Venturi, Who Blasted Barnes’ Planned Move, Was Architect for Its 1995 Renovation UPDATED

Williams and Tsien describe their Barnes design in video posted by the Philadelphia Inquirer

Architect Robert Venturi's letter (e-mailed to me by the Friends of the Barnes early this morning), opposing the planned move of the Barnes Foundation to Philadelphia, states:

The current building in Merion was designed specifically for the Barnes collection by Paul Cret, in collaboration with Dr. [Albert] Barnes as owner/curator.

Nowhere in his letter (discussed today by Christopher Knight of the LA Times) does Venturi note that the Barnes' current building in Merion underwent a $12-million renovation and systems upgrade in 1995, for which the architect was...none other than Robert Venturi. I wrote about that renovation on Nov. 28, 1995 for the Wall Street Journal (in an article for which I cannot find a link).

This is not to discredit Venturi's argument that separating the collection from the building "vastly diminishes the value and purpose of both." It's just to say that when he's defending the sanctity of the Barnes' current facility (which I have also vigorously defended), he's also defending his own work---an interest that should be publicly disclosed. Venturi and the Barnes go back a long way: He attended grammar school and high school next door.

Meanwhile, Inga Saffron, the Philadelphia Inquirer's architecture critic, has given Tod Williams' and Billie Tsien's just-released design plans for the Philly Barnes (described by her in detail) a rave review. But CultureGrrl, despite having sent requests to the Barnes, the Barnes' lawyers and the Philadelphia Art Commission, has still not managed to get hold of the 17-page submission and images to be discussed an tomorrow's meeting of the Art Commission.

It's a public document. (Just not for me!)

UPDATE: Nicolai Ouroussoff, architecture critic of the NY Times, has a very different take from Saffron's:

The result is a convoluted design. Almost every detail seems to ache from the strain of trying to preserve the spirit of the original building in a very different context. The failure to do so, despite such an earnest effort, is the strongest argument yet for why the Barnes should not be moved in the first place.