Hostetter Center for the Arts at the Pingry School
CITATION AWARD
Print this page PDF/208K/6 pages

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Completing a vacant corner of a 1980 Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, LLP design, this arts addition draws its character from aspects of the original building. The alternating rhythm of masonry piers and lightweight, copper-sheathed bays combines the appearance of the monolithic original front with the more industrial steel-sheathed back. Housed within are a 235-seat theatre, an arts room, art gallery, music rehearsal spaces, and a dance studio. The program engages the outdoors with a series of controlled views, and uses the courtyard as a workspace and display area for the sculpture.

Data Owner The Pingry School Type of Facility Middle/junior high school/high school Type of Construction Addition Area of Building 50,199 square feet Total Project Cost not available Status of Project Completed March 21, 2003

Credits Architect Ford·Farewell·Mills & Gatsch, Architects LLC Princeton, NJ Structural Engineer Harrison-Hamnett, PC Pennington, NJ Mechanical Engineer/Electrical Engineer Princeton Engineering Group Princeton, NJ Civil Engineer Bohler Engineering, PC Acoustics Shen Milsom Wilke Princeton, NJ Theater Fisher Dachs Associates, Inc. New York, NY

top of page

ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT

This 42,970-square-foot addition to a private school, grades 7-12, represents the commitment of the school’s board and administration to heightening the role of the arts in the curriculum. To that end, the program stipulated that the addition be located on the approach side of the building and integrated fully with the circulation network of the original building, which was designed by Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, LLP in 1980. The arts program includes a 325-seat theater with support spaces, music rehearsal rooms, art studios, a dance studio, a board meeting room, multipurpose space, and an art gallery. In addition, a small but important component of the program is a critique room, a space for highly interactive display and discussion between students and faculty.

The solution for this three-story building reflects the natural light needs for each aspect of the program. The theater is at the center of the plan and has all artificial light. Studios wrap this core on two sides, and a combination of windows and roof monitors create specialized lighting for specific activities. For instance, north-facing roof monitors bring light deep into painting studios, while a sculpture studio has a wall of glass opening onto an outdoor work space and display area. The detailing of the exterior skin allows not only the filtering of natural light but also a kind of framing of landscape views, so that vision is made the subject of the architecture.

The thick masonry piers that demarcate the zones of the building not only connect the building to the original structure, they serve as a series of proscenium arches that frame program spaces and the actual stage in the theater. Linking fine and performing arts, the sequence of prosceniums is visible both inside and outside the building. The critique room is suspended within one of these views, overlooking the lobby.

The method of design allowed for a highly interactive process with faculty and administration, with careful consideration of every detail of the teaching process, including teaching tools, storage, light power, ventilation, and information technology. Most important was the creation of a plan where the interaction of the arts was made evident. The lobby and circulation spaces are a key component of this activity.

This project attempts to relate program and space in a dynamic way. The copper sheathed skin transforms in time and space to connect to the landscape, just as the art made within seeks connection to a broader world. The variety of space is revealed through light, and the focus is on the sensory apprehension of the world. This building creates an expressive learning environment where architecture is integral to the pedagogy of the school.

top of page

• Size of school district, college, or client organization:
  843 students
  
• Population of community:
  Not applicable

top of page

QUALITATIVE PROJECT DATA

• What were the three greatest challenges of this project?
  1. To connect but differentiate new construction to the original structure.
  2. To incorporate a broad mix of programs in a compact addition.
  3. To introduce controlled natural light appropriate to each space.
  
  
• What are the three most unusual features of the solution?
  1. The façade incorporates both the solid masonry and porous metal skin of the original facility.
  2. The building is connected to the landscape by court and plan.
  3. There is highly designed space for each part of the program using light, materials, and structure.

top of page

SPECIAL DESIGN CRITERIA

• How did the planning and design involve the larger community?
  The program was shaped by a broad community of users as well as board members, administrators, and fund raising initiatives.
  
  
• Did the planning process include partnerships and, if so, how did those partnerships affect the design?
  Not applicable
  
  
• What aspects of the clients' goals and program shaped the project, and how does the design reflect those goals?
  The client desired a compact building that was fully integrated into the existing one, but that still had its own identity and entry.
  
  
• Describe different and effective uses of space for supporting learning.
  A great deal of support space, including control booth, storage, workrooms, etc., is accommodated in a structured design, which emphasizes the loft-like quality of the main spaces.
  
  
• How does the design incorporate technology to enhance learning?
  Technology ranges from kilns to computers, control booth to sound system. This is a state-of-the-art building for a program that instructs in all aspects of the fine and performing arts.
  
  
• How does the design encourage lifelong learning?
  By presenting a stimulating and inventive world, the building encourages the students to be open to new experiences.
  
  
• What aspects of the design responded to the surrounding physical and cultural context?
  The skin of the building is both light and heavy, open and closed, fluid and immutable, and it therefore links to the surrounding landscape.
  
  
• How did the design fit into the existing context of neighborhood and community?
  The wooded and open site is dominated by the original masonry building. The addition seeks to bridge the gap between the two by the use of lighter building materials and by bringing natural light and views of the landscape into the building.
  
  
• How did the design respond to the climatic and topographical site constraints?
  The building takes advantage of a change in elevation on its right side to introduce natural light on its lower level and to shape an outdoor sculpture court.
  
  
• What creative use was made of materials and building systems?
  A carefully designed copper skin filters light and offers framed views. Eventually it will weather to green, linking the landscape and the entry pavilion of the original building.
  
  
• Describe the strategies for passive and active energy efficiencies.
  Ample daylighting is used for spaces where appropriate.
  
  
• Describe other sustainable design materials, methods, or practices implemented in the project.
  The compact plan minimized site disturbance, made use of existing mechanical space, and has a high R-value envelope.
  
  
• How did the design minimize short-term and/or long-term maintenance?
  Concrete floors, resistant materials, and connections to existing facilities aid maintenance.
  
  
• If the project used existing building infrastructure, what imaginative design features evolved?
  Not applicable
  
  
• How did the architect make a difference in making the project happen?
  The architect was an effective advocate for a creative solution, expressive of the arts within. We were instrumental in building consensus for fund-raising, design, and program accommodation.
  

top of page