THE DOMINUS WINERY: A Case Study of an Alternate Masonry ...

THE DOMINUS WINERY: 

A Case Study of an Alternate Masonry System 

Building Technology GSD6204 

Professor Mark Mulligan 

David Choi, Madeleine Le, Wilson Lee 

January 14, 2000

Situated in the heart of Northern California’s Napa Valley, the Dominus 

Winery is located near the small town of Yountville, 50 miles north of San 

Francisco. It is a 50,000 square foot agricultural shed monumentalized by a 

reinterpretation of traditional masonry construction. For the Swiss firm Herzog & 

De Meuron Architects, their first American commission was an important debut 

of their work to American colleagues. In this essay on the strangeness of seeming 

simplicity, the architects have transformed a utilitarian structure into a monument. 

“As in all their work, Herzog & De Meuron eschews the Modernist delight in 

clarity in favor of the beauty of the blur, where both one thing and its opposite are 

constructed in the same place…Like all good monuments, it builds memory: it 

encapsulates the site and awakens half-remembered images within us.” 1 The 

design began in 1995, and the building was completed in 1997 

Clients 

Christian Moueix and Cherise Chen-Moueix are descendants of a well-established wine making family near Bordeaux. In respect for their 

heritage, the clients wanted a building that would be reminiscent of the French Landscape and the architecture of Chateau Petrus. From the 

1 Betsky, Aaron, “Dominus Winery,” Domus 1998 April, Dominus 1998 April, no. 803, p. 10

eginning of the commission, the architects were faced with the dilemma of converting a purely functional building type into architecture of high 

artistic merit. As Cherise stated: “St. Emillion’s Petrus is one the grandest of all Grand Crus…People are always disappointed when they come to 

visit, because there is nothing to see. It is just an old farm building." 2 Since the clients view wine making as the highest form of agriculture, they 

both desired an architecture that would be a monument to wine making, an architecture that understands the art of winery. The clients are more 

than farmers; they are also serious art collectors. Before deciding upon Herzog & De Meuron, they had spoken to world-famed architects such as 

Christian de Portzamparc and I.M. Pei. Although their firm was less mature, Herzog & De Meuron’s personal affinity to art and wine was the 

critical factor that won them the commission; Herzog is an oenophile and Cherise believed that his office most thoroughly understood 

contemporary art. 

Site 

Herzog & De Meuron situated the building, at the intersection of 

the slightly sloped terrain and the foothills of the Mayacama Hills to the 

west. Long and rectangular in plan, the building spans 300 feet and is 80 

feet wide. It becomes a boundary between two different types of vineyards; 

the monolithic form thus marks the transition from the lot designated for 

less expensive grapes to the upper slopes that produce grapes for the more 

precious Grands Crus. Standing in the middle of a valley, the building is 

2 Betsky, Aaron, “Dominus Winery,” Domus 1998 April, Dominus 1998 April, no. 803, p. 12

elatively flat compare to the rolling landscape beyond. Perpendicular to the natural line in the landscape, the wide arch openings are the gateways 

to the vineyard and the mountains. 

Its abstract form does not resemble vernacular building types; yet upon closer examination, the stone wall references the stone barns 

common to the Napa Valley. Its strangeness is contradicted by this likeness to the more traditional agrarian structure of the region. By heightening 

this tension between contextualism and abstraction, the architects elevated the shed into an art form. From a distance the singularity of the form is 

seen as an interruption in the natural landscape. This obtrusiveness makes the building a monument, yet it is ambiguous as a statement because of 

its abstractness. The winery exists somewhere between a factory and a monument. It is an invention born out of the tension between two 

contradictory typologies. The construction of the wall conveys this blurring of the boundary. 

Two archways cut through the form each at approximately one-third points of the span. The opening that is closer to the northern side of 

the span functions as a porte cochere. This gate frames a view of the upper vineyards as well as the hills beyond. A second cutout to the south is 

used primarily as access for pickup and delivery. Traditionally, the Chateaux of Bordeaux have two distinct sides of entry separating the 

ceremonial front entry from the service entry of the backside. The architects of the Dominus Winery contested this traditional scheme by placing 

both types of entry on the same side, blurring the distinction between service and front entry. Furthermore, The assignment of different functions 

to each of the voids breaks the formal symmetry. 

Program 

The winery’s function as both a container and a marker is most evident in the construction of the exterior stone wall. From a distance the 

stone wall’s monolithic appearance fulfills the need for a monumental gesture. Behind the mesh of rocks are glass-and-steel curtain wall system

on the second level, and a tilt-up concrete wall on the ground level. The wine tanks are buried inside a concrete bunker, while the offices above 

receive filtered light through the glass. The relative 

thinness of the 25m width in comparison to its 140m 

length helps preserve a maximum amount of land for 

growing grapes. Had the architects propose a less 

elongated shape, the building would have lost all the 

advantages of its site. The elongated form also allows 

for a loose fitting of function within the box. From the 

outside, one cannot sense the interior wine making 

processes. From within, the building evokes the 

atmosphere of old European wine cellars in an 

unorthodox way. The loosely held stones remind the 

visitors of a cavernous experience of cellars hidden 

underneath ground level. 

With the creation a self-supporting stone 

blanket, the architects were able to build a box inside 

the box. The program is divided into two parts: offices 

and tasting rooms on the upper floor, and the wine

tanks, cask rooms, and storage rooms on the ground level. The autonomous tilt-up concrete structure inside the southern two-thirds of the building 

houses the fermentation rooms and tank storage areas. Openings inside most spaces allow visitors to look out through the gaps between the stones 

onto the Napa Valley landscape. The barrel and tasting rooms are contained in a similar one-story structure at the north end of the building. An 

open suite of administrative offices sheathed in structural glass sits above this northern section. A concrete-paved balcony surrounds the offices, 

turning the space between the glass walls and the stone curtain into a pergola shaded by the rocks. 

Although the Winery building does not resemble a specific vernacular building type, and appears as a strange new invention by avant- 

garde architects, the layout of the program references the long tradition of French wine making. In the tasting room, a warehouse becomes a 

treasure house. A Spartan wine-tasting room overlooks rows of barrels in storage room. The heart of the building is the tasting room which is 

accessible from the porte cochere through a set of green glass doors that 

part to reveal a monastic concrete room, adorned only by a single 

wooden table. Flip a switch and a sea of light bulbs hovering from 

above illuminates the barrel room that stretches north beyond a partially 

frosted glass wall. There, the wine ages in row after row of French oak 

casks. Viewing this treasury of viniculture from the minimal tasting 

room is a revelation for all extraneous influences have been edited away 

to focus one's attention on the wine. The contrast between this dark 

heart and the translucent stone skin of the Dominus Winery could not 

be any stronger.

Design Concept 

The “box-within-box” concept proposes an inner structural box containing different programs and an outer masonry skin as a thermal 

regulator for the functions within. One of the chief design ideas was the emphasis on controlling the building’s response to climate and thermal 

changes. Herzog and De Meuron tried to take advantage of night cooling in the Napa Valley as a more ecological way of design. The concept of 

the self-supporting stonewall was conceived from the very beginning. During schematic design conventional curtain wall systems or steel and 

glass structure were ruled out. Their gabion system fulfilled their three main design objectives: 1) ecological integration of the building with the 

surrounding vineyard environment, 2) making use of the climate for efficient thermal system and 3) economical use of materials by eliminating 

mechanical systems. The climate in Napa Valley can be very hot during day and very cool at night. The gabion stonewall has the thermal ability 

to trap and retain cool air during the night and that air is used to regulate the hot temperature present during the day. Additional fans were also 

used to help circulate the air. 

A crucial part of the process of installing a passive thermal control system as opposed to a modern and machine-controlled system was 

proving the validity and feasibility of “free-cooling” and “energy-saving” to the clients. On the design end, both aesthetic and technical measures 

came together subtly in an otherwise a monumental object. Herzog & De Meuron pursued the smart skin wall system that would regulate light, 

transparency, and ventilation and simultaneously retain the sensibilities of a traditional masonry wall construction. The solution was simple yet 

inventive, aesthetically rewarding yet practical. 

The wall construction at Dominus contradicts traditional methods of construction. Traditionally, a freestanding dry stone wall 

construction had been used as a device for division or a marker of boundary. Each stone is held in place by weight and friction against one

another. This system of construction allowed earth and small plants 

to exist within the joints. Both construction and maintenance are 

simple. Typically, a battered wall is composed with stones that are 

generally very flat and square, and its height is equal to that of its 

width. Masons also recommend that the largest stones be on the base 

and the foundation course. “Even in severe frost areas, dry walls are 

built on very shallow foundations. Since the wall is flexible, frost 

heaves tend to dislodge only a few stones, which can be easily 

replaced. Each individual stone must be shaped to fit. The process of 

trimming a stone requires a chisel and a stonemason’s hammer. 

Score a line completely around the stone, then drive the chisel against 

to work with the natural fissures in the stone, and always wear safety 

glasses. 3 The needs of the gabion wall, however, dictated the 

negation of flat and square stones during selection. In addition, 

smaller -not-larger- stones were used in the construction of the base 

for pest prevention. 

3 Scott Fitzgerrell, Basic Masonry Illustrated (Menlo Park, California: Lane Publishing Co.), 1981, 54.

Materials 

The composition of different stone grades on the facade was designed to manipulate transparency of light as well as ventilation according 

to the program and functionality within the building. Since the largest and least densely packed stones were permeable to light and ventilation, 

they composed the walls of covered outdoor areas and the tank room where “the fermentation tanks themselves are insulated and fitted with 

sophisticated temperature controls.” 4 The closely packed smaller grade of stones shielded the more sensitive areas such as the cask cellar and 

warehouse where opacity to light and sun and a stronger barrier against temperature changes were crucial to the wine aging process. 

The basalt was chosen for its 

indigenous existence in the Napa 

Valley and for its dark-hue that 

melded gently into the agricultural 

setting. The quarry site was about 

ten miles away and trucks 

transported the stones directly onto 

the site. During the mock-up process 

in Switzerland different stones were 

used. While most articles on the 

4 Annette Lucuyer, “Steel, Stone, and Sky,” Architectural Review 1998 October, v. 205, no. 1220, 44.

project report that three grades of stone were used, an interview with Jean Frederic Lusher, the project manager for Dominus Winery, revealed that 

only two grades were used. Type A, the larger grade (8”-14”in diameter) created a more porous condition when stacked. Type B, the smaller and 

more densely compacted of the two (4”-8” in diameter) was distributed in areas that required more shading, thermal protection, and enclosure. 

Thus it was place in areas where the program called for more exposure to wind and light such as in the tank room where Lusher had mentioned 

that there was a desire for natural ventilation. According to Lusher, no extensive formal testing was done on the thermal performance of the 

gabion stone wall. However, engineers did confirm that the sure mass of the stones would provide adequate energy absorption. 

The sizing and thickness of the gabion cages were calculated with consideration to structural feasibility, light penetration, and aesthetics. 

Although the architects had many options for the size of the gabion grid, the final dimension of 7.5cm was the result of testing with tomatoes. “A 

10cm grid was considered but the 7.5cm was considered more aesthetically pleasing,” said Lusher. Before actual construction occurred, the 

architects built two mock-ups, one small scale and one partial full scale. The cages were manufactured in Switzerland and exported flat-packed to

the U.S. Although the wall would have been structurally sound with a 

depth of 10 inches, the 14 inches thickness was chosen to accommodate 

thermal and visual benefits of the largest stones, 14 inches diameter. 

Due to the use of sulfite in agricultural processes, the acidity in the 

Napa Valley soil tends to be stronger than most other environments. The 

architects were concerned that heightened carbonization would facilitate the 

premature aging and rusting of the wires. Therefore, a special gauge of the 

steel wire, the Galfon, was chosen to tie the gabion cages. Galfon, also a 

Swiss export, was coated with aluminum zinc to provide resistance, five to 

six times longer than the normal galvanize steel wire.

Construction Process 

Lusher stated that the most difficult part of working in U.S. for 

the first time was learning one another’s cultural standards and method of 

working. 

The construction initiated with the typical slab-at-grade 

processes. In accord with basic construction techniques, the entire area 

where the floor would be laid should be covered with washed gravel or 

crushed rock in order to reduced the capillary rise of moisture. Then a 

membrane strong enough to resist puncture when the concrete is placed 

should be placed over the gravel. This membrane serves as a vapor 

barrier to prevent moisture from entering the slab from the ground. 5 

Other considerations include a gap in the floor of the barrel storage room. 

This is an ancient traditional French method for the aging of wine. The 

exposure of the barrels to the earth is crucial because the bacteria in the 

ground are essential for the fermentation process. 

5 J. Ralph Dalzell and Gilbert Townsend, Masonry Simplified (Alsip, Illinois: American Technical Publishers, Inc.), 1984, 225-226.

Taking the center of the main arch as a reference point, the grade level of the building sloped down eighteen inches on both sides. 

Therefore, the cage sizes of the first row had varying heights in order to create a level base. The concrete 

base coursing was extended to allow the gabion wall to rest on top to minimize settlement of the wall into 

the ground. This method allowed the first row to extend below grade, generating a pleasing aesthetic 

solution. 

The connection details of the concrete wall and the steel structure to the gabion cages are very 

simple and “rough” in character. The concrete panels were poured on site in a method called “tilt-up” 

construction. In "tilt-up" construction, wall panels are pre-cast on the floor slab. Then workers use a crane 

to tilt them into place and secure them with cast-in-place columns or pilasters. 6 Before pouring the concrete 

mixture, one-inch diameter steel pipes were attached into the form-work at three feet intervals. Due to the 

high incidents of earthquakes in the California region, the architects needed to account for seismic loads in 

the design of their wall system. In order to prevent structural damaged caused by differential movements 

during an earthquake, the gabion stone wall needed to be secured to the more stable earthquake-proof inner 

concrete and steel structure. The horizontal pipe segments extend two inches off the surface of the finish 

concrete and are welded to vertical steel pipes. Worker then tied the gabion cages to the vertical pipes with 

Galfon steel wires at three loops per cage. In theory, the wires served as the seismic buffer. For lateral 

support on the upper portion of the building, the vertical pipes were welded to the steel-framing members on 

6 Dalzell and Townsend, 249.

the second floor. Lusher confidently assured us that this construction has proved its durability during two earthquakes since the completion of 

construction. 

For precision of the courses, two gabion cages, one at each corner, were filled and stacked first as a guides to lead the rest of the coursing 

on a perfectly horizontal line. Instead of using mortar as in brick construction to join the next layer of gabion cages, steel wires were twirled 

manually to stabilize the wall. Lusher stated that only two gabions were installed at a time. To ensure further precision of the construction, the 

masons filled the gabion cage with loose crushed basalt on site. Had the stones been filled individually before construction, the steel cages would 

not have maintained their original shape during transportation, thus resulting in irregularity of the units. 

Two groups, a total of 15-20 people, worked simultaneously, one starting on west façade, the other on the east. They worked horizontally, 

assembling two cages at a time for practical and economical reasons. The process took about three months to complete. The height of the wall, 

approximately 17 gabion cages, was determined by the need of the client. A higher wall was technically possible but the resulting potential 

settlement of the cages due to excessive weight would have undermined the quality of the construction and design. When asked to point out the 

most complicated part of the gabion wall construction process, Lusher immediately described the construction of the entrance. A steel lintel plate 

was attached to the structural steel frames to provide support for the gabion cages above. 

To compliment the two grades of stone, two sizes of mesh were used. The larger 7.5cm grid mesh surrounded the entire building 

envelope. At the base of the walls, a finer mesh was then added to prevent mice, which attracted rattlesnakes, from nesting among the rocks. Each 

pair of cages was placed into position and restrained by ties to stainless steel pipes cast into the concrete wall panels. In the areas with steel frame,

ackets were used to anchor the gabion stone wall. Through their use of “a single module of 900x450x450mm for [all gabion cages in the] entire 

building,” 7 an enormous variety in transparencies was achieved by very frugal means. 

Water Drainage 

Only from a distance, are we able to see the separation of the skin from the structure as the top row of gabion cages stops short of the roof 

revealing the fascia. When we stand very close to the stone wall, however, the fascia disappears behind the 2 feet depth of the wall, setting the 

edge of the gabion cage against the sky. This quality was achieved by covering only half of the top row cages with flashing. The resulting detail 

permitted water from precipitation to run 

directly onto the stones inside the cages as 

well as hindered precipitation along the 

concrete wall. This economic solution 

minimized the cost and number of pipes by 

reducing the volume of water flowing from 

the roof. 

Lusher emphasized the power of the 

simple water drainage details to accentuate 

the dark hue of the basalt. Gutters for 

7 Lecuyer, 44.

drainage would have damaged the overall aesthetics of the wall; any mechanical appendages would interrupt the monolithic quality of 

construction. The gravel roof was tenuously sloped 3 degrees with the highest point at the mid-point of the short section to accommodate the flow 

of water. According to Lusher, the design team had wished for the water from the roof to run solely onto the stones and into the ground. 

However, the mechanical engineer advised that the run off water from the roof would have been too much for the land to handle, perhaps resulting 

in soggy ground conditions. Therefore, the architects settled for the placement of drainage pipes within the building. The figure below shows a 

copper pipe running vertically behind the glass. Two additional pipes on the roof of each long façade also assisted the drainage of water down into 

the ground through a pipe, alleviating the topsoil of excess dampness. 

Maintenance 

The infestation of mice and other pests from nesting in the rock is a common concern in cavity filled construction in the agricultural 

setting of Napa Valley. Once a year, a maintenance crew inspects for mice that would attracted deadly rattlesnakes. Lusher delighted in seeing 

the color of the stones deepen after a rainfall and the expressive and organic nature of the visually unpredictable façade. The accumulation of dirt 

and vegetation are challenges we foresee in the near future. However, Herzog and De Meuron have confidence in their thoughtful design process 

that took great measures in forethought such as the protective base mesh and the Galfon wires. They even suggested that perhaps the best 

maintenance for this wall is to let nature run its course.

Conclusion 

In both the interior and exterior, the architects use minimal means to create grand effects in response to program and site: 

“Principals Jacques Herzog and Pierre De Meuron's odd monuments replace the shards of Deconstructivism as the major mode of expression for the European avantgarde. 

They use abstraction not as a tool to edit out complexity, but rather as a way of assembling programmatic and siting contradictions into singular and strong forms. 

By finding a coherent shape that contains, rather than replaces, program and context as well as the architects' own biases, they make buildings that do not refer directly to 

the past, the surroundings, or a particular style. [They] shape them into images that seem both familiar and strange at the same time. With cantilevers, contortions, and 

camouflage, Herzog & De Meuron frustrates our assumptions that all Modern architecture is clear and clean, instead making something highly elusive.” 8 

Not unlike the screen porches of vernacular buildings, the rocks protect the interior from the strong California sun. The wall is 

simultaneously transparent and solid, traditional and innovative, contextual and a-contextual. The rocks for the four walls were quarried from 

nearby American Canyon. These rubbles are held together by a gabion system, which is a steel-mesh screen used to prevent stones from falling 

onto cars following excavation of hillsides during highway construction. Common in both the Swiss Alps and the California Sierras, this steel 

mesh has been used for some time in the construction of infrastructures. The architects appropriated and reconfigured this technique to suit their 

programmatic needs. By varying the size of the mesh and the stones at different places on the wall, they were able to control levels of light that 

would reach the interiors. While appearing to be solid from a distance, it is a diaphanous wall that merely surrounds a secondary wall system. 

“They designed a winery that is prisoner to the vines," Christian Moueix says admiringly. 9 

8 “Herzog & de Meuron: Bodegas en Napa Valley” EL Croquis, 1998, n. 91 pp. 16-35 

9 Ibid

As it regulates practical aspects of human needs such as light, ventilation, and thermal protection with predictable precision, the gabion 

stone wall also serves as a monument to the art of wine making. Through the use of ordinary existing construction components, Herzog and de 

Meuron have invented an alternate ecological smart-skin that endows traditional masonry construction with new creative solutions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Betsky, Aaron, “Dominus Winery,” Domus 1998 April, Dominus 1998 April, no. 803 

“Herzog & de Meuron: Bodegas en Napa Valley” EL Croquis, 1998, n. 91 

Fitzgerrell, Scott. Basic Masonry Illustrated, Menlo Park, California: Lane Publishing Co., 1981. 

J. Ralph Dalzell and Gilbert Townsend, Masonry Simplified, Alsip, Illinois: American Technical Publishers, Inc., 1984. 

Lecuyer, Annette. “Steel, Stone, and Sky.” Architectural Review 1998 October, v. 205, no. 1220. 

PCI. Architectural Precast Concrete, Second Edition. Chicago: PCI Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1990.

THE DOMINUS WINERY: A Case Study of an Alternate Masonry ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?