Courtesy Diller Scofidio + Renfro
Washington arts watchers have been whispering and wondering since The New York Times first reported earlier this week that the Hirshhorn Museum was developing plans to create a 145-foot-tall temporary, inflatable event space.
The bubble-like structure (see more images here), conceived by New York design firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro, would supposedly be erected twice a year for special events, and the most intriguing aspects of the project were laid out thusly by The Times:
And since the Hirshhorn is part of the Smithsonian Institution and stands on such sacred ground, any permanent addition would require the approval of the notoriously conservative Fine Arts Commission and the National Capital Planning Commission, a process that could take years.
The beauty of a temporary structure, Mr. Koshalek realized, is that he would only need to consult with the members of his own board. The budget would be around $5 million, a relatively paltry sum by the standards of recent museum expansions, even in today’s rough economic climate. And the design’s extreme flexibility — it can be blown up at a moment’s notice, and the interior can be easily reconfigured — could allow the museum to respond nimbly to cultural issues of the moment. (Worst case, if it turned out that people hated it, it could be packed away forever.)
But several details in that description are now raising eyebrows. For one, that $5 million price tag really just seems too good to be true — surely that can’t be the total cost? And for another, word from the National Capital Planning Commission this morning indicates that Hirshhorn Museum director Richard Koshalek has another thing coming if he honestly thinks he wouldn’t have to seek their approval before erecting the bubble. A spokesperson for the commission said the structure would absolutely require its approval, per the Planning Act, which takes precedence over any and all plans for buildings on federal land inside the District.
“The Planning Act doesn’t differentiate between something that’s temporary and something that’s permanent,” said commission spokesperson Lisa MacSpadden.
UPDATE: We’ve modified this post slightly at the NCPC’s request — DCist’s description that Koshalek “has another thing coming” is entirely our own take on the situation, in that he appears to have indicated to the Times that he assumed one thing, but the reality appears to be something different. MacSpadden emphasized that despite its desire to clarify the scope of the Planning Act, the commission would absolutely expect that any application, including the Hirshhorn’s possible plans, would proceed in a professional and amicable manner. We did not mean to imply that the commission itself was taking a combative tone on this issue.
