原建筑設(shè)計：威廉·諾伊曼，改建建筑設(shè)計：過程工作室，奧德雷斯·謝科茨格拉斯建筑事務(wù)所

Original Architect: Wilhelm Neumann, Architects of the reconstruction: processoffice, Andrius Skiezgelas Architecture

1 外景/Exterior views

拉脫維亞國家美術(shù)館的重建和擴建設(shè)計或許會讓人感到不堪重負。這座建于1905年的美術(shù)館不僅是展示一個國家藝術(shù)史的著名建筑，也是拉脫維亞最珍貴的古建筑之一。重建方案應(yīng)保留這些價值，并給美術(shù)館帶來高效的新平面和場館，以滿足擴建后博物館的用途，以及新增的教育、社會和文化活動。錦上添花的是，擴建將給這座城市塑造一個當代地標。

這個重擔被年輕的立陶宛“過程工作室”和“奧德留斯·謝科茨格拉斯建筑事務(wù)所”成功挑起。在國際競賽中，一個新穎、尊重歷史的理念成為最佳方案。它突出了原建筑，并增加了地下附屬部分，作為街道層的公共空間。6年后，這座美術(shù)館向公眾開放，展示了40,000件藝術(shù)品，以及新舊建筑的奇妙結(jié)合。

拉脫維亞國家美術(shù)館由首任館長波羅的海德裔建筑師、藝術(shù)史學家威廉·諾伊曼（1849–1919）設(shè)計。這是一座具有國家意義的歷史建筑，在105年間正常運行而無重大修繕。在優(yōu)化現(xiàn)有空間的使用、增加新的連接時，建筑師保留了原建筑的功能和原有的細部，以及它的建筑形象和在城市景觀中無可否認的支配地位。

新的功能構(gòu)思實現(xiàn)了廢舊場館的再利用——行政樓的設(shè)置取代了之前的儲藏室，空置閣樓被改為新的展覽空間，屋頂設(shè)公共陽臺等。新的用途——展廳、餐廳、會議室和教室——被放在公園中與舊建筑直接相連的新地下附屬部分。選擇將舞臺讓給歷史建筑，以難以察覺的方式進行干預(yù)，出乎人們對躊躇滿志的當代青年建筑師的意料。然而，憑借巧妙的設(shè)計和功能方案、精心設(shè)計的細部，美術(shù)館的新建部分在保持安靜、尊重歷史而又有明顯的現(xiàn)代特征之間實現(xiàn)了平衡。此外，諾伊曼建筑華麗繁復(fù)的巴洛克和古典主義，與新場館簡潔、極簡主義的造型、色彩和材料搭配形成了和諧的對比，并激起了人們的好奇心，襯托著兩個多國建筑師團隊的作品。

入口將新舊部分連接起來，成為游客的另一個吸引點。下行坡道展示出美術(shù)館的檔案室和工作間：透過玻璃墻能看到一排排繪畫作品和其他藝術(shù)品以及修復(fù)的過程。

在室外，新的附屬部分由公園中一處微妙、活潑的地標顯示出來：圓形劇場風格的黃銅樓梯支撐起地下展廳帶玻璃屋頂?shù)膹V場。屋頂將美術(shù)館的室內(nèi)活動展示出來，并為展廳提供自然光?！?（尚晉譯）

2 外景/Exterior views

A task to design a reconstruction and extension of the National Museum of Art of Latvia might paralyze one with the weight of responsibilities. Besides the prominence of being a house for the State's art history,the museum, built in 1905 is one of the most precious architectural monuments in Riga and Latvia. The reconstruction should have preserved these values providing the museum with a new efficient plan and premises that would fit to the extended museum's program, enriched with educational, social and cultural activities. To top it all, the extension should have provided a contemporary landmark in the city.

The glove was taken up successfully by young Lithuanians "Process office" and "Andrius Skiezgelas Architecture". Fresh yet respectful concept highlighting the original building, complemented with an underground annex, working as a public space at the street's level was selected as the best proposal at the international competition. Six years after, the museum was opened to the public, exposing 40,000 artefacts and the intriguing combination of old and new architecture.

The building of the Latvian National Museum of Art, designed by the museum's first director, the Baltic German architect and art historian Wilhelm Neumann(1849–1919), is an architectural monument of national importance and has served its purpose without major repair for 105 years. While optimizing the use of the existing spaces, adding new links, the architects favoured retention of the original building capacity and authentic details, preserving its architectural image and the undeniable visual dominance in the city.

The new functional strategy resulted in re-use of old derelict premises - administrative block was arranged instead of previous storerooms, empty attic converted into a new exhibition space, the roof accommodated with public terrace etc. The new program – exhibition halls,restaurant, conference, and educational rooms – is fitted in the new underground annex in the park, connected directly with the old building. Opting for an almost invisible intervention, ceding the stage to the historic building isn't something that one could expect from young and ambitious contemporary architects. However,due to ingenious design and functional solutions, careful detailing, a balance between keeping silent, respectful,but obviously modern was created in the new part of the museum. Moreover, the harmonious contrast between flamboyant abundance of baroque and classicism of Neumann's architecture and laconic, minimalistic palette of shapes, colours and materials of the new premises builds up intrigue and acts as a foil to the work of the both teams of the architects of different centuries.

3 首層平面/Ground floor plan

4 地下層平面/Floor B1 plan

5 剖面/Sections

6.7 內(nèi)景/Interior views

The entrance, connecting the old and the new parts provides one more attraction to the visitors.The descending ramp reveals museum's archives and workshops: the myriads of rows of paintings, other artefacts and processes of restoration are exposed through a glazed wall.

Outside, the presence of new annex is given away by a subtle, playful landmark in the park: the square of the glazed roof of the underground exhibition hall is framed by brass amphitheatre-style stairs. The roof exposes the inner life of the museum and provides natural light to the exhibition hall. □ (Text by Rūta Leitanait?)

項目信息/Credits and Data

客戶/Client: 里加市財政局/Riga City Council Property Department

新擴建/New Extension: 3個展廳，藝術(shù)品倉庫，修復(fù)車間，技術(shù)支持部/3 exhibition halls, artwork storages,restoration workshops, supporting and technical premises.

改建建筑師/Architects: Processoffice: Vytautas Biek?a,Rokas Kil?iauskas, Marius Kanevi?ius, Giedrius ?pogis, Je?i Stankevi?, Aust? Kulie?iūt?, Migl? Nainyt?, Giedr? Datenyt?,Mantas Petraitis, Sandra Dum?iūt?, Povilas Marozas,Sandra ?lepikait?. Andrius Skiezgelas Architecture: Andrius Skiezgelas, Gilma Teodora Gylyt?, Rasa Mizarait?

改建施工/Restoration: Arhitektoniskās Izpētes Grupa:Artūrs Lapi??, Marina Mihailova, Guntars Jansons

結(jié)構(gòu)工程/Structural Engineering: Engineers' office Būve un Forma: Jānis Prauli??, Jānis Krasts, Kaspars ??ore, Olga Opol?enova, Solvita ??ore, Māris Grāvītis

總面積/Total Area: 8249m2

公共空間/Public Space: 2500m2

建設(shè)周期/Period: 美術(shù)館重建于2010年5月25日動工，2015年12月1日竣工/Reconstruction of the museum was announced on 25 May 2010, reconstruction was finished on 1 December 2015.

預(yù)算/Budget: €34,000,000

攝影/Photos: Norbert Tukaj

評論

張路峰：老美術(shù)館擴建新館是常見的課題，為尊重老館，新館完全沉入地下的策略也不算新鮮。值得研討的問題是：新館如何進入？和老館如何聯(lián)系？地下如何設(shè)計？在本例中，新館從老館門廳里進入，滿覆金箔的樓梯欄板可謂神來之筆，和大堂金碧輝煌的巴洛克裝飾風格相得益彰，又足夠醒目，像個時髦的抽象雕塑。下行一層后，會看到另一部樓梯直通地下，簡潔的清水混凝土材質(zhì)預(yù)示了地下新館的格調(diào)。地下空間的焦點是那個帶有玻璃屋頂?shù)姆綇d，它的出現(xiàn)像一個燈塔，給不規(guī)則形狀的地下空間提供了一個定位點。巧妙而又自然的是，這個玻璃屋頂在地面上形成了一個下沉式廣場，周邊設(shè)有供人們閑坐的臺階，人們透過玻璃可以看到下層方廳內(nèi)的人來人往。這個像“水池”一樣透明的界面溝通了地面和地下空間，揭示了不可見的新館的存在。

Comments

ZHANG Lufeng: It is not uncommon to see a new expansion to an old museum. It also is not a fresh concept to show respect for the old architecture by designing an underground expansion. The points truly worthy of discussion are: How do we enter the new area? How is the old building be connected to the expansion? How is the basement being designed? In this project, the new expansion can be entered from the old building via a gold, foil-covered ramp. This ramp is a masterstroke; it interconnects to the magnificent baroque style lobby in a way which is eye-catching and renders itself to a modern abstract sculpture.

Walking down to next floor, another stairway leading directly to the basement is revealed. Its bare concrete texture indicates the style of the new underground expansion. A square hall with a glass rooftop is the focal point of the underground space,functioning as a lighthouse by providing the irregularly shaped basement with an anchor point. Additionally,the glass rooftop doubles as a sunken square in the ground, natural and subtle. It is surrounded by steps so that people can relax on it and watch the people walking around in the underground hall. This interface unveils the invisible new expansion of the museum and acts as a crystal pool, connecting the ground and the underground. (Translated by Dandan Wang)

8 二層平面/Floor 1 plan

9 三層平面/Floor 2 plan

10 四層平面/Floor 3 plan

伊爾澤·帕克?。涸谑锥祭锛佑晒珗@和林蔭道形成的環(huán)狀綠帶上，拉脫維亞國家美術(shù)館的歷史文物建筑及其擴建部分是最令人印象深刻的地點之一。盡管展廳的結(jié)構(gòu)與尺寸足夠滿足20世紀初歐洲美術(shù)館的標準要求，建筑的時新性、擴建的可能性、對不斷變動的藝術(shù)場景的適應(yīng)性，在美術(shù)館最初建設(shè)的時期就業(yè)已置入商討議程。百年時間以后，置于地下樓層的展陳空間擴建看來是處理現(xiàn)存歷史建筑的一種合理回應(yīng)，卻也引起了關(guān)于完全隱藏新建結(jié)構(gòu)的做法是否過于尊重歷史建筑存留的熱議。（陳茜 譯）

Ilze Paklone: The monumental building of the Latvian National Museum of Art and its extension is one of the most impressive on the ring of parks and boulevards in Riga. Though the structure and the dimensions of the exhibition rooms correspond to the requirements of an art museum at the beginning of the 20th century Europe, the novelty and potential to extend the building, as well as to adapt it to the ever changing scene of art was already under discussion at the moment of building the museum. After hundred years the choice of an extension of the exhibition spaces under the ground level came as a logical reaction to the existent, again causing heated debates that the new hidden structure is almost giving too much respect to the historical substance.

11 內(nèi)景/Interior views

12 內(nèi)景/Interior views

13 內(nèi)景/Interior views