Description:
Constructed in 1883 under the oversight and design of
American architect H.H. Richardson, Austin Hall was the first building
designated expressly for the use of the Harvard Law. Its vaulted portico,
demi-tower, and two-toned sandstone façade mark it as one of Richardson’s
signature works– the true epitome of Richardsonian Romanesque. Inside is
evident the grandeur– both original and restored– for which it was designed,
replete with its most well-known masterpiece, the Ames Courtroom.
Display Options:
Though
Austin Hall is inherently site-specific (it was constructed for a particular
location and time), there are a coupe of other options that could have been
considered for its “display,” i.e. its location and orientation.
1)
Orientation
of the building and internal structure- the main entrance and portico to
the building faces away from the law school. Moreover, the main staircase
resides not in the tower but in a separate wing. Both of these facts could
easily have constructed differently. The tower, with pride of place in its
prominent position on the exterior, could have had a matching level of
importance on the inside. Likewise, it is not entirely clear today why the
grand entrance portico faces a direction that is so divorced from the overall
law school environs. That being said, such environs were not the same at the
time of Austin’s construction. In fact, the focal point of campus was and to
some extent still does reside much to the South. At the same time, however,
this revisionary and restorative impulse did in fact get realized in the
restoration of the building’s interior and in the rear glass-covered entrance
stairway, which destroys the work’s original symmetry on the rear façade. A
perhaps more interesting change that Richardson could have accomplished would
be to place the main chamber of the building, the Ames courtroom, on the first
rather than the second floor.
2)
Location
of the building- with the focus of campus so far to the south, why was
Austin located outside the Yard? Surely, space existed in the Yard as of 1880
that could have been purposed for Austin. As I wrote in a previous post, it is
possible that the University fathers felt placing Austin in its own context
would allow for the expansion of a truly separate law school. On the other
hand, however, this line of analysis may simply be distorted by our hindsight recognition
of the law school’s meteoric rise in the decades that followed Austin’s
completion. Regardless of intention, Richardson and his benefactor’s choice of
siting for Austin have irrevocably shaped the building’s history and interaction
with its surroundings.
No comments:
Post a Comment