivecom-
mittee, which included architectsHunt and Russell
Sturgis, concluded that it would be impossible to
find an existing building suitablefor housing works
of art.A committeewas duly establishedto determine
the location, schedule, and cost of a new structure;
but two years passed before the Central Park site was
definitively selected, and it would be another eight
years before the first permanentMuseum building
opened.
Meanwhile, the fledgling institution began to
form a collection. William T. Blodgett, one of the
foundingtrustees,had purchasedin Europenearlytwo
hundred Old Master paintings. In November I870
he offered to sell them to the Metropolitan, but
there were misgivings about spending money for
works of art before the Museum was on a firmer

3. Openingreception,
February 20, 1872, in
thepicturegalleryat
68i FifthAvenue.
Woodengravingfrom
'FrankLeslies
Illustrated
Newspaper, "March 9,
1872

6
 4. 128 WestFourteenth
freestandingstructure(fig. 4) on the south side of
the street,between Sixth and Seventh Avenues. Of Street,theMuseums
homefrom 1873 to
brownstonewith a mansardroof and broad curved
i879, ca. I9oo
stairsleading up to a recessedportico and entrance,
it had been built in I853-54by James Renwick (I8I8-
I895),a New Yorkarchitectthen making a name for
himselfwith his designfor the SmithsonianInstitution
in Washington, D.C. The house had been erected by
Mrs. Nicholas Cruger (nee Harriet Douglas) as a
setting for her art collections,and there she held court
until her death in May I872.The diarist George
Templeton Strong characterizedthe mansion in I855
as "amost stately house, the finest I've ever seen,
with its grand hall and staircaseand ample suite of
financialfooting, or, for that matter,had a home for rooms."Except for a structurebuilt for the purpose,
them. It was not until the following March that the nothing could have better served the Museum's 5. Frank Waller.
trustees finally made the commitment. immediate needs (see fig. 5). Second-floor paintings
Because the building of a permanenthome was The Cruger mansion, convenientlylocated not galleriesat 128West
FourteenthStreet,
clearlysome years off, a place for the pictureshad to far from the fading elegance of Washington Square,
i879. Oil on canvas,
be found immediately. A trustee committee com- offered five times the space of 68i Fifth Avenue and I88i. Purchase,1895
posed ofBlodgett, Sturgis, and engineer Theodore at only $8,000 a year.In May i873 a five-yearlease (95.29)
Weston selected a row house at 68i Fifth Avenue
(fig. 2). It had been erected about I855on the east
side of Fifth Avenue between Fifty-third and Fifty-
fourth Streets and was typical of the large brown-
stones in the area.The interiorshad been converted
by Allen Dodworth for his fashionabledancing
academy.What appealedto the trusteeswas the
large skylighted upstairshall, "whichit was evident
could be made into a picture-gallerywithout great
expenseor delay.... It is,"they opined, "asgood a
building as could be hired without a very heavy
annualcharge."A lease for $9,000 a yearwas signed
on December i, I87I,and three months later the
Museum opened its temporarygallerywith an exhi-
bition of Blodgett's paintings (fig. 3).
Late in 1872the Museum had the opportunityto
purchasea remarkablecollection of Cypriot antiqui-
ties, assembledby Louis Palma di Cesnola, United
States consul at Cyprus (later the Metropolitan's
first director).Cesnola offered to deposit the collec-
tion in the Museum with the understandingthat it
would be "properlyinstalled and shown to the pub-
lic."However, the 6,000 objects could not be stored,
much less displayed,in the Dodworth building. The
trustees had no choice but to look for new quarters.
As luckwould have it, one of the grandestof New
York'sprivatehouses, I28West Fourteenth Street,
had just become available.This was a commodious

7
6. TheMetropolitan was signed for the house and the adjacentundevel-
Museum(farleft) in
CentralPark.Northwest oped lots, "uponwhich grounds,"explainedthe
Museum's 1873Annual Report,"newgalleries may be
viewfrom Park
Avenueat Seventy- built should they be requiredbefore the final settle-
ninth Street,I880. ment of the Museum in Central Park."The collec-
CollectionofJanet
tions were installed in time for a public opening on
Lehr
October i.

The CentralParkSite
Today we take for granted the Museum'slocation on
Fifth Avenue at Eighty-second Street-on the edge
of a fashionableresidentialand retail area and easy to
reach on foot, or by public or privatetransportation.
But in the I87os the Upper East Side was still only

7. Vauxand Mould's sparselysettled (fig. 6). The streets had been super-
first Museumplan imposed on abandoned farmland but were not yet
(center),in mapof fully paved. Among decaying ruralstructures,clus- located in the center of this desirablearea.To under-
CentralPark,Jan- ters of brownstone town houses had begun to sprout stand why the decision was made to place the
uary i, 187o.From
"ThirteenthAnnual like weeds. The fashionablepart of the city was to Museum in Central Park,more than twenty blocks
Reportof theBoardof the south on Fifth Avenue, where an unbrokenline beyond the northernmostboundariesof"polite soci-
Commissionersof the of handsome mansions (including that in fig. 2) ety,"we must consider the political history of the
CentralPark"foryear
marchedfrom the Fifties below Central Parkto park.
endingDecember 3,
Washington Square.It is no wonder that most of the In 1853the state legislature,realizing that the land
1869(New York,I870).
Coloredlithograph Museum'strustees thought the Museum should be set aside for the public in the undeveloped areasof

8
the city was inadequate,added the tractbetween
Fifth and Eighth Avenues and Fifty-ninth and
One-hundred-sixth Streets to the city'sparks.By
1856this land had been officiallydesignated"The
Central Park." It was one of only three tractsof
public land suitablefor the site of a large museum
building;the other two were ReservoirSquareand
Manhattan Square.
A majorityof the Museum'strustees favored
the ReservoirSquarelocation. Comprising the two
blocksbetween Fortieth and Forty-secondStreets
and Fifth and Sixth Avenues (renamedBryant Park
in I884),it was in the heart of the most sought-after
residential district. The western portion, the site
of the popularNew YorkCrystalPalacein 1853,stood
vacant.The Croton DistributingReservoir,occupying
the easternportion, was scheduled to close now that
the Croton Reservoir in Central Park had been
completed. Such a plot nearthe developedpartof the
city seemed ideal.Manhattan Square,from Seventy-
seventh to Eighty-first Streets between Eighth and
Ninth Avenues (in 1864made officiallypartof Central
Park),was consideredtoo far uptown and too farwest.
But the ultimate decision about the Museum's
locationwas to be made by the eleven commissioners
of "The CentralPark,"who in 1857had been given
full power over all aspectsof its managementand
design. That year,after Andrew Green was elected
treasurerand the landscapearchitectFrederickLaw
Olmsted (1822-1903) was named superintendent, a
competition for the redesign of the park was
announced. First prize was awardedin I858to
Olmsted and the British-bornarchitectCalvertVaux
(1824-1895)for their plan, which they called "Greens-
ward."That sameyearOlmstedwas appointedarchi-
tect in chief of Central Park;Vaux,architect;and
JacobWrey Mould (I825-I886), anotherEnglish
designer,assistantarchitect.Green was made comp-
trollerin 1859and thereafterplayedthe dominant role
in parkpolicy and finance. He was committed to
the idea of the park as an educationalcenter,and in
April 1859,throughhis influence,parkregulationswere
amendedto allow"forthe establishmentor mainte-
nance,within the limits of said Central Park,of
museums ... collections of naturalhistory,observa-
tories or works of art."
From the beginning, however,there were misgiv-
ings about largebuildings in the park.No such struc-
tureswere envisagedin the 1853layout;nor did
Olmsted and Vauxfavorthem in their Greensward
9
 plan. According to that scheme, the only museum
would be housed in a preexistingstructure,the New
York State Arsenal, at Sixty-fourth Street and Fifth
Avenue.
Yearslater,in 1872,in response to the relentless
pressureto allow additionalpublic structuresin the
park,Olmsted and Vaux carefullyspelled out their
opposition to extraneousbuildingson this land. They
allowed one exception, where the boundariesof the
park followed preexisting street lines, which did "not
preciselycoincide with the desirablelimits of the
Park as a work of art."
The Eighty-second Street and Fifth Avenue site
was the principalexample of a boundaryareathat
could not readilybe incorporatedinto the parkland-
scape.As Olmsted and Vaux noted: "Alarge range of
buildingsat this point would be seen from no other
point of the Park,the locality being bounded on two
sides by the reservoirwalls, on a thirdby a rockyridge,
and on the fourth by exteriorbuildings, while the
whole of the territorythus enclosed was too small
for the formationof spaciouspastoralgrounds."Here
was justification, in the words of the chief designers
themselves, for this specific location.
In I869 Green engineered legislation "to erect,
establish,conduct, and maintain on the Central Park
a Meteorologicaland AstronomicalObservatory,and
a Museum of Natural History and a Gallery of Art."
The parkmap publishedin Januaryi870 showed an
art museum at the Eighty-second Street site (fig. 7).
Green'sambitiousplans for a museum at this loca-
tion were brought to a halt in the springof I870-just
a few daysbeforethe Museum was formallychar-
tered-when the city governmentwas reorganized
to suit Boss Tweed. On May i, by orderof A. Oakley
Hall, Tweed's hand-picked mayor,Green'spark
commission was replaced:the independentCentral
Parkcommissionwas now officiallythe New YorkCity
Departmentof Public Parks.The new commissioners,
unsympatheticto Olmsted's conception of a land-
scape park,began a systematic desecrationof the
Greenswardplan. In November they fired both
Olmsted and Vaux,appointingMould chief architect.
The great irony is that, amid all their infelicitous
proposals,therewas also the recommendationto place
the art and natural-historymuseums together in
Manhattan Squarebecause a museum on the Eighty-
second Streetsite would, in the commissioners'words,
"obstructtoo much of the Parksurfacewith buildings."
IO
In April I87I the state legislatureauthorized
$I millionfor constructionof both the artand natural-
historymuseums. The Metropolitan'strustees unsuc-
cessfullypetitioned the new commissionersto switch
the site to ReservoirSquare.In November, however,
the Tweed forces were dismissed, Green regainedhis
dominant role in the Department of Public Parks,
and Olmsted and Vauxwere reinstated.In March
1872,at Green'sinsistence, the parkscommissioners
formallyreturnedthe art museum to its 1869site.
CalvertVauxandJacobWreyMould,
I870-80
The choice of Calvert Vaux and JacobWrey Mould
as architectsfor the new museum was probably
inevitable.The parkscommissionerswere authorized
to select the architectas well as the site, and these
two men had been intimately involved with con-
struction in Central Park-the bridges and arches,
the gazebos and pavilions-from its inception.
Though sometimes personallyat odds-Vaux was
supportedby Andrew Green, Mould by the Tweed
ring-their views on architecturewere complemen-
tary.And their masterplan for the Museum, so long
derided, can now be seen as having a logic and a
simplicity that might have been appreciatedhad any
part of it been realizedunaltered.
Born in the mid-I82os and trained in London
architecturalfirms, Vaux and Mould immigratedin
the earlyi85os to New York.Vauxjoined the great
American landscapedesigner Andrew Jackson
Downing in Newburgh, New York.When Downing
drowned in I852,Vauxwent into partnershipwith
another recently arrivedEnglishman, Frederick
ClarkeWithers. Four years later Vaux and Withers
moved their practiceto New York City. In 1857Vaux
published Villasand Cottages,his influentialbook of
Gothic designs for domestic architecture,and invited
Olmsted to collaboratewith him in what turned out
to be the winning design in the Central Parkcompe-
tition. From the late i85osuntil 1872,Vaux,Olmsted,
and Withers were united by a complex web of pro-
fessionalpartnershipsin which they undertooklarge-
scale projectsaroundthe country.It was earlyin
1872,during Olmsted's short tenure as president of
the board of commissioners of the parksdepart-
ment, that Vaux and Mould's final plans for the

Metropolitan'sfirst wing were approved.Vaux
resigned from the departmentin 1873,forming his
own privatearchitecturalpracticeto oversee con-
struction of the Museum project.
Mould, a student of the noted British ornamental-
ist Owen Jones, came to the city in 1852.Mould was
assistantarchitectof Central Parkfrom i858until
I870 and associatearchitectfrom 1871to 1874,except for
the brief period under Tweed's appointees (I870-7I),
when he was architectin chief. Until I875,when
Mould went to Peru, he was responsiblefor most
of the beautifullyrendereddesigns for small park
structures.
Vaux and Mould brought to America a deep-
seated commitment to the Gothic Revival:not the
monochromaticearly English designs of such estab-
lished Gothic Revivalistsas James Renwick, but the
bold eclecticism of the High Victorian Gothic,
inspiredby the recent writings of John Ruskin, The
SevenLampsofArchitecture (1849)and TheStonesof
Venice(I851-53).Ruskin, the greatest architectural
critic of the time, was a passionate advocateof
the Italian Romanesque and Gothic (particularly
Venetian) styles. The one that became synonymous
with his name,"Ruskinian," or High VictorianGothic,
was vigorousand vertical;its most prominentfeatures,
of obvious Italian parentage,were multicolored
8. Vauxand Mould's
masonry,sometimes called "permanentpolychromy,"
Museumbuilding
and the pointed-and-banded arch.
from thesouthwest,
The first RuskinianGothic structurein New York I880.Stereograph.
Gift
City, the Trinity Church Parish School of i860, was of HerbertMitchell,
1995 (199S.I14.1)
by Mould. Much more influential,however,was the
polychromeVenetian Gothic building by P. B. Wight
that won the I86I competition for the National Aca-
demy of Design. Championed by a generation of
English-trainedarchitects,the High VictorianGothic
reachedits apogee in America in the decade I865-75.
It was the style chosen for a number of major
museums, among them the Metropolitan, the
Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (I870), and the
PennsylvaniaAcademy of the Fine Arts in
Philadelphia(I87I).
The earliestvisual evidence of the Vaux and
Mould scheme for the Metropolitan is the plot plan
for the "ProposedArt Museum and Hall,"published
in the Central Park map for the year ending I869,
datedJanuaryi, I870 (see fig. 7). Broadly schematic,
it establishedthe general featuresof the masterplan
that was later accepted.The museum part of the
proposalconsisted principallyof three large attached
quadranglesformed by narrowwings and, at their
intersections, projecting squarepavilions. A large
domed pavilion was centered in the Fifth Avenue
facade at Eighty-second Street.Despite the fringe of
II
9.JacobWreyMould.
Plan, elevation,and
sectionsforan art
museumin Central
Park,March8, i87o.
Ink and watercoloron
paper.New YorkCity
MunicipalArchives
(3078)
trees indicated on the park map, this pavilion was
clearlyintended as the main entrance.
In the spring of I870 Vaux and Mould undertook
detailed studies for the plan, the elevation of a typi-
cal gallerywing, and the treatment of a dome. Only
one of these drawingscan now be identified with
certainty,and it offers the earliestvision of what the
Museum was meant to look like (fig. 9). Beautifully
renderedby Mould, it depicts six bays of a narrow
two-story exhibition building (presumablyone of
the shorterwings in the plan in fig. 7). The upper
floor, the "Galleriesof Painting & Sculpture,"is
skylighted;the lower floor, the "Museum,"has "cases
for objects of Art" (ancient pottery,glass, and other
small objects) within bays, or alcoves.The exterior
shows the pointed-and-bandedwindow archesso
characteristicof High Victorian Gothic. The wall
treatment is extremely rich and polychromatic:
within the arches are roundelswith tan carvingsand
green soffits;between the arches,mottled-brown
bosses; in the frieze, alternatingred and blue square
12
tiles; the remainingwall surfacesare brownstone-
all told, a very rich Ruskinian Gothic confection.
On February ii, I87I, the Museum trustees met to
review the draft of an act that would provide for a
grant from the city of money and a site for the two
museums-of art and naturalhistory.To that end, a
supportingpetition was circulated.Signed by 40,000
New Yorkers,it led swiftlyto the legislationof April 5,
I87I, which gave $500,000 to each museum for con-
struction. Since city funds were to be used to build
on city land, it was determined that the buildings
would remain city property;and since privategifts
and donations alone were used to form the collec-
tions, they would be the propertyof the trustees.
Through this simple device, the collections would be
protected from political interference.
In responseto the funding commitment,the parks
commissioners,reflecting the wishes of the Tweed
appointees, asked the trustees of the two museums
to "communicateto them their opinions and wishes
in regardto buildings to be erected in Manhattan
 Square"(the site chosen by Tammany Hall). The The master plan has a grid of narrowpavilions Io. CalvertVauxand
JacobWreyMould.
Metropolitan'sboardpromptlyselected a committee, forming six rectangularquadrangleslaid out parallel Plansand elevation
including one representativefrom the American to Fifth Avenue. Vauxand Mould had added a series
for proposedfirst
Museum of NaturalHistory, to consider"the nature, of western galleriesto their I869 scheme (see fig. 7), wing oftheMuseum,
style, distributionand general arrangementof the therebydoublingthe numberof courtyards.The plan ca. i872. Photograph,
ca.z874-80, of a lost
buildings for the two Museums." is notable for its simplicity and rationality.The large
The committee'schief recommendationwas that, drawing
courtyardsprovideunimpeded light. The first-floor
because of their different requirements,the two galleries are divided into alcoveswith cases for the
institutions should have separatestructuresof inde- displayof objects;the second-floor galleries,with
pendent design. For the art museum it recommend- skylights,are for paintings and sculpture.Virtually
ed that the exhibition buildings be no more than two
stories high, with skylights and with courtyardsthat
could be roofed with glass. These were, in fact, the
principalfeaturesof the designs that Vauxand Mould
had preparedin the spring of I870. No new schemes
for the Metropolitan were ever proposed for the
Manhattan Squaresite. On May i, I87I,Mould, as
architectin chief of the parksdepartment,issued a
reportin which he listed "VariousPreliminaryStudies
on the site proposed by [the] former Board"-that
is, at Eighty-second Street in Central Park.
A second sheet of drawings,undated and known
only from an old photograph(fig. io), depicts another
preliminaryscheme, an expansionon the June I870
design.It shows the plans and elevationfor an eleven-
bay exhibition wing, flanked by squarepavilionswith
canted cornersand surmountedby domes. Octagonal,
ribbed,with pointed profiles, and raisedon high
pierced drums, the domes are of the late-Italian
medieval style, beloved of Ruskin and epitomized by
Brunelleschi'scelebratedDuomo in Florence. The
temporarystaircasesand the "open"sides of the
octagonalpavilions indicate that this drawingrepre-
sents what was to have been the first building in a
phased constructionproject.According to a note of
the late I87os pasted below the photograph,the
trustees rejectedthis design in favorof"the building
which is now being created."
Though the drawing for the original masterplan
is now lost, a crude copy of it (probablyby Cesnola),
done after the first Museum building was completed
in i880 (fig. II), clearlyshows where the rejected
scheme would have fit into the overallplan. It was to
have been in the center of the building, parallelto
and directlybehind the principalFifth Avenue
entrance.Figure io shows the unfinishedjunction
for the narrowcorridorlinking the two structures.
What was built in its stead was superimposedupon
it at right angles.

I3
II.CalvertVauxand the same plan appearson the Central Parkmap for
JacobWreyMould. the fiscal year ending May i, I872 (fig. 12).
Planfor theMuseum, Some Museum trustees,however,were critical.
ca. i872. Probably
drawnbyLouisP de Back in June 1871,the advisorycommittee had been
Cesnola,ca. i880, and authorized to meet with the parkscommissionersto
showingcrosswing as voice their objections to the plans as submitted and
built.Ink on linen
to expresstheir stated "preferencefor designs of a
12. Vauxand Mould's
masterplan and simpler and less expensive character,based upon the
crosswing (high- experienceof the South Kensington Museum."It is
lighted).Detail of easyto understandthe committee'swariness.Elaborate
mapof CentralPark, elevations and dramaticdomes were, in the eyes of
I871-72. From "Second
Annual Reportof many of the trustees,inappropriatelygrand for an
theBoardof Commis- institutionstrappedfor operatingfunds and struggling
sionersof the Depart- to acquireworks of art. From the Metropolitan'sear-
mentofPublicParks" liest days, the South Kensington Museum (later the
for year endingMay i, Victoria and Albert) was seen as the ideal role model.
i872 (New York,i872).
Coloredlithograph Founded in i851with neither building nor artworks,
the South Kensington,in a few short years,had

I4
acquiredextensivecollections,a permanenthome in affairs"and then by the financial Panic of 1873. i3. Calvert Vauxand
Jacob WreyMould.
England'sprincipalcity, and an international Finally,in mid-i874, excavatingbegan. In May the
First-floor plan, July
reputation. parkscommissionersapprovedthe working drawings 23, i872. Photograph,
As a resultof these meetings,the generalplanwas for the major structuralcomponents: the exterior ca. i874-80, of a lost

accepted,though with a simplified facade treatment. facades for the stonecutters(fig. 5) and the arched drawing
But then came an abruptchange. Constructionwas ceiling of the main hall and the corner staircasesfor 14. Calvert Vauxand
to begin with the broad cross wing that brutallybi- the ironmongers(fig. i6). In the latter the staircase Jacob WreyMould.
Transverse section,
sected the west-central quadrangle (figs. 12, 13). It balustrades,with their sextafoil openings, are shown
July 29, i872. Photo-
seems that the architectswere trying to accommodate supportedby columns with octagonal pedestals, graph, ca. i874-8o, of
sometimes contradictorydemands by the Museum's plain round shafts, and three different designs of a lost drawing
architect-richadvisorycommittee.The programmatic
quagmirethey faced is summed up in a statement by
members Hunt, Renwick, and Sturgis:"Now it is
obviouslyof great importancethat the building to be
erected at once, with the half million alreadyappro-
priated,should be made to include something of
each part of the building:some picturegallery,some
glass-roofed court, and some of the cloister or side-
lighted gallery surroundingthe court."
Only these shortsighted,ad hoc requirements,
imposed long after Vauxand Mould had conceived
their basic scheme, can explainthe awkwardinsertion
of this crosswing, with its great glass-and-steel-
roofed hall (intendedfor monumentalarchitectural
castsand inspiredby the South KensingtonMuseum's
south court of i860), in the middle of their central
quadrangle.These same requirementswere the cause
of what became the building'smost egregious short-
comings:the lack of suitablespacefor exhibitioncases
and the separation,at either end of the building, of
the picturegalleries.In view of these new demands,
it is little wonder that relationsbetween architects
and client were strained.
In mid-JulyI872,the parkscommissioners
approvedthe general plan for the crosswing. During
the next two weeks, while still employed by the
parksdepartment,Vaux and Mould completed a set
of studies as the basis for working drawingsordered
on July 30. The first-floor plan (fig. 13)shows the
cross wing superimposedupon the centralquadran-
gle of the original plan. The section (fig. I4) shows
the vaulted iron-and-glass hall generallyas built and
splendid two-story cornerpavilionswith round
domes that were not built. (The classicalwall mural
was neverexecuted,and a basementwas added later.)
Although the basic design for the building was
complete,constructionwas delayed,first(in the diplo-
maticlanguage of the Museum'sAnnual Report)by
"theuncertaintywhich has existed in all municipal

I5
IS.CalvertVauxand capitals-a Gothic Revivalvariationon the Doric,
JacobWreyMould Ionic, and Corinthian of the classicalorders.
Details of west eleva-
The working drawings,done after Vauxresigned
tion, i874. Ink and
watercoloronpaper. from the parksdepartmentin 1873,are all inscribed
New YorkCity "Office of C. Vaux,Architect, InoBroadwayN.Y."
MunicipalArchives Mould worked for Vauxthere, and manyof the draw-
(I5I9)
ings are also signed "CalvertVaux&J. Wrey Mould,
Architects"(see fig. i7). After Mould left New York
in I875,Vauxtook engineer George K. Radfordinto
partnership.It is telling that Vaux,who entered so
many partnerships,neverformed one with Mould.
(Their only other important collaborationswere the
Museum of Natural History and the Central Park
boathouse.) The reasonprobablyhad something to
do with Mould's personality.George Templeton
Strong wrote of"that ugly and uncouth J. Wrey
Mould, architectand universalgenius."Moreover,
that Vauxhad been fired and Mould promotedby the
Tweed forcescould not have helped matters.Though
it is now hard to distinguish the role each played in
the design, Vaux should probablybe creditedwith
the overallconception and plan and Mould with the
architecturalornament and most of the drawings.
It was not until 1876that the building was finally
enclosed. Part of the delay was caused by the

I6. CalvertVauxand
JacobWreyMould.
Staircaseironwork,
i874. Ink and water-
coloronpaper.New
YorkCityMunicipal
Archives(i5i)

page:
Opposite
i7. Calvert Vauxand
JacobWreyMould.
East elevation, I874.
Ink and watercoloron
paper.New YorkCity
MunicipalArchives
(1491)
I8. CalvertVauxand
GeorgeK Radford.
East entrancestair-
case, i876. Ink and
watercoloron linen.
New YorkCity
MunicipalArchives
(1490)
Museum'sexecutive committee, which inspected the 7E#
site and, "findingthat the plans were in some im-
portant respectsunsuitableto the purposesof the
Institution,"appointed a special committee to nego-
tiate changeswith Vauxand the parkscommissioners.
The partialbasement was deemed inadequate,so
additional space had to be blasted out beneath the
main hall of the half-built structureand new floor
supportsand windows were required. I1
In August 1876contractswere approvedfor the
plumbing, heating, and ventilating systems, for plas-
terwork,and for carpentry(fig. i8), including the
temporarycoveredwooden stairs,which extended
on the east facade to the cornice in orderto cover
the unfinished masonry.In I877the addition at
either side of the main hall of cast-iron "galleries
of communication"remedied the problem of the
complete separationof the east and west suites of
second-floor picturegalleries.Equipping and fur-
nishing the building requiredanother appropriation,
payableover two years.Thus it was only during
March and April of 1879that the Museum'scollections

I7
19. TheMuseumfrom were finally transferredfrom Fourteenth Street to
FifthAvenue,i880. their permanent home in Central Park.
At thefar left is the
cranebeingusedtopre- The new building opened to the public on
pare thesitefor March 30, I880, to decidedly mixed reviews.The
Cleopatra's Needle. interiorsgenerallymet with approval,but the exterior
Stereograph. Gift sufferedfrom being so obviously incomplete. From
of HerbertMitchell,
almost any angle (figs. 8, I9) the most striking ele-
1995 (1995.114.2)
ments were the raw,unfinishedbrickwalls, intended
one day to sproutadditionalwings. The new museum
was like a great beached whale, strandedin the park.
Defensively, the Metropolitan'sI879Annual Report
reminded its readersthat "the exteriorof the build-
ing has been much criticised,but it must be borne
in mind that it is part of a largerstructure,and that
every addition will tend to harmonize the whole
edifice."
This admonition failed to mollify the outspoken
art criticJamesJacksonJarves,who in I882 called it
"aforcible example of architecturalugliness, out of
harmony and keeping with its avowed purpose ... fit
only for a winter garden or a railwaydepot."
Today,although reroofed and entirely encased in
I8
later structures,portions of Vaux'sbuilding are still
visible to the observanteye. In the Robert Wood
JohnsonJr.Gallery,at the top of the Grand Staircase,
partof one of the windows of the original Fifth
Avenue facade is visible. The massive pointed arch
of banded granite encloses a blind roundel,which
staresout like a great cyclopean eye. In the Robert
Lehman Wing, at the main-floor level, Vaux'sentire
west facadenow forms the entrancewall (see fig. o07).
The narrowcorridorsat either side of the Grand
Staircaselead through the original facade'swindows
into the Medieval tapestryhall, one of two sculpture
galleries that opened directlyonto the main hall, now
the Medieval Sculpture Hall (figs. 20, 2I). Vaux's ceil-
ing beams and molded cornices remain, although
stripped of ornament.But what strikesthe eye,
because it retainsthe rich polychromyof the High
Victorian Gothic, is the floor: a bold pattern of
white and black marble,surroundedby narrow
bordersof red slate.
On either side of the hall, enclosed stairwayslead
to the second-floor galleries.In I880 these were the
20. Viewfromsculpture

galleryinto main hall. Wood

engraving.From'THarpers
Weekly,"Aprilio, i88o
21. Main-floor sculpture
gallery.Woodengraving.
From "TheArt Journal,"
Augusti88o

I9
 familiarlandmarksatwildlydisparatescaleandalso
showthe greatironroofribswith theirquatrefoil
openings.The originalpicturegalleries(fig.24) were
simply finished, revealingthe strict economy
requiredto complete the original building within
budget. As the New YorkTimesfor April 30, I88o,
editorialized:

Modest,even soberin formand adornment,the

Museumas it standsis a guaranteeto the public-
who will haveto pay,in the long run,for futureaddi-
tions-that the moneyhas been so farcarefully
spent.It has gained,then, the confidenceof the New
Yorkerof today,especiallysincehe has been witness
of so muchrascalityin the way of publicexpenditure
in otherplaces.

22. Viewof mainfloor most-talked-about feature of the new building.

from bulls-eyewin- When ascending the staircases,notable for their
dow in staircase.Wood
engraving.From "The ample breadth and gentleness of ascent, one origi-
ArtJournal,"Julyi88o nally passed great circularwindows that offered a
view of almost the entire floor below (fig. 22). The
23. Architectural casts
installedin main hall, staircaseshave recentlybeen repaintedto suggest
1907 their original polychrome glory.
24. The gallery of the The rest of the Vaux design has been altered
MuseumsOldMaster
beyond recognition. The "grandCentre Hall," at
paintings. Wooden- first filled with cases of Cesnola'santiquities (see
graving.From'Harpers
New MonthlyMaga- fig. 20), later housed large-scale architecturalcasts.
zine,"May I88o Photographs (fig. 23) recordthe cheerful clutter of

20
TheodoreWestonandArthur
LymanTuckerman, I880-94
In December I880, within months of the opening of
the Museum building, the executivecommittee
orderedthe preliminarysketches necessaryto request
an appropriationfor an extension. But instead of
continuing to work with CalvertVaux as architect,
they orderedplans from Theodore Weston (1832-
I9I9), civil engineer and Museum trustee. Though
there had been changesin architecturalfashion-
classicismwas on the rise and by i880 Vaux'sHigh
Victorian Gothic was somewhat out of date-Vaux
was dismissed because the trustees of the Metro-
politan had become thoroughly disillusioned,not
only with the parksdepartment'srole in the Mu-
seum'sdesign but with the building itself. (That
many of the structure'sshortcomings resultedfrom
last-minute changes made by the Museum'scom-
mittee, against Vaux'sadvice,was not considered.)
Johnston left no doubt of his dissatisfaction,writing
to Cesnola in 1884,"Ourfirst building was a mistake,
there must be none about the second."
The trustees renegotiatedtheir modusoperandi
with the departmentso that, accordingto the enabling
legislation of May 26, I88I, the "plans... shall be
preparedby the Trusteesof the MetropolitanMuseum
of Art and approvedby the Board of Commissioners
of the Department of Public Parks."At least in
theory,the trusteeswould now be free to choose
their own architect.
A year after the executivecommittee had asked
Weston for preliminarydrawings,a "SpecialCom-
mittee of Advisory Architects"was appointed to
"decideabout the plan for the new addition."The
memberswere James Renwick and RichardMorris
Hunt (1827-1895),two of America'sleadingarchitects,
and Weston himself.ApparentlyRenwick and Hunt
were meant to serve as Weston's advisers.Renwick,
who had designed the Smithsonian (1847-55)and
Corcoran(1859-71)museums in Washington, D.C.,
was in his mid-sixties, and his careerhad peaked.
But Hunt, now fifty-four,had just recently (1879)
begun the most brilliantphase of his careerwith the
design for the first of many sumptuouslimestone
palaces for the Vanderbiltfamily.How he must have
chafed at the choice of Weston!
There seem to have been two principalreasons
why Hunt was not selected to succeed Vaux.The
first was the prejudiceon the part of some trustees 25. The Westonwing
from thesouthwest,ca.
against the kind of grand architecturalstatement i889. Museumof the
that Hunt might demand. According to the Annual
City ofNew York
Reportfor I880-8I, for example,the trustees desired
"thatthe appropriationsshall be used for the con-
struction of substantialextensions, affordingthe
internal accommodationwhich the Museum now
demands, and that externaldecorationbe left, as far
as possible,to the future."Hardly an excitingprospect
for an ambitious architect.
The second reasonwas simply a matter of per-
sonalities. Cesnola, a gregariousItalian, did not find
Hunt, a reservedand formal New Englander,conge-
nial. At the latter'sdeath in 1895,Cesnola admitted
that "personallyI did not care much for Hunt but for
his architecturalability I alwayshad the highest
esteem."With Weston, by contrast,Cesnola was to
develop a remarkablerapport.
Weston was an engineer involved principallywith
the city'swater and sewer systems. He opened his
own office as "Architectand Civil Engineer"only in
1882, after beginning the Museum commission, his
first, and apparentlysole, majorarchitecturalproject.
Weston'sselection may be seen as a reactionby the
trusteesto having had an outside professional(Vaux)
and his grandioseideas (the masterplan) forced
upon them. Weston had been a founding trusteein
1870 and thereafteractive in the architecturalaffairs
of the Museum, so it seemed expedientto choose
this provenfriend of the Metropolitan,a skilled
engineer,and appoint an oversight committee to
make up for his inexperiencein design.
21
 Getting an appropriationproved much harder
than expected.The money authorizedin the enabling
legislation of I88i, for which Weston had originally
been requestedto make drawings,did not material-
ize. It was not until August 1883,when the nation's
financial outlook was brighter and public funding
again a possibility,that Weston was officiallyengaged
by the Museum. At this time he must have been
26. First-floorplan,
i888, with the Vaux
wing aboveand
Westonssouthwing
below.Photographof a
lostdrawing
instructedto ignore the original masterplan and
to think only in terms of modest wings to the north
and south of the existing structure.
On August 14,1883,Weston wrote Cesnola, "I
have begun activelyin making the ground plan
sketches, and find I shall need all the old drawings
[i.e., Vaux's]."Among Weston'sfirst designs was "a
plan of two wings toward the South."In September
he drewup an alternatescheme basedon a suggestion
by Cesnola, and this was the one that was adopted:
an E shape,which, when joined to Vaux'sI shape,
formed a squareblock with two light wells (fig. 26).
In October Weston began a new facade design, writ-
ing, with disconcertingnaivete, that "abeautiful
result can be obtained, dignified and most satisfying
to my artisticfeeling."
In November he sent Cesnola plans and two
additional suggestions for the south facade. One of
these may be identifiablewith the earliest recorded
drawing of this facade (fig. 27). In the background
the high roof of Vaux'smain hall is visible, and on
either side are the steep-pitched mansardsthat
Weston proposed to link his building to Vaux's(see
fig. 30). The facadedesign is in three parts.The center
section has three huge, arched openings: the central
one has a modest door leading to a carriagedrive at
ground level; below the drive, at basement level, is a
largearcheddoor,the entranceto the Museum'sArt

27. Theodore Weston.

Preliminarystudyfor
thesouth(Central
Park)facade,1883.
Photographof a lost
drawing

22

Schools. On the projectingflanking sections, the
first-floorwall is articulatedby pilastersand pairs of
double-window openings; the second-floor wall is
blank (indicating that the rooms are skylightedpic-
ture galleries) and relieved only by a carveddecora-
tive motif. The upper half of the roof is a skylight.
In April I884the trusteesendorsedWeston'splans,
and that spring he made numeroustrips to Albany
to lobby for a Museum funding bill. He must have
been ebullient when, in May, the legislaturefinally
authorized a $350,000 bond issue to underwrite
the south wing. The parksdepartmentapproved
Weston'splans and unanimouslyappointed him
"Constructingand SuperintendingArchitect."
That same month, just when everything seemed
to be in Weston'sfavor,Johnston appointed a trustee
building committee (himself, Henry G. Marquand,
Cesnola, and Hunt) to oversee the project.Hunt,
who had been out of town when Johnston appointed
him, could not contain his displeasurewhen he
returnedin July."Itwill neither be convenient or
agreeablefor me to serve on the building committee,"
he wrote to Cesnola, "asthe plan of the proposed
additiondoes not meet with my unreservedapproval."
Weston decriedthe "discourteoustone"of Hunt's
letter and told Cesnola, "I propose that we have a
sensible,simple as well as artisticbuilding,thoroughly
correctarchitecturally.I do not believe that Mr. H is
the onlyman in the countrywho is capableof carry-
ing it out."
28. TheodoreWeston.
Approveddesignfor
thesouth(Central
Park)entrancefacade,
i885.Ink andpencilon
linen.New YorkCity
MunicipalArchives
(i520)
There were unanticipatedmoney problems as
well. Only $25,000 worth of city bonds (out of the
$350,000 authorized)had been sold-barely enough
to pay for excavatingthe site. Furthermore,in July it
was decided to limit the cost of constructionto
$250,000, plus $oo00,000 for contingencies and
equipment.Weston claimed that his building could
be built for that sum. He completed the final plans
and specificationsin Februaryi885,and in April they
were approvedby the parkscommissioners.
Weston'sapprovedsouth-facade design (fig. 28)
shows two obvious changes from the earlierscheme.
The blank upperwalls of the projectingends were
now treatedwith pilasterslike the ones below, and
carved panels suggestive of the Parthenon frieze
(those to the west representingWar, those to the
east, Peace) were let in between the pilasters.Less
obvious but more significant are the changes to the
centraldoor at grade. It was now greatlyenlarged,
to reflect the trustees'decision of November 24, I884,
to move the main entranceof the Museum from the
east (Fifth Avenue) to the south.
In April I885the sale of revenuebonds for the
south wing was authorized: $I62,500 in calendar year
i885 and a like amount the following year.But now,
with the means at hand, the parksdepartmentchose
not to act, leaving an unfinished building site open
to the winter weather.As the Museum'sAnnual
Reportfor I885acknowledged,"theexposed condition
in which the South walls of the present building are
23
29. Theodore Weston
andArthurLyman
Tuckerman. Revised
designforthestaircase
of thesouth-entrance
facade,April i888. Ink --
- 1^
and watercoloron
paper.New YorkCity ~~~~~~~~~~~~I
II
I ,
^ -^^ IA
MunicipalArchives
(1522)
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
, e#
't-,, 4 ;A
At. ~c~k1
%14I,-;l.!-~~ j~
1 , Iu&e*
left by the neglected excavationsis a subjectof seri-
ous anxiety,but we arewithout power to remedy it."
One reason for the delay was that in December
the parkscommissioners suddenly claimed that the
plans-approved eight months earlier-were insuf-
ficiently clear.Apparently Hunt, disgusted with the
quality of Weston'sworking drawings,had raised
questions with city officials, resulting in a list of rec-
ommendations being sent from Hunt's assistantto
Marquand,a friend and frequent client of Hunt. It
was only with some arm-twistingby membersof the
board that, by the end of JanuaryI886, more than
five years afterWeston was first asked to put pencil
to paper,constructionbegan in earnest.
It soon became apparentthat Weston'sblithe
assurances-that the building could be erected for
$350,ooo-were overly optimistic. In FebruaryI887
the building committee met and decided that, until
more money could be found, the six frieze panels
on the south facade would be left uncarved,and "the
artisticbronze doors"for the main entrance,the
bronze medallionsof Michelangelo and Raphael,and
the grillworkpanels for the archedwindows (all
depicted in fig. 28) would not be ordered.When
additional funds were forthcoming, however,they
24
I:
c'
- METRwoouLAN
MWtSUSMo ART cw..a ---
I,1~, /^..
/J^,"
/,//
iI.:i~.h
,+?-. ,'
- , ~,~"'" X I -.,/ ,j DPk-11% Zlut*
" s sst v a
were used to begin a third, north wing, and the
south facaderemainsunembellishedto this day (see
fig. iio).
During i886 and 1887constructionproceeded
rapidly.Then, in April i888, with the wing nearing
completion, the building committee decided against
having the Art Schools in the basement.Weston was
instructedto do awaywith the basement entrance,
which had figured in every plan, and to lower the
carriagedrive to the foot of a set of stairs.Visitors
would now have to climb a grand, ceremonialstair-
case to enter the Museum.
The design for the new staircase(fig. 29), adding
ten granite steps to the seven bluestone ones above,
was approvedby Cesnola on April Io, I888.As there
was no way to complete the stairsin time for the
long-awaited public opening of the south wing on
December I8, the inaugurationceremonieswere held
in the "oldCentral Hall" of the Vauxbuilding, still
entered by the temporarywooden staircases.
The new wing, like the first one, receivedmixed
architecturalreviews.An observerin Harpers Weekly
mourned the loss of a comprehensivemasterplan:
"Allwho are familiarwith the complete design of
the late WREY MOULD must regret that it has been
thrown aside to be replacedby the present squat and
heavy structure."(The critic'sfailureto acknowledge
Vauxis surprising.)However, once the new stairs
were completed and became the sole public entrance
to the Museum, attention naturallyfocused there.
Back in July 1887,emboldened by a new appropri-
ation-$312,ooo to repairthe existing building and
to complete and furnishthe extension-Cesnola had
signed off on a series of drawingsthat included the
three exteriorfacades of a north wing, designed by
Weston as a mirrorimage of the south one. A ren-
dering of the "Side Elevation"(fig. 30) depicts Vaux's
east front flanked by Weston's matching wings.
(Weston had removedVaux'stemporarywooden stair-
case and completed the stone-and-brickworkbehind 30. TheodoreWeston.
East (FifthAvenue)
it, clearlydemonstratingthat at this time he was elevationshowing
making no provisionfor the furtherexpansionof the northand southwings
building.)The renderingshows how Weston resolved flanking Vaux'sbuild-
the issue of joining his wall design, with its two clas- ing, July 2, i887. Ink
and watercoloron
sical orders-a continuationof his south facade-to
paper
Vaux'sGothic arcade.He chose to blend the two
styles by means of tall, projectingpavilions.In their
brickwalls he inserted round-arched,three-part
windows with massive pointed arches.For the roofs,
he installed tall High Victorian mansards,complete
with massivegranite dormers-a combination,
introducedin the I85osat the Louvre,which for
thirty yearswas imitated internationallyas a symbol

31. Theodore Weston.

Northelevationof
northwing,July2,
i887.Ink and water-
coloronpaper

25
32. TheodoreWeston. of cosmopolitan modernity.Another drawing,of the Yorkcommittee, which proposed a plan to expand
Plan of Museum north facade (fig. 31),shows an elevation identical to the Museum'sbuilding to house the artisticcompo-
extensionproposedfor
World'sColumbian the executedsouth facade,exceptfor a serviceentrance nents of the fair.Weston providedthe design for a
Exposition,z89o. Ink onratherthan a public one and windows in the second vast extension to the north (figs. 32, 33). The idea of
paper.ThePrints and floor instead of panels for sculpture.However, this funding the expansion of the Museum through par-
Drawings Collection, treatment of the north elevation would be dramati-
The OctagonMuseum, ticipation in an expositionwas brilliant,but Weston's
TheAmericanArchi- cally alteredbefore construction. design was not. It was proof, if nothing else, of his
tecturalFoundation In FebruaryI889, two months after the opening inability to plan on a vast scale. Both plan and eleva-
(78.595) of the south wing, the building committee decided to tion seem endless and banal, and Weston was unde-
33. TheodoreWeston. seek additional funding for the north wing. Times cided aboutwhether the Museum should be oriented
Perspectiverendering were good economically,and in June 1890 the legisla- to Fifth Avenue or to the park. Six weeks after
of Museumextension ture authorized Weston's drawingwas published in the New York
$400,000 to "complete,equip and
proposedforWorlds
Columbian Exposition.
furnish the north extension."For once, it seemed the Herald,Chicago was chosen as the exposition site.
Woodengraving. Museum would be able to proceedwithout delay. When comparedwith the classicalelegance of the
From "TheNew York In 1890 American cities were competing to be the buildings erected in that victorious city in I893,
Herald, "January 12,
i89o
site of the World's Columbian Exposition, originally Weston's design looked decidedly old-fashioned.
scheduled to be held in 1892.Hunt was on the New Such an undistinguished proposal for a major
international competition must have precipitated
Weston's downfall. On January20, just a week
afterWeston'sdesign appearedin the press,the Mu-
seum'sbuildingcommittee(Cesnola,trusteeHeber R.
Bishop,and Marquand,who had succeededJohnston
as president in 1889)discussed recommending a new
architectto the parkscommissioners.Presumably
Hunt's disaffectionwas now sharedby a majorityof
trustees, causingWeston to resign.
On February17,at the parksdepartment'srequest,
the building committee recommended,in order of
preference,three architectsto take over the job:
RichardMorris Hunt; the firm of McKim, Mead
and White; and Robert H. Robertson. The next day
Hunt tendered his resignationas a trustee,"to take
effect when I may be appointed architectof said
confirmation."The way seemed clear,finally,to hire

26

a person of superiortraining and experience,an
architectappropriatefor a greatpublic commission.
But Hunt had spoken too soon. The parkscommis-
sionersbalkedand askedfor more names.Marquand,
runningout of ideas,came up with those of George B.
Post,James Renwick, and Weston'syoung partner,
Arthur Lyman Tuckerman (I86I-I892). On March i8
the parkscommissioners acceptedWeston'sresigna-
tion and appointedTuckermanto fill his post.
Marquandwas shocked and Hunt, outraged.
At least Tuckerman,who had been in practice
with Weston since I885(a relationshipthat now came
to an abruptend), had unrivaledknowledge of the
project and would provide continuity.In his applica-
tion for the position, the young man claimed:"I
myself drew the bulk of the filed plans and know the
building and all its needs so thoroughly that there is
scarcelya measurementI cannotrecollector a mould-
ing or a stone."But otherwise his credentialswere
slim. He is said to have studied architectureat the
Ecole des Beaux-Arts and in i885 began teaching
architectureand draftsmanshipin the Museum'sArt
Schools. In 1887,after publishingA ShortHistoryof
Architecture,he was put in chargeof the Art Schools.
The one sure thing about Tuckerman'sappoint-
34. Westonand
Tuckermans north
wingfromFifth
Avenue(with theboil-
erhousein thefore-
ground).Photograph
taken April24, Io96,
duringexcavationsfor
thefirstMcKim,Mead
and Whitewing
ment was that at this time, in I890, the parkscom-
missionerswere unwillingto entrustthe projectto any
architectcapableof creatinga comprehensivenew
masterplan. A plausibleexplanationfor their reluc-
tance is that Vauxwas still landscapearchitectto the
city and insisted that his masterplan not be aban-
doned officially.Furthermore,he felt particular
antipathytoward Hunt, who, in 1863,had won a
design competition for the southern entrancesto
Central Park.Hunt's classicalgates, reflectinghis
Parisiantraining,were in direct conflict with the
English-landscapetraditionthat the park embodied.
And in i865, after intense controversy,Vauxsucceed-
ed in having them set aside.
Tuckermanlaboredover his plans between April
and August I890, and they were approvedby the
parksdepartmentin September.In these drawings
Weston'ssouth-facadedesign had been turnedinside
out. (In fact, this change had been made earlierin
the year as part of the proposalfor the Columbian
Exposition.) The center section now projectedand
had been expanded to seven bays (see fig. 34). Blind
archessurmountedtripartitewindows, the lower
halves of which were themselves blind. Above the
cornicewas a huge "sheddormer"with seven more
27

35. Weston,Vaux,and tripartitewindows, creatingan immense light-filled
Tuckerman wingsfrom attic.Was its purpose to give the galleriesbelow a
thesoutheast,ca.I895
balanced,even light? Or did Tuckermanharborthe
36. Galleryof dream of one day installing his beloved Art Schools
Egyptianand other there?Either way, it is hard to find much merit in
antiquities,in Westons
south wing, I907 these laboredrevisions.
Tuckerman,consumed with the project,wore
himself out. In October I891, with construction
under way, the building committee sent Tuckerman
abroadfor his health. But it was too late, and he died
in Monte Carlo early the next year.
During Tuckerman'sabsenceJoseph Wolf (I856-
1914)was made "SuperintendingArchitect for the
North Wing" and, after Tuckerman'sdeath, Wolf
was appointed his successor.Wolf, although he had
had his own office since i886 and was a member of
the ArchitecturalLeague, did not have much promi-
nence in the profession. He was, nevertheless,a
competent supervisingarchitectand brought the
north-wing projectto a refreshinglyuneventful com-
pletion. The building was enclosed in 1893,but it
was not furnished and open to the public until
November I894.
The Weston-Tuckermanwings formed a large
rectangularblock. While sympatheticto Vaux's
structurein color and texture,the additionsinevitably
squashedits narrowfacades (fig. 35).As far back as
1891,when it was decided to build a boiler house and
an electric plant adjacentto the east side of the
north wing, it was evident that one day a new Fifth
Avenue wing would obscurethe old building.
Large and inviting as it may have seemed from
the outside, the new south entranceto the Museum
was anticlimactic.One entered,without preamble,
into an exhibition gallery (see fig. 26), on the oppo-
site side of which, to give the visitor some sense of

28
axial progression,a narrowcorridorled to the old monumental,gutsycompositionof graygraniteand 37. Castgallery
main hall. But this was not part of Vaux'soriginal redbrick-a boldandeffectivefoil to its new,mono- in Westonand
Tuckerman's north
plan, and one of his piers was directlyin the way. chromaticsurroundings.
wing, 1912
The first floor of the south wing consisted princi- Almostnothingsurvivesof the originalinteriors
38. Picturegalleryin
pally of three great galleries,intended, respectively, byWestonandTuckerman. Onlyin whatwasfor- Westonssouthwing,
for sculpture,ancientpottery and glass, and Egyptian merlythe first-flooreastgalleryof the northwing ca. oo00
and other antiquities (fig. 36). The rooms were sepa- (nowdisplayingItalianandFrenchRenaissancedec-
rated from one another by massive double or triple orativearts)do we see portionsof the moldedplaster
archesof load-bearing masonry.The floors were cornicesandof the variegatedred-marbleflooringof
paved in "stonemosaic,"a polished, pebble-filled the old castgalleries.
concrete of Roman inspiration.Each gallerywas the
fiullwidth of the wing, with columns down the cen-
ter (to supportthe floor above)and windows set high
in each side wall. Thus, light flooded down upon
works of art in their elaborateexhibition cases.
Natural light was still the determiningfactorin art-
museumdesign,andWeston had handled it rather
skillfully.
The first-floor plan of the north wing was a mir-
ror image of that of the south: three vast galleries,
separatedby massive masonry arches,with center
columnarsupports and large windows placed high in
the side walls (fig. 37). These galleriesoriginally
housed the Museum'scollection of plaster casts,the
canonicalmasterpiecesof ancient sculpture.Their
white ceilings and cornices reflected daylightevenly
throughoutthe galleries.In dramaticcontrastto the
pure white of the casts, the walls and woodwork
were dark,as was the unbrokenexpanse of the varie-
gated red marblefloor.
The second-floorgalleriesof both northand south
wings, reachedby Vaux'spolychromestaircases,were
intended primarilyfor the displayof paintings and
servedto link Vaux'seast and west galleriesin the way
he had intended. In the south wing most of the gal-
leries (fig. 38) had coved ceilings, skylights, and satis-
fying proportions.Like Vaux'spicturegalleries,their
plain wood floors and doorframes,flat-paneled
dadoes,and stenciledfriezesbespeaka limited budget.
Today the south facade is all that is visible of the
outside of the Weston-Tuckermanwings. Weston's
entrancefacade has been incorporatedinto the
Carrolland Milton PetrieEuropeanSculptureCourt
(fig. Ino).Its roof is invisible and the original terra-
cotta cornice has been replacedby a I950s copper
cap. The spreadingsteps and great basement are
entirelygone; gone, too, is the chance to see the
facade from a distance, as originally intended.
Instead, we are insistently pushed up against its

29
39. FifthAvenue
facade of Hunt'seast
wing. Photographby
P.E. Parshley,I902.
ThePrints and
Drawings Collection,
TheOctagonMuseum,
TheAmericanArchi-
tecturalFoundation
(P 79.152)
RichardMorrisHunt and Richard
HowlandHunt, 1894-1902
With the completion of the north wing in 1894,the
trusteesturnedto RichardMorris Hunt for the build-
ing'snext extension. This choice signaled a dramatic
reversalof the Museum's approach:from ambiva-
lence about the site in Central Park,the need for a
new masterplan, and the cost, to a commitment to
face Fifth Avenue boldly and directly and to build
with all the grandeurbefitting a great institution.
In 1894Hunt was sixty-seven years old, at the
height of his fame and widely reveredas the dean
of American architects.Born in 1827in Brattleboro,
Vermont, he was educated for the most part in
Europe. In I845Hunt was admitted to the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts, as the first American to study architec-
ture there. He joined the atelierof Parisianarchitect
Hector Martin Lefuel, where, in 1854-55,he worked
on an extension to the Louvre. Returning to New
Yorkin 1857,Hunt immediatelyplayed a leading role
in establishing the American Institute of Architects.
To promulgateprofessionalstandardsfor architects
30
and to gain public recognition for them were two of
his lifelong goals.
Hunt's selection in 1894, after twenty-four years
of involvement with the Museum and its building
committee, resultedfrom a complex combination of
factors.First, the times were economically expansive
and thus propitious for large architecturalprograms.
Unprecedented new fortunes-deriving from rail-
roads,banking, oil, and steel-made possible build-
ings on a grand scale, both private(the mansions
lining Fifth Avenue) and public (the Museum in the
park).A new generation of American artistshad
been trained abroad,and there was a sense that, cul-
turally,America had come of age. Moreover,a new
nationalsentiment favoredgreatpublic projectsas the
embodiment of civic pride and virtue. The ultimate
symbol of this period, known because of its artistic
munificence as the American Renaissance,was the
"White City"of the World's Columbian Exposition
in Chicago, for which Hunt had served from 1891to
1893as president of the board of architects.
In New Yorkthe Museum'sVauxandWeston wings
suddenlylooked very dated. Polychrome masonry
for public buildingswas now passe,whereaspristine
white classicaledifices were de rigueur.The trustees'
discomfortwith architecturaldisplay,a holdoverfrom
the Tweed era and the Museum'slean earlyyears,
was now largelya thing of the past.
The pivotal figure in the decision to select Hunt
as Museum architectwas Henry G. Marquand,a
distinguished collector and president of the board of
trustees.Marquand,for whom Hunt had designed
houses in Newport and New York, as well as the
Marquand Chapel at Princeton, greatly admired
Hunt and, as a member of the building committee,
had championedhim for the job afterWeston resigned
in I890.
The earliestindication that Hunt was playing a
dominant role in the Museum'sarchitecturewas in
January1892,when he insisted on moving the site of
the new boiler house, east of the north wing, a few
feet west, "so as not to cut out the light from the
futurebuilding on the east side of it." But it was not
untilJanuary1894,with the opening of the northwing
finally in sight, that Marquandofficially convened
the buildingcommittee.The committee-Marquand
and Cesnola, with Hunt as chairman-had a power
and unity of purpose heretoforelacking. It recom-
mended that the new wing be located east of the
existing structuresand in a T shape. Behind it and
to the northwouldbe the boilerhouse,andto the
south,a libraryandlectureroom.JosephWolfwas
orderedto producea groundplanto initiatethe
funding,butit was actuallyHuntwho nowplotted
the Museum'sarchitectural future.
The officialrecords,however,arestrangelysilent
aboutHunt'sselection.It seemsthat the building
committee,skittishaboutthe possibilityof having
anotherarchitectforceduponthem,proceededto
workwithHunt(stilla trustee)withoutexplicitboard
approval.On April5, I895,the committeemet at
Hunt'sofficeto reviewhis progress.Accordingto
the minutes,Hunt"had,for severalmonths,been
studyingandpreparinga set of plansshowingthe
entirearchitectural styleof a buildingwhich,in his
opinion, should be erectedon the wholeareawhich
the City set asidefor the MetropolitanMuseumof
Art, andhadalsoprepareda planshowingthe eleva-
tion of a portionof the East Side."
Hunt'smasterplan(fig.40) filledvirtuallythe
entireparkareaauthorizedforthe Museum,from
Seventy-ninthto Eighty-fifthStreetsandfrom
FifthAvenueto the parkdrive,butit attemptedno
reconciliationwith the parkdesign.Hunt accepted
the existingbuildingasthe centerof his plan,floating
it in an immenserectangular court.He locatedthe
mainentrancewing to the east,on FifthAvenue,
40. Richard Morris
Hunt. Masterplanfor
the Museum, 1895.
Photographof a lost
drawing
31
 with a subsidiaryentranceto the west, on the park
drive. North and south were groups of pavilions,
each forming three courtyards.In the north complex
was an auditoriumwith its own entranceon Fifth
Avenue; in the south complex, a library,also with an
entranceon the avenue. Hunt's vast scheme would
have requiredreroutingthe Seventy-ninthand Eighty-
fifth Street transverseroads to accommodatepairs of
cornerpavilions. Perhapsby way of compensation,
the pathwaysof the formalparterreswithin the north
and south courtyardswere to be continuations of
parkwalkways.
Hunt's design was made up almost entirely of
narrowwings, each forming a single long gallery not
quite the width of the present Great Hall. Light was
providedby tall windows on the sides, and the ceil-
ings were of variousvaultedand ribbed types. On the
plan the western quadranglesare treated like clois-
ters, and the middle ones have what look like Roman-
esqueand Gothic choirs. Since no plans or elevations
for the second floor exist, our knowledgeof the build-
ing is sadly incomplete.
Hunt's scheme for the Metropolitanwas a splen-
did exercisein Beaux-Arts architecturalcomposi-
tion-the most ambitioushe everattempted.Having
studiedat the Ecole des Beaux-Arts for the better
part of a decade, he had learned how to design
quickly as well as how to design monumental public
buildings. The Ecole's concours sur esquisses(sketch
competitions) had taught Hunt to grasp the essential
requirementsof a commission and, since the school's
primaryfunction was to train architectsfor public
structures,many of the competitions that Hunt had
enteredwere for civic buildings. The design for the
Metropolitan was exactlyin this tradition.Its classi-
cal style, its symmetricaland axial plan, and the fact
that its exteriormasses accordedwith the interior
spaceswere all featuresof Beaux-Arts design.
The east wing, the building to be erected imme-
diately,included the new main entrance and was the
focal point of this grand design. Hunt lavished

41-43. Richard
MorrisHunt. Studies
for theFfth Avenue
facadeof theeastwing,
I894-95. Pencil on tis-
sue.ThePrintsand
DrawingsCollection,
TheOctagonMuseum,
TheAmericanArchi-
tecturalFoundation
(80.6io8a,80.60o8,
80. 604)

32
attention on its Fifth Avenue facade.A series of
quick pencil sketches in his own hand illustrateshow
he experimentedwith varioustreatments.The over-
all arrangementis alwaysthe same: a massive central
block, flanked by low, setbackwings and large end
pavilions.The centralblock evolved from a square,
domed structureinto a flat-roofed rectangle.The
early sketches (fig. 41) show a pedimented portico
and a centraldome; later ones (fig. 42) featurea
broad facade with a single archedcentralopening
flanked by pairedcolumns; and in the final ones
(fig. 43) a facadewith three great archesis flankedby
paired columns, very much as built.
On April I6, I895,the state legislatureappropri-
ated $I million for the constructionof the east wing.
Hunt could not attend the trustees'spring meeting
at the Metropolitanto submit his plans,since it coin-
cided with a visit he had to make to Biltmore, the
massive chateauhe was erecting in North Carolina
for George Washington Vanderbilt.He instructed
his son Richard Howland Hunt (I862-I93I), who
had joined the firm in 1887,to make the presentation
of seven finely rendereddrawings:three elevations,
two sections, and a floor plan for the east wing, as
well as the general plan for the Museum. Although
.1 . . . .1 1 1 . . 1 1 1-
of his last great projectwere completed. Cesnola 44. Richard Morris
Hunt. Presentation
wrote to Marquandthat
rendering of Fifth
Hunt'sunexpecteddeathwill placeourBuilding Avenuefacade of east
Committeein a verydifficultposition.How farhis wing, 1895. Photogra}
of a lostdrawing
plansof our new wing haveprogressedsincewe
lastsawthemI do not know;but if theyhaveadvanced
sufficiently,I thinkour Committeeoughtto stickto
them,if we do not I am surethatsomeof ourtrustees
will recommendtheirown architectsand finishby
selectingone of them, and all of the workalready
donewill go for nothing.
Marquand'sresponsewas unequivocal:"I expect
to carryout the Hunt design-He went all over the
work with Richardhis son and had given much
thought on the subjectfor a year-there will be no
chance for any body else to come in and snatch
his monument." Before the end of October the
trustees had approvedHunt's plans for the east
wing. Marquandhimself wrote the letter of trans-
mittal to the parkscommissioners,commenting that
the prevailingstyleas seen in the elevationherewith
submittedis intendedto be carriedout hereafter
throughoutthe whole structurecoveringthe I8 acres
so that the samegeneralarchitectural charactershall
be preservedin futureadditions.The Trusteesintend
thnt tf-o rnr;intrl onfri-r M11
to4i-h \i11-im clir11A 1h-%
 45.RichardMorris
Hunt and Richard
HowlandHunt. Ren-
deringof FifthAvenue
facade of eastwing,
of a
i896. Photograph
lostdrawingby
FranklinJ Hunt and
CharlesE. Mack

but not before Vaux (just two weeks before his $I million authorizedin April I895was exhausted,
death) got in one last jab at Hunt, his old nemesis. and in February 900o a supplementalappropriation
Cesnola recounted his conversationof November 5 of $200,000 was made "to fit up, equip and furnish
with Charles Burns, secretaryof the parkscommis- the east extension."The official opening took place
sioners: on December 22, I902.
The facade of this mammoth structureshows
He also tells me that the planswerereferredto Mr.
Vauxand that he is "kickingaboutthem"(theseare RichardMorris Hunt's absolute masteryof the art of
Mr. Burns'words).He saysthatMr. Vaux"isdead classicalBeaux-Arts composition. The principal
againstthe generalplanof the Museum."This the motif, the archwith flanking pairs of freestanding
Trusteescanwell understandbecausethe plans columns-two distinct structuralsystems arranged
which Vauxmadein I878for the whole Museum in perfect harmony-is repeatedthree times across
buildingacceptedand placedon file at the Parks the centralfront. The whole is set off by plain, lower,
Dept. havebeen ignored,andwill be supersededby
these new plansof Mr Hunt. Mr. Burns,however, slightly setbackwings. Inside, directlybehind and
does not thinkthatMr. Vaux'soppositionwill carry
anyweight.
In JanuaryI896 the buildingcommittee instructed
RichardHowland Hunt to begin the working draw-
ings for the new wing, but becauseof his relativeinex-
perience, George B. Post (I837-I913) was appointed
consulting architectto assist him. In November the
younger Hunt presentedtwenty-nine sheets of draw-
ings, including a massive renderingof the facade
(fig. 45).
Cesnola signed off on the final working drawings
in August 1897,the parkscommissioners did so in
September,and construction contractswere let in
December, two and one-half years after the original
presentation.Fortunately,the excavationshad already
46. Richard Morris been completed, and during 1898 the structure
Hunt. Second-floor
reached half of its final height. There was a long
plan of eastwing,
workers'strike in I899, but the building fabricwas
April1895.Photograph
of a lostdrawing nearing completion by the end of i9oo. By then the

34
 47. Hunts Great
Hall, I902. Photograph
CopyrightWurts
Brothers,New York.
ThePrints and
Drawings Collection,
TheOctagonMuseum,
TheAmericanArchi-
tecturalFoundation
(P79-9)

echoing the archesof the facade,is the Great Hall,
with its three immense saucer-shapeddomes (figs. 46,
47). Each dome restsupon a plastercornice,originally
decoratedwith heavy cast swags. (They were altered
in I906 by Charles McKim.) The cornice, in turn,
is supported on arches that spring from immense
masonrypiers. The four center piers havepediment-
ed niches (originallyintendedfor classicalsculpture,
now used for flowers) and roundels (the stone blanks
were never carvedwith their relief portraits).On the
first floor, colonnades in the center and end bays
provide access to the variousparts of the building.
On the second floor, behind the balustrade,is a con-
tinuous balconywith a vaulted ceiling. The domes

35
 ly powerful.The second-floor south gallery,for
example (fig. 48), had a gargantuanplastercornice
that dwarfedthe cases full of porcelainsbelow. In
1903the second-floor north gallery,to be used as a
setting (fig. 49) for the Bishop jade collection given
the previousyear,was alteredto re-createthe florid
rococo ballroom Hunt had designed for Heber
Bishop's Fifth Avenue mansion in 1892-94. In both
instances Hunt's interiorsoverwhelmed the art, and
the spaceswere subsequentlyremodeled.
Although the Museum'snew entrancebuilding
was executed in faithful adherenceto the elder
Hunt's design-the only noticeable change from his
facade design was the increasedsize of the cheneau
(the ornamentalgutter)-financial constraintsdic-
tated different materialsand the deletion of much of
the decorativesculpture.On November 14, I895,not
long after his father'sdeath, RichardHowland Hunt
had written Marquandabout the building:"Father's
first choice was white marble,but in case that proved
to be too expensive to use Indiana limestone."Just
before the constructioncontractswere let, and at
Marquand'srecommendation,the building commit-
tee decided that, "in orderthat there will be a suffi-
cient margin in the million dollar appropriationto
meet any unforeseen expenses,"the facade and the
Great Hall would be built of the "firstquality of
Indiana lime stone."
The sole visual recordof the elder Hunt's original
decorativescheme for the facade is the April 1895
rendering(see fig. 44), which the committee
approvedthat November. Showing a white-marble
facadewith an extensive programof figuralcarving
and inscriptions,it includes thirty-one pieces of
sculpture.Above the paired columns are monumen-
tal figuralgroups;between the columns are niches
containing freestandingstatues and, above them,
48. Hunt'ssecond- and vaultingwere constructedby the Guastavino relief panels. In each arch is a keystone with a head
floor southgallery Company,which introducedtheir thin-shell, of Athena, and in the spandrels,two portraitmedal-
(1902), I907
laminated-tile vaulting system to America from lions. Over the windows in the wings three relief
49. Thesecond-floor Catalonia.The "mosaic"floor is an aggregateof panels are separatedby caryatidfigures.The design
northgallery,a recon-
bits of marble(similarto what Weston had used), also shows six panels with names or inscriptions
struction (1903) by
Carr?reandHastings poured in sections framedby strips of yellow marble. carved in stone-three within the archedopenings,
ofHunt'sballroom Otherwise, the entire space was clad in limestone. three in the attic.
(1892-94)for Heber Mammoth electrified cast-bronze torcheres in the By the time of his death Hunt had not deter-
Bishop'sFifthAvenue mined specific subjectsfor this program.On the
mansion,I903
cornersand along the balustradeprovidedillumination
at night. drawingthe depictions of sculptureare generic;for
The architecturalembellishments in the wing's example,the four attic groups arebut one design,
other public spaces,though not of stone, were equal- alternatelyreversed.The inscriptions,while readable,

36

were hardlydefinitive:together with the names of
famous Renaissancepaintersand architects(Raphael
and Michelangelo, Bramanteand Scamozzi) were
those of Hunt, his son, and two draftsmenfrom
their office.
The scope of the sculpturalprogramwas reduced
with every revision of the plans:the six relief panels
in the side wings and the texts for the three attic
panels were left off the facade renderingof late I896
(see fig. 45). By the end of 1897the program,at least
that part to be executedin concertwith the building, one
5o. Architecture,
had been cut back to three keystone heads, four of thecaryatids
designedbyKarl
caryatidfigures, and six medallion reliefs. Bitterin i899for the
A proposalfor executing the caryatids(fig. 50) Ffth Avenuefacade,
and the medallionreliefswas submittedto Richard 1995
Howland Hunt in December I897by KarlBitter, a
talented young Viennese who had come to New
Yorkin i888 and shortly thereafterbegan a produc-
tive collaborationwith the elder Hunt. (Bitter was
largelyresponsiblefor the interior sculptureof some
of Hunt's grandesthouses.) He would sculpt full-
size plastermodels (at $4,800 for the caryatidsand
$3,000 for the medallions) and then have them
carvedin limestone (at $I,5oo and $i,ooo, respec-
tively). In June 1898Hunt explainedto the new head
of the building committee, Salem H. Wales, that this
work had been left off the general contract"asbeing
too difficult for an ordinarystone cutter to perform."
In July the committee awardedthe contractto
Bitter and decided on the subjects:"the four Cary-
atides to be carved to represent the four branchesof
Art, i.e., Painting,Sculpture,Architectureand Music,
and the six medallions to representsix of the most
celebratedOld Masters, to be selected later."In
October Cesnola askedHunt to suggestthe names of
appropriateOld Masters, exemplarsof the four
branchesof art representedby the caryatids.Four of
his original suggestions-Bramante, Michelangelo,
Raphael,and Rembrandt-were ultimatelychosen;
two others, Phidias and Beethoven, were rejectedin
SI. Weston's
south
wing andHunt'seast
wing. Froma colored
postcard,I905. Collection
of HerbertMitchell
37
 favor of Velazquez and Durer. (At a point when all
six candidateswere Italian, Cesnola expressedcon-
cern that it might look as though he had influenced
the decision.) In February1899Bitter deliveredhis
model for the keystone heads for the three arches,
and in November his models for the caryatidsand
the medallions were installed on the facade for the
committee's approval.
With the facade more or less complete, the com-
mittee revisitedthe issue of the unexecuted sculp-
tures between and above the paired columns. Wales
noted that the "massesof stone are designed to be
carved into symbolic figures representativeof the
purposes and intentions of the building."Hunt rec-
ommended that the figuralgroups represent"the
four great periods of Art":Egyptian (for ancient),
Greek (for classic), Renaissance,and modern. In the
niche directlyunder each principalgroup he would
place a reproductionof the best work of art of the
period expressedin the group above.Again, for
financialreasonsthe work was never done, and today
the piles of uncarved stone are an accepted part of
the facade.
While a certain surfacerichness-the reflective
qualities of marble and the chiaroscuroeffects of or-
namental carving-was undeniably lost in the
changesmade duringconstructionof the elder Hunt's
great wing, the darker,more texturedlimestone that
was used has its own distinctive qualities of gravity
and repose. The building, as constructed,depends
for its effect almost exclusivelyon the perfect scale
and proportionsof its parts.
Unlike the Museum'sprior architecturalefforts,
the Hunt wing was uniformly admired.On opening
38
day it was praisedby the New YorkEvening Post as
"the most outstandingbuilding of its kind in the city,
one of the finest in the world, and the only public
building of recent yearswhich approachesin dignity
and grandeurthe museums of the old world."The
noted architecturalcritic Montgomery Schuyler,
rarelyone for fulsomepraise,had to admit that Hunt's
"success,as we can all now see, has been really
brilliant."
However, the building had problematicfeatures,
which became apparentsoon after completion-
cramped and inadequateoutside steps and the lack
of adequatelight in the Great Hall. In 1905the
sculptorAugustus Saint-Gaudens expresseddismay
at the gloom of the Great Hall: "My attention has
been drawn to the dismal failureof Hunt's hall for
sculpturethere. It may be good architectureand a
glorious bath of Caracallathing, but it's a damn bad
gallery for the proper disposition of works of art."To
be fair to Hunt, he doubtless intended the Great
Hall ultimately to serve as a grand vestibule to the
Museum ratherthan as a gallery for the displayof
art;furthermore,his first choice of white marble
would have made the space lighter.
Another drawbackof Hunt's building, although
never so clearlyarticulated,was that people found
intimidating the overpoweringscale of the interior
architecturalornament.Accordingly,over the years
much of it has been strippedaway (see fig. 99). Thus,
while Hunt's building continues to serve perfectlyits
originalintended function as the ceremonialentrance
to a vast museum complex, the visual effect of its
interiorsis much altered.

CharlesFollenMcKimandMcKim,
MeadandWhite, 1904-26
The selection,in JanuaryI904, of the firm of McKim,
Mead and White as the Museum'sarchitectsushered
in one of the great chapters in the institution's
architecturalhistory.The firm conceived a compre-
hensivenew masterplan and, overthe ensuingthirteen
years,until the workwas haltedby WorldWar I, erect-
ed fiveexhibitionwings (out of a plannedsixteen),a
libraryannex, and a new boiler house. Though
McKim, Mead andWhite remainedin name the
Museum'sdesignersuntil 1926, they built little
after 1917.
The need for additional space had never been
greater.Hunt's new entrancewing, consisting princi-
pally of the Great Hall and the Grand Staircase,had
been conceived as only the beginning of an overall
scheme for the Museum. The building did little to
relievethe chroniclack of galleryspace,a need exacer-
bated in 1901by the acquisitionfund createdby the
bequest of Jacob S. Rogers and by the election to the
52. Aerial view of the
Museumfromthe
southeast, ca. I920,
afterconstruction
of
five wings and the
libraryannexby
McKim,Meadand
White,and before
thedrainingof the
reservoir (I930)
executivecommittee of J. Pierpont Morgan, one of
the great collectorsof all time.
Although McKim, Mead and White, the largest
and most prestigiousarchitecturalfirm in the country,
was the obvious choice to carryon with the Metro-
politan'smasterplan, the selection was by no means
a foregone conclusion. The Metropolitan had a his-
tory of hiring its designersfrom within, and two
other architecturalfirms were currentlyassociated
with the institution.
The first of these firms was, of course, Hunt and
Hunt. (Joseph Howland Hunt had joined his brother
in 1901.) Although Richard Howland Hunt had suc-
cessfullyexecuted his father'sdesign for the entrance
wing, constructionhad not been without its problems,
and Cesnola, who had closely followed the day-to-
day details,was acutelyawareof them. In late 1903
the members of the building committee-which
included Cesnola and FrederickW. Rhinelander,a
39
53. McKim,Mead
and White.Preliminary
masterplan, I904. Ink
on linen
founding trustee and since I902 the president of the
board-resolved that they "do not consider Mr.
RichardH. Hunt has had sufficient experiencein
the line of his profession to enable them to entrust
him [with] ... so important a work as the proposed
new wing of the MetropolitanMuseum of Art."
The second firm alreadyactivelyinvolved with
the Metropolitan was Carrereand Hastings. In i886
John Carrere(I858-I911) and Thomas Hastings
(1860-1929), both of whom had started as draftsmen
with McKim, Mead and White, went into partner-
ship and in I897won the competition for the New
YorkPublic Library,their masterpiece,on the Reser-
voir Squaresite once sought by the Metropolitan.
Three years later they were chosen to design and
supervisea miscellanyof projectsfor the Museum, in-
cludingrevisions to the steps of Weston's south en-
trance,and the addition of curving parapetwalls
leading up to the main steps of Hunt's Fifth Avenue
entrance (see fig. 56). They were also responsiblefor
the re-creation,alreadynoted, of the Heber Bishop
ballroom designed by Hunt. During construction
of the last, however,therewere problemswith some of
the subcontractors,and the board lost confidence in
the architects.
By early 1904 the committee must have decided
in favor of McKim, Mead and White, for on January
12,Mead sent Cesnola sketches of a proposed addi-
40
tion to Hunt's entrancewing as well as a new outline
plan of the entire building. Twelve days later Cesnola
offered the firm the commission.
McKim, Mead and White, founded in 1879,was
now at the pinnacle of its success and well known to
the trustees,having been proposed as designers of
the north wing in I890 and as consulting architects
in I896. By I900, with the economic depressionof
the I89os at an end, commissions poured in and the
firm'sstaff grew to upwardof one hundred. Charles
Follen McKim (1847-1909),with three years'training
at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, was a masterfuldesign-
er. StanfordWhite (I853-I906), of an expansiveand
artistictemperament,was the perfect foil to the
reservedMcKim. (Though he was once a member of
the Metropolitan'scommittee on casts,White was
neverdirectlyinvolvedwith the Museum'sarchitec-
ture.)William RutherfordMead (1846-1918),an
accomplishedbusinessmanand architect,served in
effect as the firm'sCEO. Within this triumvirate,
McKim was the first among equals,his prestigewith-
in the profession unsurpassed.In 1902 and 1903he
was elected president of the American Institute of
Architects, and in the latter year he won the gold
medal of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
He also mingled easily with government and finan-
cial leaders.In 1902, for example,while personally
overseeingthe remodeling of the White House for
President Theodore Roosevelt, McKim was called
on byJ. Pierpont Morgan to design the Morgan
Library.
The firm was capableof complex planning on a
large scale. In I902 the architectsundertook the
design of PennsylvaniaStation and, the following
year,that of the multiwinged Bellevue Hospital.
McKim, Mead and White also had workedon muse-
ums. In I89I the firm designed a diminutive domed
classicalstructure,the WalkerArt Gallery,at Bowdoin
College, and two yearslater,the massive complex,
also domed, of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and
Sciences (now the BrooklynMuseum).
McKim, Mead and White did not accept the
appointment as architectsof the proposed new wing
until FebruaryI5, after the Hunt brothers,who had
felt entitledto carryon with theirfather'smasterplan,
finally resigned.In March McKim assuredCesnola
that he was proceedingwith his preliminarysketches.
Though the immediate chargewas to undertakean
extension to Hunt's wing, the ultimate task was to
rethinkhis masterplan, to come up with a scheme
that would incorporatethe latest in museum design.
McKim, and later Mead, kept up with new develop-
ments, mainly German, in museum planning.The
principalissues addressedwere trafficpatterns(size
and arrangementof galleries)and lighting (ceiling
heights, skylights,and window sizes).
McKim took charge of the Museum project and
controlled it personally until ill health and the
shock of White's highly publicized murderin June
I906 took their toll. He remainedinvolveduntil his
54. McKim,Mead
and White.Transverse
sectionofpreliminary
masterplan, 1904. Ink
on linen
55. McKim, Mead
and White.Southele-
vation ofpreliminary
masterplan,April
g904. Pencil on tissue
4I
56. McKim,Mead retirementin I908. (Tragically,McKim died in I909,
and White.East before even the first part of his grand design had
(FifthAvenue)eleva-
tion of revisedmaster been completed.) During March and April I904 he
worked on elaboratinghis comprehensivescheme.
plan (firstpresentation
rendering), I904-5. Its principalfeaturesare all present in his first plan
Penciland watercolor
(fig. 53).McKim accepted Hunt's east wing as the
onpaper
entrance,then simplified and tightened up the rest
of his predecessor'slayout. He moved the central
north-south axis from the middle of the original
block (the Vaux-Westonwings) to its eastern edge.
He did awaywith Hunt's subsidiaryFifth Avenue
entrances,relocatingtheir functionsto the auditorium
and the libraryin inner courtyards,and transformed
the pavilions into two vast skylighted rectangles
placed at right angles to the avenue.He took Hunt's
north and south quadranglesand opened them up as
grand entrances.
Perhapsthe most significant change was the way
McKim dealt with the various additions, introducing
a corridoralongside virtuallyevery gallery and inter-
spersing among the galleries two-story skylighted
courts and light wells. What he had in mind is most
clearly stated in an excerpt of a report made by
McKim, Mead and White in I908, during a con-
tretemps over floor levels and shortly after McKim's
withdrawalfrom the firm:
In undertakingthe developmentof the generalplan,
it was our aim,first,to securean arrangementof
which
buildingsandcourts,of galleriesandcorridors,
shouldprovideampleexhibitionspaces,abundant
light,freecirculationandunitsof dimensionsso flexi-
ble as to permitof the utmostfreedomin the future
developmentof individualparts.Architecturally we
soughtto establisha scalewhich wouldgive a proper
42
senseof proportionanddignityto the buildingwhich
was intendedto housethe greatestmuseumof fine
artsin America,andwhich fromits purpose,its set-
ting, and its verydimensionswas destinedto be the
most importantpublicedificein New York.
The most dramatic(and short-lived) featureof
McKim's first scheme was a squarecentralhall with
canted cornersand a dome so vast that it would have
dwarfedHunt's Great Hall (fig. 54). The dome,
looming up behind each of the four public entrances
(fig. 55),would have endowed the building with a
true sense of its three-dimensional monumentality.
The central dome, though a common Beaux-Arts
design featureand almost a signatureof McKim's
work, was not acceptableto Cesnola, who wrote the
architect:"I have been requestedto ask you if the
dome which is shown in your plan could be dis-
pensed with. I do not like domes and we already
have more than we want, besides they take up too
much space on the upper floors."The dome was dis-
cardedbefore May 9, when the building committee
resolved to "acceptthe plan submitted for the pro-
posed addition and also the general plan for comple-
tion of the Museum as offered by Messrs McKim,
Mead & White, Architects."
Having arrivedat a flexible and broadlyconceived
ground plan, McKim now set about composing the
facades.Because he chose to honor Hunt's entrance
pavilion, he let its scale, material,and motifs be his
inspirationand startingpoint. He used the same
limestone and the same combinations of motifs
(archesand classicalorders),but at a smallerscale.
Thus, on the east facade, as seen in a presentation
rendering(fig. 56)-which, except for the lack of a

centraldome, conforms to the first plans (see fig.
53)-the Hunt building is flanked sequentiallyby
low, setbacklink structures,by largerprojecting
colonnaded wings, by more low link structures,and
finally by colonnaded end pavilions.The facades of
all these units have the same tall archedwindows
(illuminatingthe high-ceilinged first-floorgalleries),
flanked by either pilastersor projectingcolumns.
The west facade (fig. 57) duplicatesthe east one
except that the center part, a reworkingof the Vaux-
Weston block, is a tightly knit planarcomposition
with a grand colonnaded entrance.(There is no bet-
terjuxtaposition for judging the differencebetween
Hunt's bold baroquestyle and McKim'srestrained
classicism than the center treatmentsof these two
facades.) The north and south facades (see fig. 55)
are compressed renditions of the same composi-
tion: a pedimented central portico with flanking
link structuresand projectingcolonnaded wings.
Once the masterplan had been approved,in mid-
I904, McKim concentratedon detailed studies of the
wings to be built first (see Building Chronology,
pp. 45-53). The overallscheme was reviewed in
57.McKim,Mead
and White.Westele-
vation of revised
masterplan,
May3I, I904.
Ink on linen
FebruaryI907, when the building committee decid-
ed to seek massive new funding to ensure that the
plan, at least the Fifth Avenue facade,would be
completed accordingto McKim'sdesign. (Only one
of the three wings then under constructionfaced
Fifth Avenue.) For this effort, in April, McKim pro-
vided beautifullyrenderedpresentationdrawings
"showing[the scheme] more completelythan hereto-
fore."One of these, an elegant perspectivedrawing
looking north along the park drive (fig. 58), pre-
sents a grand, formal entrancecourt in front of the
Museum'scentralpavilion.Another (fig. 59), a plan
of the Museum and the surroundingparkland,depicts
the parkdrive,parterres,fountains,and even the obelisk
(Cleopatra'sNeedle), relocated along the Museum's
centralaxis. The drawing'sfloor plan exhibitsa num-
ber of changessince I904, refinementsgleaned from
having worked out the actualinteriorlayouts of
the threewings for which constructiondrawingshad
been preparedby FebruaryI907. (It also incorporates
McKim'sproposalto enlarge Hunt's front steps.)
Another drawing (fig. 60), a transversesection
through one of the vast, skylighted rectangular
43
58. McKim,Mead
and White.Perspective
renderinglooking
northalongthe west
facade.Photographof
a lostdrawingbyjules
Crow,1907, Museum
of the City of New
York

wings,showsthe degreeto whichMcKimdepended
on arcadesandvaultedceilings.
The masterplanunderwentone finalimportant
change after McKim's retirementin JanuaryI908.
When Mead took over the project,the building
committee determined to proceed with the large
Fifth Avenue north wing, which had been "proposed
and partly designed by Mr. McKim last year." This
forced a final decision about the entire north eleva-
tion. The Museum, partlyin response to public con-
cerns over expansioninto Central Park,reducedthe
scope of the project.In June I908 the pairs of nearly
freestandingwings at north and south were jetti-
soned, and in April I909 so were the terraces.New
drawings,including an elegant perspectiverendering
of the Fifth Avenue facade (fig. 62), were prepared
to promote the reduced masterplan. In I926, at the
end of the firm'stenure, the architectstook a copy of

59. McKim,Mead
and White.Firstfloor
and surroundingland-
scapeof revisedmaster
plan.Photographof a
lostdrawing,ca.I907

44

the final version of the masterplan and highlighted
the buildings that were alreadyerected (fig. 6i).
Building Chronology
The engine that had powered this planning was the
legislation of March 23, I904, authorizing the sale
of $I.25 million of New YorkCity bonds, in annual
amounts not to exceed $500,000, for constructionof
an extension to the Museum. Now it became imper-
ative to have designs readyto be put out to contrac-
tors for bids: for $500,000 in I905, $500,000 in I906,
and $250,000 in I907.
During the fall of I904 the architecturalprogram
6o. McKim,Mead
and White.Trans-
versesectionof south
wing, ca. 1907.
Photographof a lost
drawing
was interruptedby the deaths of Rhinelanderand
Cesnola. Morgan became the next president; Sir
CasparPurdon Clarke,directorof the Victoria
and Albert Museum, the new director;and Edward
Robinson, directorof the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, the assistantdirector.The Museum'scom-
mitmentto rapidexpansionwas, if anything,strength-
ened by these changes. The initiativewas assumed
by Morgan. Clarkegenerallyleft architecturalmat-
ters to his brilliantunderstudy.
In March I904 the building committee had
requestedthe preparationof detailed plans for exten-
sions north and south of the Hunt wing, but it was
April i905 before the committee finally decided to
build to the north. (Plans to build to the south had
6i. McKim,Mead
and White.Firstfloor
of reducedmasterplan
ofJunei9o8, annotat-
ed as ofJune i, I926, to
showworkcompleted.
Ink on linen
45
62. McKim,Mead
and White.East
(FifthAvenue)eleva-
tion of reducedmaster
plan,finalpresentation
renderingbyMaurice
J. Prevot, o908.Pencil
and watercoloron
paper

63.McKim,Mead
and White.East %47 ,*.1. .2.

(FifthAvenue)eleva- IIIT
tion of WingE,
a
June '9, i905. Ink on ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
linen I
lb
!"I
--
a..
asi

MwN
I 9A -
zr(
I I i__
,:# 77.'--1 4 P0t
}g
r B !+g3'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
p__

__hp f t**

@,1 "fl.III;'4V
il ; t <, * i?

46

been approvedby the trustees,but were latercanceled
because of potential problemswith the Croton
Reservoirwater mains on the site.) The north exten-
sion was to be followed by the projectingnorth wing
facing Fifth Avenue, and this constructionwould
use up all the appropriatedfunds. However, in the
fall of I906 it was decided to build the "north-
central"wing (later designated Wing F) to house
some ofJ. Pierpont Morgan'scollections. As this
left just enough money from the I904 appropriation
for an additionalmodest project,the trustees decid-
ed to proceed immediatelywith the libraryannex.
(It was at this time, in order to distinguish among
the concurrentprojects,that the wings were given
letter designations,beginning with Vaux's
as Wing A.)
64. McKim,Mead
and White.Detail of
'cheneau"of Wing E,
December i9, 90o6. Ink
on linen
Wing E
The north extension on Fifth Avenue (Wing E), the
first in which McKim addressedthe Museum'spro-
grammaticneeds, had three principalrequirements:
that its exteriorbe in harmonywith the existing
building, that its interiorprovidewell-lit galleries,
and that accessto the futurebuildings to the north be
unimpeded.McKim designedhis facade(fig. 63) so
that the horizontalfeatureswould conformto Hunt's.
The exceptionwas the uppermostcornice,which had
to be lower and smallerthan Hunt's to indicate the
subsidiaryrole of the link building. McKim alternat-
ed archedwindows with pilasters,also an echo of
Hunt's entrancetreatment.Aside from the keystones
(by A. A. Weinman, a studio assistantto Saint-
Gaudens), the only carved ornament that McKim
47
 allowed on this chaste facade was the elaborate
cheneau(fig. 64). (He took the design, which features
a horned-and-beardedhead surmountedby a flam-
ing torch, from the cheneauon a sixteenth-century
wing of the Louvre.) The only flaw in the exterioris
that, because of space requirementswithin, McKim's
facade is not sufficientlyset back from Hunt's.
McKim laid out the first floor (see fig. 53)with
narrowside corridorsflanking two large light wells
and a squaregallery in the center of the plan, provid-
ing maximumdaylightto everyroom. But at what
cost! He gave up irrevocablya grandvista north from
the entrancehall, a featurecentralto Beaux-Arts
design. The decision can be explained only in refer-
ence to public dismay over the lack of light in the
Hunt wing.
In May I906, after construction had begun,
Robinson suggestedalteringthe plans"witha view to
increasingthe exhibitionspaceby constructingrooms
instead of corridorson both floors."Though this
proposal challenged McKim's overallconception and
would at this late date entail delays and added
expense, the building committee concurredand con-
structionwas halted. As a result, all the corridorsin
the original comprehensiveplan, not just those of
this wing, were made into narrowgalleries(see fig. 59).
A revised contractwas signed in December I906 and
some of the gallerieswere in use by I909.
The most contentious issue arose afterbasic con-
structionof Wing E was nearlycompleted. In
FebruaryI908, at Robinson'sinsistence, the trustees
passed a resolution to lower the level of the second
floor in the new wing to correspondto that of the
adjacentHunt wing. They cited the great inconve-
nience of having to use staircasesbetween various
partsof the same floor.McKim, Mead and White
respondedin March,carefuillysummarizingthe history
of the decision to increasethe main-floor ceiling
height from 20 feet 6 inches in Wings A-D to 25
feet in all succeeding wings. They noted (in language
seeminglyat odds with McKim'sself-effacing
designs):
It is to us inconceivablethat,if the old buildingdid
not exist,so inadequatea height as twentyfeet,with
its resultantlimitationsof horizontaldimensions,
wouldbe adoptedfor the principalstoryof the great-
est AmericanMuseum,andwe believethat a broad
view of the problemdemandsthat the old building,
in so faras it hampersor impedesthe growthof the
new andgreater,shouldbe consideredas practically
non-existent.
48
In the end, with construction so far advanced,the
trustees felt compelled to go along with the recom-
mendations of their architects.Thus today there are
steps from the Arthur M. SacklerGallery containing
Chinese sculptureto the Asian galleries (on the
north); from the Raymond and Beverly Sackler
Gallery for AssyrianArt to the Ancient Near East
and Islamic galleries (on the south); and a ramp
from the RobertWood Johnson Jr. Gallery to the
Nineteenth-Century European Paintings and
SculptureGalleries.
Wing F
Plans to commence building to the north adjacentto
Wing E were short-lived. In I906 Morgan acquired
the Hoentschel Collection, an immense assemblage
of French decorativeart and architecturalwoodwork,
with the intention of displayingit at the Museum.
Robinsonhad McKim surveythe objects,and McKim
recommended erecting the north-centralwing (F),
which would extend north from Weston'sold north
wing (C), to house them. During the fall of i906
McKim prepareddetailed plans for the building,
which Morgan approvedin March I907. In what was
certainlythe most rapid constructionprojectin the
Museum'sexperience,the Wing of Decorative Arts
opened in March 1910. (It was renamedthe Pierpont
Morgan Wing in I918.)
Wing F, an interiorwing, had no need for exter-
ior architecturaldetailing (fig. 65). Its outside walls
were of buff-colored brick to provide reflectedlight
in the courtyardseast and west of it. Consequently,
McKim was free to design from the inside out. He
conceived an immense centralhall (fig. 66), 67 feet
high, rising far above the surroundingtwo floors of
smallergalleries to provide for ten large semicircular
clerestorywindows. When the building was finished,
Robinson describedthem and the ambient light:
These give to the hall a high side light which is beau-
tifullydiffusedby the cream-white,vaultedceiling,
andfallsmostbecominglyuponthe sculpturesand
otherobjectson the floorandwallsbelow.The shad-
ows castby it arenevertoo sharp,andit is equallygood
in all partsof the hall.To preventreflectionandin-
versedshadowsfromthe floor,it was necessaryto use
materialof a neutraltone,andforthisTennesseemarble
with an unpolishedsurfacewas successfullyadopted.
In i956 the arms and armorcollections were in-
stalledon the firstfloor,and in I97I the musicalinstru-
ments collections, on the second floor. The central
hall's architecturalfeatureswere restoredin I991.
Wing G Plansandestimateswereorderedfromthe archi-
The libraryannex(Wing G; fig. 67)was an almost tects, and drawingswere receivedin FebruaryI907.
freestanding structurecenteredin the courtyard The bids came in high, however,and it was not until
betweenthe entrancebuildingandWeston'ssouth March I908 that a constructioncontractwas signed.
wing.It was enteredby a narrowstaircasefromthe The libraryannex opened in July I910. Described as
corridoron the southsideof Hunt'sGrandStaircase. in the "styleof the Italian Renaissance,"it had space
Likethe auditorium, it hadbeenthuslocatedby for forty readersand 40,000 books. In I962 the annex
McKimto distinguishit fromthe galleriesandto was torndown to makeway for a largermodern facility
makeit a destinationin itself.And, likeWing F, the
libraryhadno publicfacadeandwas simplyclad
with plainbuffbricks. 65.Exteriorof
Tojudgefromwhatwasbuilt,theprincipal require- Wing E I90o
ment(otherthanshelvingforbooks)wasthatit have
a stately,light-drenchedreadingroom.McKim's
solutionwasa two-storyrectangular chamber(fig.68)
with tallclerestorywindowson all sides.Flankingit
werelowerwings,eachwith book-linedalcoves.The
piersandwallswerearticulated with pilasters,and
the flatceilingfeaturedelaborateRoman-style
coffering.Eventhe reading-room furniture-tables,
chairs,andcardcatalogues-was designedby the
architects.

66. Centralhall of
Wing E I9IO

49
 housing250,000volumes.To experiencea McKim- ing committeefounditselfin a quandary: the wings
designedreading room one
today, mustgo to the fronting Fifth Avenue were the clear priority,but
AveryArchitectural Libraryat ColumbiaUniversity. most of the construction wastakingplaceout back.
Until the FifthAvenuefacadewas completelybuilt,
Wing H the Museumwouldbe broadcasting its unfinished
By FebruaryI907 threebuildingprojectswereeither stateto everypasserby. Realizingthatsomethinghad
underconstruction(Wing E) or at advancedstages to be doneto ensureimmediateadditionalfunding
of design(Wings F andG), andthe I904 appropria- to completeMcKim'sFifthAvenuefront,the com-
tion effectivelywas fullycommitted.Now the build- mitteecameupwith a simpleyet audaciousscheme:
to adoptMcKim'sgeneralplanin its entiretyand
67.Exteriorof requesta multiyearappropriation of unparalleled
WingG, the library, scale.On Februaryii, I907, as an indicationof the
1910
prestigeof theirinstitutionandof the willingnessof
governmentthento supportthe arts,the committee
recommended adoptingMcKim's"general plan"and
applying foran of
open-endedappropriation $750,000
a year.In JuneI907 the statelegislatureauthorized
annualappropriations of $750,000 forten years,the
fundingthatwouldmakepossiblethe completionof
the FifthAvenuefacade.
In OctoberI909 Meadpresentedthe committee
with plansforthe northeastwing (H; fig. 69). He
madetwo changesto McKim'sfacadedesigns:first,
for architecturaleffect,the archedwindowsin the
plain bays the FifthAvenueelevationbecame
end of
nichesforthe displayof sculpture; second,to provide
the gallerieswith morelight,the Corinthian
columnsflankingthe windowson both northand
eastfacadeswereredesignedto be engagedrather
68. Readingroomof thanfreestanding.
the library,I9io Much morecontroversial was the questionof the
placement of the skylight above the centralcourt.
The mainfloorconsistedof a centralcourtwith
archedopeningsinto a surrounding cloister,with
enfiladegalleriesaroundthe outerwalls.Robinson
favoredhavinga skylightat the levelof the second
floorso thatthe lightwell abovewouldbetterillumi-
natethe adjacentsecond-floorgalleries.Mead
favoredraisingthe skylightabovethe secondfloorto
createa grandarchitectural space.In the end,to the
assistantdirector'sgreatdispleasure, the building
committeesidedwith Mead.
A constructioncontractwas signedin December
I909, andfoundationworkbeganin March1910
(fig.70),but it was anotheryearbeforethe exterior
wallswereup.Plansforthe interiorfinisheswere
completedin June1911,andthe contractfor them
was signed in January.The first-floor galleries,origi-
nally used for the displayof arms and armorbut later

50
taken over by Egyptian art, opened to the public in
June I913, and the second-floor gallerieswere com-
pleted the following February.The much-debated
two-story court (fig. 7I)-with walls of artificial
stone, floors of foot-squarered tiles from the Grueby
Pottery Company,and flanking gallerieswith vari-
ously vaulted and beamed ceilings-turned out to be
very handsome. Except for the splendid marblestair-
case (now leadingto the Costume Institutebelow and
to the Asian galleries above),with its Tennessee-
marbletreads and Botticino marblebaseboardand
handrail,the original McKim, Mead and White
interiorsof Wing H are now gone, supersededby
modern installationsof the arts of Egypt (first floor)
and Asia (second floor).

WingsJ andK
In JanuaryI912, with Wing H approachingcomple-
tion, the building committee turned its attention to
the southern extension of the Fifth Avenue facade,
Wings J and K. (Construction of Wing I, the new
boiler house, began during the summerof I912.) The
committee recommended that McKim, Mead and
White provide the design, with the understanding
that the new structures"correspondin external
development to the present North Wing," but that
"plansfor interiorsbe left for considerationin con-
nection with collections to be placed there."Mead
estimated that the outer shell of both wings and the
interior finish of Wing J could be put up for $750,000, 69.McKim,Mead
the year'sappropriation.Thus the Fifth Avenue and White.East
facadewould be completedduringthis phase of con- facadeof WingH,
z909. Photograph of a
struction even if all the interiorswere not. lostdrawing
Robinson saw the south extension as an opportu-
70. View of Fifth
nity to design gallerieswith specific collections in Avenueacrossthe
mind. He chose to gather together in the first-floor buildingsitefor Wing
spacesof Wings J and K the artsof Greeceand Rome, H, Octoberi5, I90o

the collections that he knew intimately.(In addition 7I. Center court of

to having been made directorin I9I0, Robinson had
been named curator of classical art in I905.) In the
planning of the new galleries Robinson and Mead
once again clashed, but this time the directorwould
win out.
There were two principaldesign issues:the treat-
ment of the center court of the south pavilion
(Wing K) and the approachto the center court
through the link wing (Wing J). Both men agreed
from the start that Wing J would have a monumen-
tal hall leading from Wing D all the way to K.
WingH, beforethe
installation of
thearmsand armor
collectionsin I9I2-I3
(This was a tacit acknowledgmentthat the illumina-
tion providedby the light wells in Wing E was
not worth the loss of the vista from the entrancehall
to the north.)But how was the courtto be treated?
Robinson,concerned with the appropriatenessof
the architectureto the collections and anxiousfor
side-lit galleries on the second floor,wanted a one-
story court.

5I
72. Southfacade of
WingK undercon-
struction, March i95i
In April I912Robinson wrote from Rome, recom-
mending that "thecourtin the middle of Addition K
shall be treated as a Greek or Pompeian peristyle,
with a garden in the centre, in which sculptureand
other works of classicalart would be exhibited with
some suggestion of their original surroundingsand
atmosphere."He sent planspreparedby the faculty
and studentsof the American Academy, and he
noted pointedly that the court would have to be
glazed at a one-story height.
Mead, however,still favoreda two-story court.
"PersonallyI think it would [be] bad,"he wrote to
Robinson, "to come from the Hunt grand hall-
through the high gallery-and land in a one story
peristyle."In January1913the directorfinally got his
way: a two-story central corridor,reducedin width
to allow for largerside galleries,leading to a one-
story court. The working drawingsare dated May I8,
1913,but the general contractwas not signed until
April 1914.
Excavation of the site for Wings J and K began
52
in July,and the first stone course, of granite from
Stonington, Maine, was laid in JanuaryI915 (fig. 72).
The rest of the stonework,of limestone from
Bedford, Indiana, had been laid by the end of July.
Work on the first-floor galleries of Wing J pro-
ceeded immediately after the building was enclosed.
The war in Europe initially affected the projectin
the spring of I915,when ships carryingthe French
Euville limestone for the door trim and the columns
of the great corridor,originallyscheduled to leave
from Le Havre, had to sail from Bordeauxto avoid
German submarines.In July the plasterersbegan on
the coffered ceiling of the corridor.But it was not
until December I9I7 that parts of Wing J opened to
the public.
The great first-floorrooms of Wing J are among
the best preservedof the Beaux-Arts galleriesin the
Museum, and currentplans for the reinstallationof
the Greek and Roman collections include restoration
of the rooms to their formersplendor.The arrange-
ment, a great barrel-vaultedcentralhall flanked by
two levels of galleries,recallsMcKim'sMorgan
Wing. This hall (fig. 73), however,is longer and nar-
rower,a corridor,with skylights in its coffered ceil-
ing. The similartreatmentof the interiorwas noted
by Robinson in the Museum'sBulletinon the occa-
sion of the public opening (December 1917):"The
ceiling is left in the white of the plaster,to gain as
much reflectionand diffusion of light as possible ...
and the floor, as well as those of the side galleries,is
of Tennessee marble,unpolished."
The shell of Wing K remainedvacant for six ~
years,until the war was over and sufficientprosperity
returnedto obtain furtherappropriations.During
the fall of i922 Robinson dusted off his Pompeian E~~~~~ ~
court design (fig. 74) and proceeded to work with i
William M. Kendall (i856-I94I), who in 19o6 had
become one of the new partnersin McKim, Mead
and White. The court, finished in i926, was the cul-
mination of Robinson'sgrand series of galleriesof
classical art.

73.Central
hailof
WingJ,1929

74.McKim,Mead
andWhite. Pompeian
courtin WingK.
~i:: DrawnbyFritz
ca.I922.
Steffens,
~ ;*~:.
..........~:Pencil andwatercolor
onpaper

53
 GrosvenorAtterburyI919-24
75. Branch Bank of Only two importantprojectswere undertakenduring
the UnitedStates,by
the 19205, and neither entailed a conceptual revision
Martin E. Thompson,
1824, shown on Wall
of McKim'soverallscheme.One, as alreadyrecounted,
Street, ca. I95i was the completion of Wing K and the Pompeian
Court in 1926. The other was the fiulfillmentof a per-
sonal passion of the Metropolitan'spresident, Robert
W. de Forest.
In 1922 the Museum announced the gift by
de Forest and his wife of a separatewing for the dis-
play of American architectureand decorativearts of
the periodsbefore I825. Plans for this new wing had
been taking shape for many years.
De Forest, a lawyer,was marriedto Emily
Johnston, a daughterof John TaylorJohnston, the
Museum'sfirst president. He became a trustee in
I889, secretaryof the Museum in I904, and Museum
president in I9I3. The de Forestswere pioneer col-
lectors of American antiques.As part of the Metro-
politan'sparticipationin the city'sHudson-Fulton
celebrationin i909, the trustees planned a loan show
of earlyAmericana. In de Forest'swords, such an
exhibitioncould"testout the questionwhetherAmer-
icandomestic artwas worthy of a place in an art
museum."An affirmativeanswerled to the Museum's
decision to collect American decorativearts,from
their seventeenth-centurybeginnings up throughthe
yearsof the earlyRepublic,and to acquireauthentic
domestic interiorsin which to displaythem.
Mrs. de Forest promptly (I9I0) gave the first
room, from a mid-eighteenth-century farmhousein
Woodbury,Long Island. But not much else hap-
pened until the "acquisition"in I9I5 of the facade of
the old Branch Bank of the United States. This
magnificent architecturalelement turned out to be
the determining factor in the whole conception of
the new wing.
Designed by Martin E. Thompson (I787-I877) in
1822 and completed in I824, the two-story, seven-
bay structurewas located just east of the Custom
House (now FederalHall) on the north side of Wall
Street (fig. 75). In January1913the secretaryof the
treasuryannouncedplans to demolish the bank (most
recently housing the Assay Office), noting that legis-
lationwas being soughtfor a suitabledispositionof the
facade.After no practicalpublic use had been found,
de Forestoffered, as a privatecitizen, to have the
54
facade disassembledand stored pending final place-
ment. In January1915,afterthe appropriateauthoriza-
tions had been obtained,de Forest'sofferwas accepted.
De Forest must have had the Museum in mind
for the facade all along, but at first he had no specific
idea for its futurerole. On February3, I915,he wrote,
"If it could be certain that it could be used in con-
nection with the Museum it would be better to put
the matter in charge of McKim, Mead & White, but
it is extremelyuncertain."(The firm was still busy
constructingWings J and K.) In I919, after a number
of rooms and an entire house had been acquired,
de Forestemployed GrosvenorAtterbury(I869-I956)
to take the bank facade;the Wentworth-Gardner
House, from Portsmouth,New Hampshire;and
twelve historic interiors and create the American
Wing. Atterbury,an old friend of de Forestand the
designerof his countryhouse, was best known for the
planned communityof ForestHills Gardens,Queens,
as well as for being an innovatorof prefabricatedcon-
cretehousing. But what most influenced de Forest's
choice was Atterbury'srecentlycompleted,sensitive
restorationof New York'sCity Hall.
Atterbury'splan of October I9I9 (fig. 76) shows
the Wentworth-GardnerHouse at the left, the gar-
den with flanking coveredwalkwaysin the center,
and his American Wing building at the right. The
last was a rectangularthree-storystructurewith, on
each floor,a centralgallerysurroundedby the historic
interiors,or "periodrooms."It was frontedon one
sidewith the bankfacade,which was to form the north
elevation of the proposed northwest court of
McKim'smasterplan. The reasonfor this placement
within the Museum was the new wing's close prox-

imity to the Europeandecorativeartsin Wing F and
to the future north wing, which was also intended to
house European decorativearts.
In the aftermathof the war'sdevastationin
Europe, constructionof this kind was impossible.
Thus, Atterbury'splans were not approvedby the
buildingcommitteeuntilMarchI922,bywhichtime 76. Grosvenor
the planshadchangedagain.The Wentworth- Atterbury.Preliminary
GardnerHouse,neverbroughtto New York,was planfor theAmerican
Wing, October9, I919.
subsequently sold,andthe parterreandflankingcov- Ink and watercolor,
on
eredcorridorswerenot built. paper
In JanuaryI923Atterburypresentedplansfor a
smalladdition,at the northend of the Morgan
Wing, thatwouldprovideaccessto the American
Wing properaswellasto the futurenorthwing.This
becameWing L, andthe AmericanWing became
Wing M. When the AmericanWing opened,on
Novemberio, I924, it wasthe firstprivatelyfunded
Museumbuildingandthe onlystructureby an
architectselectedby the donor.Freestanding in
the parknorthwestof the mainbuilding(fig.77),
the wingwouldnot be incorporated into the
CharlesEngelhardCourt-part of the Museums
I970 masterplan-for morethana halfcentury
(see fig. I09).
77. TheAmerican
Wing, I925
78. ProbablyOttoR.
Eggersin the officeof
JohnRussellPope.
Perspectivestudyfor
proposednorthwing,
I929-30o. Photograph
of a lostdrawing
JohnRussellPopeandOtto R. Eggers,
1929-39
In 1929, twenty-five years after McKim had begun
his revampingof the master plan, the Museum once
again thought about overall architecturaldevelop-
ment-what the building committee, when it met in
May, called the "generalarrangementof spaces in
the ultimate museum."This renewed interest must
have been inspiredin partby the Havemeyerbequest,
which had been accepted in January:the thousands
of workswould clearlyneed exhibitionspace.But
the committee decided to focus primarilyon a new
north wing, with the first floor given over to the arms
and armorcollections and the second, to European
decorativearts.
Robinson and de Forest,who had worked with
McKim, still ranthe Metropolitan,and they remained
committed to his broadlyconceived, classicallystyled
scheme. But the firm of McKim, Mead and White
had changed. The original partnerswere dead, and
their successorslacked that vital spark.Everywhere
classicismwas in decline. Who could be found to
carryon the grand tradition?
In September 1929 the committee selectedJohn
Russell Pope. Pope (i874-I937), a graduate of
Columbia'sschool of architecture,had studied at the
American Academy in Rome and at the Ecole des
56
Beaux-Arts in Paris.He firstmadea nameforhimself
with his largeGeorgianhouseson Long Island,but
by the late 920os he was recognized for his appropri-
atelyrestrainedclassicaldesignsfor a numberof public
buildings.In I925 he had won the competition for the
New York State Roosevelt Memorial at the Central
Park entranceof the American Museum of Natural
History. A year later he began working on the Balti-
moreMuseum of Art, and then, in I929,on the impos-
ing National Archives building in Washington, D.C.
In November Pope'sfirm was asked to review
plans for a new addition off the American Wing
and to provide designs for administrativeoffices to
be built over Hunt's Grand Staircase.A month later,
signaling the end of McKim, Mead and White's
association with the Museum, Kendall sent Pope
photographsand renderingsof McKim'ssouth and
west facades.In JanuaryI930, based on the projected
need for 90,000 squarefeet of exhibition space, Pope
submitted a block plan for the new north wing (N).
Since the American Wing intruded on McKim's
design for a grand north gallery,Pope pushed out
the center of the north facade,which enabled him to
provide the top-lit center and side-lit subsidiary
armorgalleries as stipulated.One of his facade stud-
ies (fig. 78) shows Pope's intent to blend his wing
almost imperceptiblywith the existing building. In
JanuaryI93I the committee approvedin principle the

final revisedplan (fig. 79), in which the armorhall
(fig. 80) was to have a suitable medieval flavor.
The timing of the projectcould not have been
worse: momentum was lost when both Robinson
and de Forest died in I93I. Even more damaging to 79. ProbablyOttoR.
the schedulewas the Depression-Pope had been Eggersin the officeof
JohnRussellPope.
engagedjust a month before the Crash. Four years Revisedplanforpro-
passed before a much revised and reducedprogram posednorthwing (N),
was unveiled. The north wing was put on hold, and, 193z. From"The
Building,"published
instead, the old west building (Wings A-C) was
by TheMetropolitan
slated to be modernized. It was the undertakingof a MuseumofArt, 1932
new administration:the Egyptologist-director
HerbertWinlock and the banker-collector-president
George Blumenthal.As soon as they believed there
was a reasonablechancefor publicfunding,they called
a meeting of the building committee.
In preparation,Winlock had written the mem-
bers, explaininghis proposalto replacethe collection
of casts in Wing A with the armorcollection then in
Wing H. In addition to the long-standing impera-
tive to move the armorto give more space to the
materialfrom the great Egyptian Expeditions
(I906-36), the Museum now had to contend with an
increasinglyhostile public attitude towardplaster
casts and Victorian architecture.As Winlock later
noted (I935), "Itis generallyadmittedthat the old cast
hall, installed as it has been for about forty years,is
today a most incongruousfeaturein the Metropolitan
Museum."The committee approvedin principle
Winlocks plan to begin dismemberingthe cast
8o. ProbablyOttoR.
Eggersin the officeof
JohnRussellPope.
Renderingof armor
hall in proposednorth
wing, i93I. Photograph
of a lostdrawing
57
8i. OttoR. Eggersin galleries on the main floor of Wings A and C, but it
theofficeofJohnRussell was I936 before they agreedthat the architectfor the
Pope.Proposalfor
armorhall in Gothic renovationwould be Otto R. Eggers (I882-1964), an
stylefor WingA, important designer in Pope'soffice since I909 and
ca. I936. Photograph of principallyresponsiblefor the Wing N. (Pope was
a lostdrawing
now too ill to practice.)
Eggers submitted a number of schemes, both
Gothic and Romanesque,for the armorhall that
would fill the old Vaux space. One, in Gothic style
(fig. 8i), with a wooden hammer-beam ceiling, has a
pointed-arch arcadereminiscent of the courtyard
planned for Wing N. The Romanesque design
(fig. 82) ultimately executed has such a cool and rea-
soned monochromatic quality-so characteristicof
Pope's classicism-that Winlock once describedit as
"in modern style."The new armorhall opened to
the public in JanuaryI939.In I956 it became the
Medieval SculptureHall.

82. Otto R. Eggers

in the officeof
JohnRussellPope.
Approveddesignin
Romanesque style
for the new armor
hall in WingA,
December 2I, I936.
Pencilon tissue

58
RobertB. O'Connorand
AymarEmburyII, 1940-54
During the I930S,with the majorexception of The
Cloisters in Upper Manhattan (completed in I938
and outside the scope of this history), the Metro-
politan'sinstallationsbegan to fall behind the times.
While the Depressionwas the main reasonfor delay-
ing constructionof the north wing, there was also the
problemof an old-guardstaff obliviousto new public
needs and to new trendsin the museumworld. Thus
it was that, late in I939, a few months afterWinlock's
retirement,the trustees selected as his successor
FrancisHenry Taylor,the articulateyoung directorof
the WorcesterArt Museum, in Massachusetts.
In June I940 the Museum needed an architectto
adviseon building anotheraddition to the American
Wing. Taylorrecommended Robert B. O'Connor
(I896-I993), of the New York firm of Morris and
O'Connor, on the basis of its Avery Wing at the
Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford. Constructed in
T^n'T-- A 4h;ic -x7n-cr -xr nre
crfn r3l11trth-liirrlt- ton
Morris was recognized for his majorrole in the 83.RobertB,
O'ConnorandAymar
Museum'spostwar development, his name did not
EmburyII. Proposal
appearon any of the drawings. for southwestaddition
By December I940, O'Connor, in association to theMuseum,includ-
with Harvey Stevenson, another partner,had not ing the WhitneyMu-
seumofAmericanArt.
only completed plans for the American Wing addi- Drawn byHugh
tion but also had surveyedthe entire building for Ferriss,i944. Graphite
Taylor.O'Connor'sreport,dated December 3I, onpaper
included a number of dramaticproposals:a curved
ramp to replacethe front steps, the removalof
Hunt's Grand Staircase,and the filling in of the
barrel-vaultedand coffered ceiling of the centralcor-
ridor of Wing J (see fig. 73). In I942 Taylor stated
that the new designs were based on the premise that
the north wing (N) would never materialize.(Pope's
fully approvedproject and a $3.5 million appropria-
tion were carriedon the capitalbudget of New York
City for nearlya decade.) Moreover,Tayloradded,
such a sum, when available,would be better spent on
revampingthe present structure.It seems that the
glories of Beaux-Arts publicarchitecturewere lost
lairP tpl4 nn Ta-ilnr inral 'VCnnnnr Tn thl^m lnftir rnnmc Anrl
84. RobertB. Metropolitan to merge,wherebythe Whitney would
O'ConnorandAymar
erect its own building as a wing of the Metropolitan.
EmburyII. Viewof
modelshowing In addition, the city had set aside $3 million for
proposedsouthwest Museum construction.Taylor,who was going to have
addition, I945 to raise more than half of the $7.5 million cost of the
85.RobertB. overallprogramfrom privatesources,decided to
O'ConnorandAymar announcethe venturein I945,the MuseumnsSeventy-
EmburyII. First-floor
fifth Anniversaryand the turning point of the war in
plan of theproposed
southwestwing and Europe in favor of the Allies.
remodeled Museum, To promote his project,Taylor had a plaster
i945. Photograph of a model of the building assembledin the Museums
lostdrawing
Great Hall. He orderedfloor plans with stylized
86. Lili Rethi. "The modem graphicsand employedHugh Ferriss,the most
AmericanWingTakes
famous architecturalrendererof his generation,to
Flight,"1946. Charcoal
onpaper providedramaticimages of the new Metropolitan.
The principalfocus of the constructionwas on the
southwest corner,the proposed site of the Whitney
Museum wing (designed by that institution'sarchi-
tects, Noel and Miller). The Whitney wing, its
entranceportal flanked by ten windows, is clearly
visible in a photographof the model (fig. 84). A wing
with the auditoriumand broadcastingfacilitiesis at
the bottom centerin the Ferrissview (fig. 83),while
the roof of RichardMorris Hunt's entrancepavilion
glistens at the top center. The additions were all
RobertMoses, the parkscommissionerresponsiblefor in a stripped-down"modernclassicism"(echoing
vastWPA projectsunderMayor FiorelloLa Guardia. McKim's scale and materialbut not his ornament)
Taylorwas told that the days of the city'spicking up that was to become typical of government buildings.
the entiretab were over and that hereaftercosts would The ground floor was reservedprincipallyfor ser-
be shared.Furthermore,if the Museum wanted city vice and educationalfacilities.On the first (fig. 85)
help,Moses recommendedemployingAymarEmburyII and second floors the galleries are divided up among
(I880-I966), consultingarchitectof the parksdepart- the five separate"museums," by which Taylorintended
ment (and a key playeron Moses'steam). Thus in 1942 to reorderand simplify the collections:ancient art,
the Museum'sarchitecturalfirmbecameRobertB. oriental art, American art, decorativearts, and what
O'Connor and AymarEmbury,Associate Architects. he called the "PictureGallery."Taylor's"museum"of
During the winter of 1942-43 the scope of the American art was the only one of these five museum
Museum'sbuilding programwas enlarged.Gertrude collectionsthat requireda totally new building,hence
VanderbiltWhitney, art patron and sculptress,had the proposalfor the southwest wing. One scheme
died, and the trustees of the Whitney Museum of would have requiredactuallydraggingsouth, on skids,
American Art signed a tentative agreementwith the Atterbury'sthree-story American Wing (fig. 86).

6o
 The other focus of attention was the Museum's
main entrance:RichardMorris Hunt's pavilion,with
its cramped,inadequatesteps and what was consid-
ered by many to be heavy,overbearingornament.
O'Connor'sfirst scheme was to provide a vehicular
ramp at the first-floor level and pedestrianaccess to
the ground floor (fig. 87). An alternativeidea, one of
the options shown in the plastermodel (fig. 88), was
to remove the staircasesaltogether.Taylorprobably
preferredthis approach,for in 1952he was to urge
"the elimination of the front steps that now strike
terrorin allpersonswho havereachedmiddleage."
In OctoberI945O'Connordrewthe staircase flanked
the planagreedon byboththe Museum
by escalators,
andthe MunicipalArt Commission.
Most of O'Connor'sproposalsforrenovation
includedthe removalof the uncarvedpilesof stone
aboveHunt'spairedcolumns-the obviousway
to modernizethe facade.Inside,therewas a concert-
ed effortto bringHunt'sGreatHall up-to-date.
The heavybronzelightingfixtures,the oversize
decorativecarving,andevensomeof the classical

87.RobertB.
O'ConnorandAymar
EmburyII. Proposal
for vehicularrampto
FifthAvenueentrance.
Drawn byHugh
Ferriss, I944. Charcoal
onpaper

88. RobertB.
O'ConnorandAymar
EmburyII. Viewof
modelshowingpro-
posal to removeFifth
Avenuesteps,
I945
 moldings were to be stripped away-an exercisein
purging the past that was renderedpersuasivelyby
Ferriss(fig. 89). The net result,while still a great and
dramaticspace,would have lacked the original's
color, texture,and shadow (fig. 90o).
Taylorbuttressedthese eye-catchingplanswith his
own writings. In Babel'sTower(i945) he declared,
"The public are no longer impressed and are frankly
bored with museums and their inability to render
adequateservice.They have had theirbellyfiulof pres-
tige and pink Tennessee marble."
In the Art News Annual (I945-46) Taylor pro-
posed that, with the realizationof his five specialized
"museums,"the Metropolitan would at last "takeits
rightful place as a free informal universityfor the
common man."In the Bulletin (JanuaryI946) he
urged Museum members to supportwhat was now a
$io million building program.
The money was not forthcoming, and in I948 the
Whitney withdrew its offer to relocate. Building
projectswere scaledback to the renovationof existing
structures,and even this reduced effort was divided
into four stages.
89. RobertB.
O'ConnorandAymar
EmburyII. Dramati-
zation ofproposed
modernizationof the
Great Hall, 1944.
Drawn byHugh
Ferriss.Charcoalon
paper.Gift of Mrs.
Hugh Ferriss, I963
(63.82.1)
62
Construction began on only the first stage of the
project,when it was incorporatedin the New York
City capital budget for i950. During July I949
O'Connor and Embury had worked up the final
plans. Movable partitions in the paintings galleries
were considered and then rejected.A pool was
decided on as the centerpieceof the restaurantthat
would replacethe old Pompeiancourt.And, with the
advent of privatefunds, an entirely new auditorium
was added to the list of works in progress.Bids were
receivedin November i950, and just over three years
later ninety-five galleries and six period rooms, the
new restaurantand auditorium,and new administra-
tive offices were completed. Taylor,particularly
proud of a 30 percent increasein exhibition space,
noted, "We are indeed fortunate that the sense of
grandeurof the architectsof the past endowed us
with such monumental'sallesd'espaceperdu."'
The biggest part of the job was the renovationof
the old Vaux and Weston wings (A-C). The first-
floor gallerieswere made into European decorative
arts galleries,which were severelyplain except for
travertinedoorframesand terrazzofloors. Sprinkled

among them were a handful of great eighteenth-
centuryperiodrooms,including those from Kirtlington faces intended to reflect sound. The critic from
Parkand LansdowneHouse. The second-floorpicture Architectural
galleries,little altered since the nineteenth-century,
had their ceilings lowered and coves simplified.
Their architecturaltrim was strippedaway and
replacedwith plain travertine.Vaux'sornamental go. RobertB.
staircaseswere boxed in. O'ConnorandAymar
EmburyIL TheGreat
Another majortransformationwas in McKim, Hall as it wouldlook
Mead and White's Wing K. The south and east gal- whenmodernized.
leries were convertedinto offices and a kitchen, and Drawn byHugh
the Pompeian court became the restaurantcourt.In Ferriss,1944.Charcoal
onpaper
I949 Carl Milles, the Swedish-born sculptor,was
commissioned to produce TheFountainof theMuses
for the pool. A yearlaterthe firm of Dorothy Draper,
Inc., was selected to design the restaurant.
In the early 950osthe trusteesof the GraceRainey
Rogers estate elected to use her bequest for a new
auditoriumon the site of McKim's original one in
Wing E. (Mrs. Rogers, an art collector,had died in
I943.)By summer1952, designs, generallyreminiscent
of O'Connor's,had been preparedby another firm,
Voorhees,Walker,Foley and Smith. The old lecture
hall was demolished, and the new auditorium
(fig. 9I), opened on May II, I954.The interior design
was sleek and modern, with the walls and ceiling
lined with thin plywoodpanels-of light tan "korina,"
South African white wood-which have hard sur-
Forumwrote of the acoustics,"notsimply
good; they are exquisite."That the auditorium
remainsunalteredafter forty yearsis a testament to
its elegance and utility.
9I. Voorhees,Walker,
Foleyand Smith.
GraceRaineyRogers
Auditorium.Drawn
byE. P Chrystie,
ca. I952. Charcoal
onpaper
63
92. Brown, Lawford
and Forbes.The
ThomasJ Watson
Library,viewfrom the
south, i958. Pencil, ink,
and crayononpaper
Brown, Lawfordand Forbes, 1954-65
In JanuaryI954 Taylor announced that the Museum
had retained the New Yorkfirm of Brown, Lawford
and Forbes to study the subsequent stages of the
building program.This group was known for having
recently designed a new researchlaboratoryfor the
New YorkBotanical Garden.Why O'Connor and
Embury were replaced,however,is unclear.The
change does not seem to have had anything to do
with Taylor'simpending retirement,which was
announced in December I954.With the election of
JamesJ. RorimerJr. as the Museum's sixth director
on August 3, I955, therewas a new team in place that
had every opportunityto alter the course of the
building campaign.
Rorimer,who had joined the Museum staff in
I927, directly out of Harvard,was a medievalist in
the Department of Decorative Arts until I934, when
he became curatorof the newly formed Department
of Medieval Art. His success in working with John
D. RockefellerJr. on the design and construction of
The Cloisters is legendary,and that building is wit-
ness to Rorimer'sremarkablesensitivity to architec-
turalvalues-to planning, massing, and materials.
In October I956 Rorimer announced his own ren-
ovationplan, sayingthat all acrossAmerica museums
64
"arebeing remodeled to satisfy present-dayrequire-
ments.... The publicis no longersatisfiedwith con-
ditions which obtained earlier in the century."
Rorimer'splan was basicallya continuation of the
programTaylor had instituted in I940. This fact is
not surprising,considering that both men were of
the same generation and shareda belief in the effi-
cacy of modern design and technology to make over
the Museum'sold building for a new and larger
audience.
The principalfocus of Rorimer'sefforts with
Brown, Lawford and Forbeswas RichardMorris
Hunt's Fifth Avenue entrancepavilion and the areas
immediately adjacentto it. In addition to moderniz-
ing the existing building and improvingvisitor circu-
lation, Rorimerproposedfilling in the open spaces
between Wings A-C and D. No longer was it nec-
essaryto have interior courtyardsserve as light wells
and airshafts.Electric light was now consideredideal
for viewing art, and air conditioning was preferred
for ventilation. Thus began an informal program,
today nearlycomplete, to fill in the vast interstices
between the Museum'swings.
BehindWing D, to the north,the old boilerhouse
would be replacedby a new servicebuilding. To the
south, McKim'sfreestandinglibrary(Wing G) would
be supplantedby a new facility.It was to be approached

through a glass-roofedcourtyardhousing the six-
teenth-century patio from the castle at Velez Blanco,
in Spain, a bequest of George Blumenthal in I941.
The new librarywas Brown, Lawford and Forbes's
one opportunityto provide a modern exteriordesign
for the Metropolitan. The firm selected a glass cur-
tain wall with anodized aluminum trim (fig. 92),
emblematicof the latest corporatearchitecturein the
Internationalstyle: the United Nations Secretariatof
I949-50 and Lever House of I952.Planning began in
June I954, but actualconstruction,which had to be
done in tandem with the other renovationprojects,
did not proceed until I962. The ThomasJ. Watson
Libraryopened in NovemberI964.
Rorimer's programalsoaddressedthe age-old 93. Brown,Lawford
of Hunt's front inade- and Forbes.Proposal
problem steps-now totally
for ground-floor
quateforthe growingcrowdsof Museumvisitors. entrance.Drawn by
With the unveilingof the rebuildingschemein HughFerriss,I955.
OctoberI956, Rorimergaveconsiderable attention Charcoalonpaper.
to, in his words,"whatsomeof us hopewill be the AveryArchitectural
andFineArts
ultimatesolutionfor a new mainentranceto the Library,Columbia
Museum."Hugh Ferrisswasbroughtbackto dra- University
matizethe Brown,LawfordandForbesdesign:the 94. Brown,Lawford
replacement of the staircaseby a ground-floor and Forbes.Proposal
entrancewith a vastprojectingmarquee(fig.93), for escalators
leading
up to the GreatHall.
leadingto escalators up to the centerof the GreatHall Drawn
byHugh
(fig.94).Thoughit is not spelledout in the records, Ferriss, I955. Charcoal
theremusthavebeendeterminedoppositionfrom onpaper.Avery
somequarters,andin MayI963,justwhenthe con- ArchitecturalandFine
ArtsLibrary,
tractsforall the variousprojectswerebeinglet, the ColumbiaUniversity
directorrecommended abandoningthis particular
one forthe foreseeablefuture.
The implementation of Rorimer's renovation plan
betweenI962andI964,with a goalof completionfor
the openingof the New YorkWorld'sFairin I964,
alsoincludedchangeswithinthe McKim,Meadand
White wingsfacingFifthAvenue:the creationof
specialexhibitiongallerieson the secondfloorof
Wing K andreplacement of the structurallyinade-
quatefloorin Wings E andH. Brown,Lawfordand
Forbes'sremodelingof the first-floorEgyptiangal-
leriesandthe second-floorAsiangalleriesin Wings
E and H was carriedout duringi967-68, after
Rorimer's death.The groundfloorwasgivenoverto
the CostumeInstitute,wheregalleries-their floors,
fountains,anddoorframes liberallyencrustedwith
travertine-weredesignedby the notedarchitect
EdwardDurrellStone.
Todaywe maycringeat the thoughtof someof
thesechanges-both proposedandexecuted-to the
Museum'shistoricbuildingsduringthe twenty-five-
yearperiodfromI940 to I965,but at the time they
reflectedan almostuniversally acceptedconceptof
progress.Taylordoesnot appearto havehadmuch
interestin the building,but Rorimerwaspassionate
aboutit. In I965,on the occasionof the completion
of his project,Rorimerwrote:"Wehaveendeavored,
moreover,not to violatethe essentialintegrityof the
buildingitself.... We havetriedto bringout the
bestin the Museumbuilding-its monumentality
andnobleproportions-andto acceptits limitations
even as we have to surmount them."
65
95.Aerial view of the
Museumfrom the
northwest,I99I

KevinRocheJohnDinkeloo entire fabricof the Museum building.More than

andAssociates,i967- anything else, it was through the efforts of Douglas
Dillon, president of the Museum (I970-78) and
JamesRorimerdied suddenlyin May I966. In chairmanof the board of trustees (1978-83), that
Decemberthe boardelectedThomasP.F. Hovingas such rapid progresswas made.
his successor.Hoving,like Rorimer,was a medieval- A grand opportunityfor expansion awaited
ist. He beganas a curatorialassistantat The Hoving even before he moved into his new office. In
Cloistersin I959, andit was therethatRorimer August I965 the United Arab Republic had formally
picked him out his a
as likelysuccessor, rolecertainly offered the first-century-B.c.Temple of Dendur to
not anticipatedbeforethe latter'splannedretirement the United States, in recognition of the American
in I970. But Hovingwasimpatientandin January contributionin rescuingAbu Simbel from the rising
I966 joinedMayorJohnV. Lindsay'snew adminis- watersbehind the Aswan High Dam. More than
trationas parkscommissioner. Duringhis fourteen twentyAmericancitiesvied for the temple,in what the
monthswith the city,Hovingenergizedthe parks press called the "DendurDerby."In JanuaryI966
with a multiplicityof publicevents.The trustees Rorimerhad stakedNew York'sand the Metropolitan's
musthaveunderstoodthatHoving,althougha claim to it on the basis of having the greatest collec-
Rorimerprotege,wouldrepresentan aggressivenew tion of Egyptian art in the nation. And earlyin April
populistapproachat the Museum,a clearanddra- I967 the brand-newdirectormade a spiritedbid for
maticbreakwith the past.But no one couldhave the prize, with a promise to install the temple in a
foreseenthatthe constructionprogramHovingini- glasspavilionadjacentto the Egyptiancollections at
tiatedwould,with onlyone architectural firmandin the north end of the Museum. When Hoving's
a littlelessthana quarterof a century,completethe effort provedsuccessful,the Museum was irrevocably

66
committedto expandingwestwardinto Central
Park.
Dendurwas not the onlybuildingprojectunder
consideration. Hoving,naturally,wantedto tie the
long-awaitedexpansionof the AmericanWing to
the nation'sBicentennialin I976. In addition,he was
aggressivelypursuingRobertLehman,recentlymade
chairmanof the boardof trustees,in hopesof acquir-
ing his fabledcollections-Old Masterpaintings,
drawings,anddecorativearts-which wouldneed
theirown space.Otherrequirements for newgal-
leries,suchas thosefor Europeandecorativearts,
wouldhaveto be addressedlater.
Hovingdid not considerBrown,Lawfordand
Forbes,the Museum'scurrentarchitects,suitedto a
projectof this magnitude.What was neededwas a
firmas freshandtimelyas Hovinghimself,butwith
the provenabilityto mastermind andexecutea large,
complexprogram.At this momentthe darlingof the
architecturalcritics,includingthe influentialAda
LouiseHuxtableof the New YorkTimes,was Kevin
RocheJohnDinkelooandAssociates.The firmhad
recentlycompletedtwo highlyregarded commissions,
the OaklandMuseumin Californiaandthe Ford
Foundationheadquarters in New York.Furthermore,
Rochehadbeencontactedby the curatorof the
AmericanWing,JamesBiddle,who,duringthe
directorial
interregnum-andin anticipationof the
Bicentennial-hadbegunplanningto expandthe
AmericanWing. In latesummerI967,whenRoche
cameto the Metropolitan to talkaboutone wing,
Hovingtold him thathe wanteda masterplanfor
the entireMuseum.As Hovingdescribesit, he per-
suadedArthurHoughton,thenpresidentof the
board,to allowhim to selectthe firmwithoutthe
approvalof the trustees'architectural
committee.
KevinRocheJohnDinkelooandAssociateswas
formedonlyin I966,but Roche,who wasbornin
Dublin in I922, and Dinkeloo (I918-1981)had long
beenassociates.Rochehadbeenthe principaldesign
associateandDinkeloothe headof productionin the
officeof EeroSaarinen
in BloomfieldHills,Michigan.
When Saarinen,the distinguishedFinnish-born
modernist,diedin I96I,in the midstof movinghis
officeto Connecticut,RocheandDinkeloocarried
outthe move.FromI96I to I966theywerepartners in
EeroSaarinenandAssociates,completingSaarinen's
unfinishedwork,includingsuchmajorprojectsas
96. Kevin RocheJohn
Dinkelooand
Associates.Master
plan, i970
67
97. Kevin RocheJohn the TWA Terminal (I956-62) at Kennedy Airport
Dinkelooand
and the CBS Building (I960-64) in New York,as well
Associates.Modelof
theMuseumfromthe as getting new commissions on their own. The most
west,I970 influential of these were the multilayered,multipur-
pose Oakland Museum (I961-68) and the luxurious
Ford Foundation headquarters,with its vast glazed
atrium and sheer walls of glass or stone (I963-68).
The comprehensiveprogramthat Roche and
Dinkeloo had been engaged to preparegave them
the opportunityto conceive of the Metropolitan as
an architecturalwhole. Not since the halcyon days
before World War I, when public moneys for con-
structionwere plentiful, had such a grand architec-
turalvision been contemplated.
Roche, as the designer,was faced with a situa-
tion similarto that confrontedby McKim in I904:
a hodgepodge of buildings constructedat different
times and as parts of different schemes. The por-

98.Aerial view,from
the west,showingthe
RobertLehmanWing
underconstruction,
'974

68

tions of the existing building that Roche considered
particularlysignificant historical featuresto be
preservedwere Hunt's Great Hall, Hunt's and
McKim's Fifth Avenue facades,Weston's south
facade, and Pope'sarmorhall. His task was twofold:
on the outside, to design a coherent west elevation
that would blend with Central Park;and on the
99. Hunt'sGreatHall as
restoredbyKevin Roche
JohnDinkelooand
Associates in 1970,
about 1992
inside, to improve the trafficpatternsand to
rationalizethe placement of new and existing collec-
tions. Just as McKim had had to honor Hunt's
entrancepavilion, so Roche had to honor McKim's
Fifth Avenue facade. But, whereas McKim could
plan generallyand schematicallyfor as-yet-undefined
collections, Roche had to accommodatemassive and
69
ioo. Kevin Roche
JohnDinkelooand
Associates.North
elevation.Ink on
paper, I970

IOI. Aerial view, from

the northeast,showing
the Templeof Dendur
in The SacklerWing
and theRobert
LehmanWingunder
construction,I974

70
 i
08= - *TVIiI

' , J ~1
. . . . ,. w . ,.,I,., .l I . . J_ ?
EEb
a1g1-44 1, 15wX1-14
I,. '.'.'.1'. i A I"

=. I I 11 ff IX ) I I I I I I 1 | I J J I 1 Ir I I \\I I
nl j
i L j
till I lljll
I I Ilijln J1~ l [ liii I
t II" II III 111 11111 11! I 1
j[ ll 1 ! 'I
11111 1 1
I1.1 | I| [Is n '1 jr 1 ,
J J ! n, * I I s I I I v I X I I I I 1 1, 1 | I1 t )I
w I I I I I-1.,*
W,,,X} I. I t
I ! rI .
_?^.. ,I?XJistXlg11g1llll .I'lt _t [I,
,i,,l.r..*wgw
'IiS I I I I . !
IL IL1I.,l I I I I
I' _.' "I.I I .l Il' .I"...
. I. I
. ...'
. "
.. ''. ^, .'
. i
...
I ;I- I

-
.. . *

diverseholdings within a building that had a ground masterplan (fig. 96). They surveyedexisting build-
plan (footprint in the park)smallerthan either ings and compiled detailed dossiers on the collec-
Hunt's or McKim's. tions to be newly housed. But their orderlyoverview
In the fall of I967, with funding supplied in part was repeatedlyinterrupted.First, there was the
by the city, Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Asso- need to prepare,discretely,a proposalfor housing the
ciates began the task of developing the Museum's Lehman collections, a proposal so compelling that it

102. The Temple of

Dendur, I995. Given to
the UnitedStatesby
Egypt in I965, awarded
to TheMetropolitan
MuseumofArt in
1967, and installed in
TheSacklerWing
in I978. In thefore-
groundare colossiof
AmenhotepIII,from
the Templeof Luxor,
Thebes.RogersFund
andEdwardS.
Harkness Gift, I92I

71
103. Detail of north new parkscommissioner,August Heckscher,who in-
elevationshowingthe sisted that about $500,000 appropriatedby the city in
junctureof McKim,
Mead and Whites I963 to redo the front steps be used or removed from
Wing H (1913) and the capitalbudget. Finally,there was to be a glass-
Kevin RocheJohn fronted wing on the south-the pendant to the one
Dinkelooand
Associates'
enclosure
housing Dendur on the north-to accommodate
for
the Templeof Dendur Governor Nelson Rockefeller'sgift of collections of
(1978), I995 the arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. None
of these projectscould wait. As a result,the order of
prioritiesbecame the front plaza and Great Hall
(completed I970), the Robert Lehman Wing (I975),
the Temple of Dendur in the SacklerWing (I978),
the new American Wing (I980), and the Michael C.
RockefellerWing (I982).The last two of these under-
takingswere finished after Philippe de Montebello
became directorin I978. Later,in the i98os, there
was a renewed initiative leading to the funding and
construction,in the southwestcornerof the Museum,
of the remainingpieces of the master plan: the Lila
Acheson Wallace Wing (i987) and the Henry R.
KravisWing and Carrolland Milton PetrieEuropean
SculptureCourt (I990).
The comprehensiveplan was completed in the
would secure the gift. Then they were confronted springof i97o, in time for the MuseumrsCentennnial.
with the redesign of the Fifth Avenue entranceplaza At a public hearing held in June, opponents of the
and the Great Hall, an initiative precipitatedby the Museum'sexpansion into the park nearlyderailed

io4. The American

Wingwith the Charles
EngelhardCourt,from
the west, I995

72
thewholeproject.Theircounterproposal wasdecen-
tralization-thedistributionof the Museum'scollec-
tionsthroughoutthe city-an approachwholly
to theMetropolitan's
antithetical nature.
encyclopedic
Finally, in January I971, after protracted negotiations,
the comprehensiveplan was approvedand the build-
ing permit issued for its first phase-the Robert
Lehman Wing.
Roche'sfirst plan for improvingcirculationwithin
the Museum'sexistingbuildingwas simple,dramatic,
and of unassailablelogic. He suggested opening up
broad avenues north and west of the Great Hall,
similarto the greatvaultedcorridorto the south. The
north one, throughthe Egyptiangalleries,would have
requiredmoving the Temple of Perneb and filling in
McKim'slight wells (see fig. 96). The west one would
have requiredremoving Hunt's Grand Staircase,an
integralpart of his Great Hall complex-and even
in the modernist i96os such a proposalwas unac-
ceptable.In the end, neither avenuewas realized.
Roche had better luck with a new north-south
corridorin the western half of his plan (see fig. 96).
He chose a route that bisected the Vaux-Weston
block (Wings A-C), thus making use of the original
front entranceof Weston'sfacade,which was to be
the focal point of a glass-roofed courtyard.
For the Central Parkfacades, Roche chose walls
of glass alternatingwith walls of masonry (a lime-
stone like that of the Fifth Avenue facade). The jux-
taposition of materialswas similarto that used so The clean,modernstyle of the design-its under- Io5.RobertLehman
effectivelyin the Ford Foundation Building. The statedquality and absolute absence of ornament Wing (i975), looking
southtowardpart of
Dendur and Rockefellerenclosures,with their great epitomize Roche's earlywork-was to be expected VauxandMould's
slanted-glasswalls, abuttedMcKim'snorth and south from a disciple of Eero Saarinen.The alternative westfacade(I88o),
wings (fig. 103). (Roche underscored the unbridge- would have been the "modernclassicism"of Robert I995
able gulf between the classicaland modern architec- O'Connor'sscheme, but it was rejectedby Roche as
turalstyles by leaving a space between them.) West of inappropriate.(To have even considereda continua-
the glass enclosuresprojectedthe squarestairtowers tion of McKim'sBeaux-Arts treatmentwould have
that terminatedthe north-south corridor.They are been unthinkablefor any serious-minded architect
limestone-clad, as are the northwest and southwest in the late I96os.)
wings. Between these wings and the original Vaux- The renovationsof the front plaza and Great Hall,
Weston building, on the west elevation, curtainwalls designed by Roche in I968 and underwrittenby Lila
of reflectingglass enclose two glass-roofedgarden Acheson Wallace,were completed in time for the
courts, inspiredby nineteenth-centuryconservato- Centennialcelebrationsin the springof i970. The
ries (see fig. 104). An unbroken expanse of slanting designfor the Fifth Avenueplaza(see figs. i, 96) was a
glass roofs became the dominant featureof the departurefrom the traditionalcombination of paved
entire west elevation. From the parkthe building walks and narrowstretchesof green. In orderto
appearslow-slung, receding before one's eyes. (In characterizethe areabetween the Museum and the
summer the glass reflectsparkgreenery,and over the avenue as part of the urbanfabric and not part of the
years the limestone has become coveredwith ivy.) park,Roche chose to pave it. He subdividedthe

73
 0o6.Kevin Roche
JohnDinkelooand I I I _I
Iw 1\-\
Associates.Longitu-
dinal sectionof the i^l^^
RobertLehmanWing, I I I-- ~ I

WTTTT^ ''^^ ^^ I _..^\vx\\

i974.Ink onpaper A ~~~~~~~~~~\W

o07.RobertLehman ;Ir I I I I I,
x, A Irw 1
LU - r
.r
Wing(I975), looking I I
I
I
-

easttowardthearches Ii
I E
of Vauxand Mould's I I I, I . I I, I I II . I, I
1,1 L ,
LI
I iII
I I I r
I
m

?i
III I
westfacade(I880), I I . 1 I

I
I995 IIIII iI II IIII I I I
.!i.
-r-1 -r
I z._W
I '1 II I III
I
I I I II
. I.
I1II1 - II
1
I II I"I II 1 I I1 1I I I . . .
I i
I
?
.1 1 ' .. II .
I I
?.
'I
.
I I
I
II
1 I(I I'II I I I I1 I l I
f' ( i I I Ii' i'ii' ' iI -1 ' '
- I
^IU

1 1I I 1 I1 .. I 2I1.. 1. ''
_,1 11 I 1 1 1I I 1 I. . l. . . . rr
.1 I^1
Ii . I i'I'I'I:: I i IIII I. .. I I I

74
plaza to reflect the five-part facade,which served as
its backdrop:at the center,broad new steps;on
either side, oblong fountains encircledwith discrete
vehiculardrives;at the ends, tree-shaded seating.
Not only were Hunt's front steps too narrowbut
they had no space, above or below, for gathering
crowds. Recognizing that the majorityof visitors
approachedthe Museum from the north or south on
Fifth Avenue, ratherthan from the east on Eighty-
second Street, Roche designed a broad, expansive
staircasewith a three-way slope.
The most complex and creativeof the new interi-
or spaces designed by Roche is that in the wing built
for the Lehman collections, directlyon the axis of
the Museum'smain entrance.The squareskylighted
centercourtis set on an angleto the Museum'soriginal
west facade.It is separatedfrom the adjacentgalleries
by two concentricwalls, with large openings through
which, from numerousvantagepoints (figs. 105-107),
one glimpses Vauxand Mould's pointed arches,with
their red bricks and graygranite-the perfect foil to
the monochromaticpalette of Roche'slimestone and
concrete.
Historic facadesplay a more direct role as focal
points in Roche'stwo greatglazed courtyards.Martin
Thompson'sI824 bankfacadeis the centerof attention
in the Engelhard Court (fig. I09), and Theodore
Weston'si888 south facadeforms an entire side of the
Petrie Court (fig. iio). What a fitting way to honor
the variedand colorfularchitecturalhistory of the
Museum. io8. The Carrolland
Milton Petrie
EuropeanSculpture
Court (1990), looking
west,with thearcaded
southwall designed
byKevin Roche
JohnDinkelooand
Associatesandpart of
TheodoreWeston's
southfacade(i888),
I995

75
Iog. The Charles
EngelhardCourt(1980)
with thefacadeof
Martin E. Thompsons
BranchBankof the
United States (1824),
'995

iino.The Carrolland
Milton Petrie
EuropeanSculpture
Court (1990), with
TheodoreWestons
southfacade(i888),
I995

76
iI. Viewof the
Museumfrom the
northeast,I995

77
 First-floor plan of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995
to showarchitect
Color-keyed

Vauxand Mould:Wing A (i88o)

Weston:Wing B (i888)
Weston and Tuckerman:Wing C (i894)

R.M. Hunt and R.H. Hunt: Wing D

(I902)

McKim, Mead and White: Wings E

(1909), F (1910), H (i9i3),J and K (1917)

Atterbury:Wings L and M
(1924)

Voorhees,Walker,Foley and Smith:

Grace Rainey RogersAuditorium
(I954);Brown,Lawfordand Forbes:
Thomas J. Watson Library,Blumenthal
Patio, and servicebuildings (I964)

Roche Dinkeloo Associates:Front steps

and plaza (I970); Robert Lehman Wing
(I975); Temple of Dendur in The
SacklerWing (I978);AmericanWing
and CharlesEngelhardCourt (i980);
Michael C. RockefellerWing (I982);
Lila Acheson WallaceWing (i987);
Henry R. KravisWing and Carrolland
Milton Petrie EuropeanSculptureCourt
(I990)

78
6L

IU U
mm 1 1 ! Flo
a

U
I
X 8

? _._~ :
a
_m1m
~ ~ l e~
~~~
m/l ~ :::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.
| P00

------- WEIR
 Invitation to the
inauguration ceremonies
for Westonand
TuckermansWingC,
Novembers,1894.
Engravingonpaper
byE. D. French
Illustration sources
Lost drawingsand accessionedworks are reproduced
from MMA negatives in the Photograph Studio.
Drawings,photographs,andprintsin The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Archives:figs. 2, 4, 10, II, I3, I4, 23,
27,30, 3I, 34, 35,36, 37,38, 53,54, 55,56, 57,6i, 62, 63,
64, 70, 74, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 9I, 92, p. 80.
Maps of Central Parkin the Thomas J. Watson
Library:figs. 7, 12. Figs. 96, 97, 98, ioo, 1, io6 cour-
tesy of Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates.
Floor plan on pp. 78-79 by Steven Hutchinson of
the Design Department, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Photography
Unless otherwisenoted, photographyof worksbelong-
ing to the Metropolitan Museum and the New York
City Municipal Archives is by KatherineDahab and
Eileen Travell and architecturalphotography is by
Bruce Schwarz of the Photograph Studio, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bernstein Associates,
fig. 95. Scott Francis/ESTO, fig. 99. Brian Rose,
figs. I, 102, I05, 107, IIno.
80
BibliographicalNotes
The principalsource of information about the
Museum'sbuilding is The Metropolitan Museum of
Art Archives, wherein are housed the trustee and
building committee minutes and all official corre-
spondence of the institution.
Many, but by no means all, of the architectural
drawingsproduced for the building survive.A num-
ber of important images are known only by old pho-
tographs.The Vauxand Mould material,mostly
working drawings,is divided between the New York
City Municipal Archives and the Metropolitan. A
handful of pencil sketches for the Fifth Avenue
facade are in the Hunt Collection in the Prints and
Drawings Collection, the Octagon Museum, the
American ArchitecturalFoundation,Washington. A
great mass of McKim, Mead and White drawings
are in the Metropolitan'sArchives. Ferriss'srender-
ings of the I940s are at the Museum, and those of
the 950os at the Avery Architecturaland Fine Arts
Library,Columbia University.The work of Kevin
Roche is in the office of Kevin Roche John
Dinkeloo and Associates, Hamden, Connecticut.
Another publication,of source material,is envis-
aged to complement this one. It will contain a cata-
logue of the architecturaldrawings,listings or
transcriptionsof relevantbuilding committee min-
utes and correspondence,and a chronology.
Acknowledgments
The researchfor this publication and the preparation
of the drawingsfor the accompanyingexhibition
would not have been possible without the enthusias-
tic cooperation of JeanieJames and the staff of the
Museum'sArchives;Helen Otis and the staff of the
Paper Conservation department;and Barbara
Bridgers and the staff of the Photograph Studio.
Invaluableassistancewas providedby departmental
interns Elizabeth S. F. Cooper, Catherine Drillis,
Audrey Manley, and Jay Tobler.I am indebted to the
following colleagues and institutions for lending
drawingsand photographs:SherryBirk, the
Octagon Museum, American Architectural
Foundation;Kenneth Kopp, the New York City
Municipal Archives;Janet Parks,the Avery
Architecturaland Fine Arts Library;Kevin Roche,
Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates; and
Herbert Mitchell.
X, \ \ : g

: E i

d 0: - f

1 bS*Cl-t*; z is; C
. :N | ,,, z
o?Art

I,

I!
.1'

I;'
I