Welcome to the Archives of The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. The purpose of this online collection is to function as a tool for scholars, students, architects, preservationists, journalists and other interested parties. The archive consists of photographs, slides, articles and publications from Rudolph’s lifetime; physical drawings and models; personal photos and memorabilia; and contemporary photographs and articles.
Some of the materials are in the public domain, some are offered under Creative Commons, and some are owned by others, including the Paul Rudolph Estate. Please speak with a representative of The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture before using any drawings or photos in the Archives. In all cases, the researcher shall determine how to appropriately publish or otherwise distribute the materials found in this collection, while maintaining appropriate protection of the applicable intellectual property rights.
In his will, Paul Rudolph gave his Architectural Archives (including drawings, plans, renderings, blueprints, models and other materials prepared in connection with his professional practice of architecture) to the Library of Congress Trust Fund following his death in 1997. A Stipulation of Settlement, signed on June 6, 2001 between the Paul Rudolph Estate and the Library of Congress Trust Fund, resulted in the transfer of those items to the Library of Congress among the Architectural Archives, that the Library of Congress determined suitable for its collections. The intellectual property rights of items transferred to the Library of Congress are in the public domain. The usage of the Paul M. Rudolph Archive at the Library of Congress and any intellectual property rights are governed by the Library of Congress Rights and Permissions.
However, the Library of Congress has not received the entirety of the Paul Rudolph architectural works, and therefore ownership and intellectual property rights of any materials that were not selected by the Library of Congress may not be in the public domain and may belong to the Paul Rudolph Estate.
LOCATION
Address: 25 Staniford Street
City: Boston
State: Massachusetts
Zip Code: 02114
Nation: United States
STATUS
Type: Government
Status: Built
TECHNICAL DATA
Date(s): 1962-1971
Site Area: 363,781 s.f.
Floor Area:
Height:
Floors (Above Ground): 6
Building Cost: $12.5 million (Division of Employment Security and Mental Health Center)
PROFESSIONAL TEAM
Client: Boston Redevelopment Authority
Architect: Paul Rudolph
Rudolph Staff: William Grindering, Job Captain
Associate Architect: Pederson & Tilney (Massachusetts Health, Education & Wellness Building); Desmond & Lord (Mental Health Center); Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott (Division of Employment Security)
Landscape: Paul Rudolph
Structural: Souza & True; Wm. J. LeMessurier & Associates Inc.
MEP: Greenleaf Associates; McCarron & Hufnagle Associates, Inc. (Electrical); Francis J. Linehan, Jr. & Associates (Mechanical);
Fire Protection: Robert W. Sullivan Inc.
Lighting: McCarron & Hufnagle Associates, Inc.
QS/PM:
SUPPLIERS
Contractor: Vappi Construction Company
Subcontractor(s):
Boston Government Service Center
In 1917 the City Planning Board proposes a new Civic Center for the City of Boston.
In 1930 the Mayor’s Committee for a Civic Center chooses an area known as Scollay Square that by the turn of the century had become full of half-used buildings, narrow streets and odd shaped lots. Once a location of luxurious theaters, restaurants and hotels, the area had gained a reputation as the center for variety theaters, tattoo parlors, hot dog stands and penny arcades following the relocation of the city’s business district after the Boston Fire of 1872.
In 1949 the Congress of the United States passes the Housing Act of 1949 which makes it possible for urban areas such as Boston to clear areas deemed to be slums. Boston declares the area to be an Urban Renewal Area under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 because of the conditions of the structures in the area: 91% are declared substandard, with 60% being vermin infested, 40% lacking hot running water, 66% having exposed electrical wiring, 42% lacking access to a seconds means of access and 67% having less than one toilet for each 8 persons.
In 1955 the Mayor appoints a committee consisting of the Chairman of the Planning Board, Chairman of the Housing Authority, Corporation Counsel, Building Commissioner and Coordinator of Rehabilitation and Conservation, to prepare a report to the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The resulting report, ‘Workable Program for Urban Renewal’, is a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of the North End, Waterfront, Pemberton Square, Scollay Square and Dock Square areas.
In August 1956 a report titled ‘Government Center Study - A Preliminary Report’ generates support for redeveloping the area and the creation of the Boston Redevelopment Authority to oversee the project.
In 1960 the Massachusetts legislature abolishes the City of Boston Planning Board and transfer its powers, duties and staff to the Boston Redevelopment Authority. At the same time the Mayor proposes that the Government Center plan be carried out as a nonresidential, federally-funded redevelopment project.
Following the election of a new city administration that same year, I.M. Pei is hired to develop a Master Plan for Government Center and to coordinate other architects commissioned to design individual buildings.
The design of the State Service Center complex begins as three separate state buildings - for employment ands social security; outpatient mental health services; and health, education and welfare - each assigned to a different architectural firm. Ed Logue, Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Development Administrator, is frustrated with the project stating it was “poking along with a collection of architects who were sort of sniffing each other.”
Rudolph is brought in by Desmond & Lord as a consultant, and declares the overall scheme is “too small for the site.” Logue subsequently names Rudolph the Coordinating Architect for the whole State Service Center project. Rudolph redevelops the site plan to integrate the three, fragmented and uninspiring designs into a single cohesive complex. His revision gives the complex the monumental character he feels it needs, prescribes design standards for all of the associated architects to follow, plans a grand stair to enter the site and determines the facades will be covered in the signature corrugated concrete finish he developed for the Yale Art & Architecture building.
In October 1961, clearance and demolition of the overall site begins
The Government Center Commission is authorized to spend $43.5 million on the construction of the complex
In February 1970, State Auditor Thaddeus Buczko asks the Governor to order a halt to the building’s construction, noting the cost of the Division of Employment Security ($52.40 per s.f.) and Mental Health Center ($84.76 per s.f.) were above the average of $35.00 per s.f. for office space. Commissioner of Administration and Finance Donald R. Dwight says the state is “unable to build” the Health, Education and Welfare building “under current appropriations.” Buczko states “certainly, it cannot be the intention, duty or purpose of the commonwealth to create massive concrete landmarks catering to architecture vanities and pocketbooks and at the same time ignoring the considerable costs to present and future taxpayers of the commonwealth.” He doesn’t criticize the contractor which “has worked competently” but that delays have been caused “only because of the type of construction involved.” The architectural contract for the tower is $1,312,500 of which more than $650,000 is paid.
The design’s proposed 24-story tower designed by Rudolph with Pedersen & Tilney - intended to house executive offices for several state agencies - runs into design review snags. Eventually a 33-story 870,000 s.f. Health, Welfare & Education Tower designed by Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott in partnership with Desmond & Lord is approved but newly-elected Lt. Governor Donald R. Dwight tells the architects to hold off on continuing with the project.
The entire site of the Service Center, bounded by New Chardon, Merrimack, and Staniford Streets is approximately 360,000 s.f. The Hurley Employment Security Building and Lindemann Mental Health Center occupy 225,000 s.f. of this site, leaving approximately 135,000 s.f. of land available for development.
The Hurley Employment Security Building is occupied in March 1970.
The 100-bed capacity Erich Lindemann Community Mental Health Center opens in January, 1971.
A May 14, 1972 newspaper article titled “Lack of Funds Hurt Mental Heath Centers” states, ‘today, as mental-health care returns to the community, neighborhood organizations from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles are protesting zoning that would permit board-and-care facilities, half-way houses or the like in residential areas.’ Because of this attitude, the article states some community mental health centers have ‘blossomed forth in expansive and expensive new structures far from the community they serve.’ The article sites the Lindemann Mental Health Center as an example stating that while it is ‘architecturally unique’ its ‘qualities of hugeness, coldness and domination of the individual seem hardly suited to a facility trying to attract people with emotional problems.’ It continues, ‘It is so confusing inside that a receptionist could not direct a caller to the west wing, and an administration staff member became lost several times showing the visitor around the building. It has virtually no straight lines. Hallways and rooms curve and are this way and that.’ The article quotes Evelyn McLean, associate area director at Lindemann, “It is forbidding, complicated building that is hard for outpatients. For inpatients, it is pretty secure and patients respond well, but it is not too accessible. I don’t think we have resolved the problems of a large, forbidding building in the inner city which does not meet the needs of the outlying area.”
A January 22, 1973 newspaper article titled “State Buildings Costly Items” states the state is paying more than $1.3 million for ordinary maintenance for the Government Center buildings which was authorized due to the cost of renting space in private buildings throughout Boston. The state has ‘preventive maintenance’ contracts for the center totaling $470,000 USD to ‘guarantee operation and repair of the total mechanical equipment and so forth (except elevators) for the structures.’ Contract cleaners get allocated $470,000 and an in-house custodial force is expected to add an estimated $350,000 to $400,000 to ordinary maintenance expenses. Security commitments are estimated to add another $600,000 per year. Bay State York Company is listed with a $115,000 USD preventive maintenance contract for the Charles F Hurley building, Boston Air Ligasse Company (BALCO) has a $185,828 contract for the Lindemann building. The cleaning contract for the Hurley building is $133,263 and $64,400 for the Lindemann building.
A March 02, 1973 newspaper article titled, “Government Offices Hit by Rash of Burglaries” notes a rash of recent break-ins at government offices includes a safe-cracking over the three-day Washington’s Birthday holiday. According to Wah G. Chin, the Lindemann center’s business manager, the robbery results in the loss of $530 USD held for patients and a robbery of the office of the food concessionaire results in a loss of about $1,200 USD.
A September 17, 1973 newspaper article titled, “Lavish Mental Health Center Only 50% Full” states the mental health center is only half-occupied since opening in 1971 and that it costs $3 million USD per year to operate the facility. It claims that two of the center’s 25-bed hospital units have never opened, a research floor goes ‘virtually unused’ and that ‘urgently needed’ adolescent and teenage programs have not started and a swimming pool and gymnasium receive little use. According to Dr. Gerald L. Klerman, Director of the Mental Health Center, the center was planned as the base of operations for mental health programs in the Harbor Area (encompassing Beacon Hill, Charlestown, the North End, Revere, Winthrop and Chelsea) but “most of our patients live on the other side of the harbor.” The article blames the lack of use on the building’s architectural design, claiming it is ‘disconcerting and disorienting to persons not suffering from mental disorders.’ According to Mr. Klerman, “The patient’s find the building challenging. It takes them some time to adjust to it.” He adds, “I wasn’t here when the center was planned and nobody asked me what I thought of the design.” The article states that of the 100 bed capacity (25 reserved for children) only 50 beds are available, and about 40 per month are used. There are no beds available for children. Mr. Klerman states the reason for the underutilization is a shortage of personnel. The center, planned to operate with 450 staff members, was only authorized by the legislature to employ 193 at an annual cost of $1.9 million USD. An additional $1.1 million USD is spent on maintenance and utilities. The shortage of staff causes the cancellation of programs for children and teenagers, as well as a detoxification facility. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of research equipment on the fifth floor, ‘designed for animal and bio-chemical research related to mental illness’ remain unused. According to Klerman, “the center was planned and designed in the 1960s when public optimism was high and federal money was available.”
In a 1973 newspaper article about the building titled ‘Were you ever inside Massachusetts?’ the shape of the incomplete building is compared to the State of Massachusetts itself. Marcia Crowley, who works in the first floor of the building, says she was told “the plumbers have an easy time of it. They get the message that there’s trouble in ‘Worcester’ and they know exactly where to go to make repairs.” She acknowledges that her office at Wider Opportunities for Women is located in “the Greater Hyannis area.” Reached in his New York office, Paul Rudolph comments that “nothing was further from my mind” than the shape of the state during the conception of his design.
In 1975 the Dukakis administration allows the Government Center Commission to lapse out of existence.
The Health, Welfare and Education Service Center for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts becomes generally known as the ‘Hurley Building’.
The corrugated bush-hammered concrete finish on the building exterior and partial interiors is referred to as “gearworks” by the project’s associate architects - and is the same finish developed by Rudolph originally for the Yale Art & Architecture Building which was under construction at the time of the design.
In the late 1980’s, Ed Logue attempts to complete the design of the unfinished State Service Center, bringing Rudolph back as a consultant to complete the design.
An original drawing of the proposed courtyard and footprint of the unbuilt tower is in the Collection of Barbara Pine.
On September 22, 2021 an Advocacy Citation of Merit for the public process to redevelop the building by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is given by Docomomo US to the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM); Boston Preservation Alliance; Docomomo US/New England; Bruner/Cott; OverUnder; Massachusetts Historical Commission and State Historic Preservation Officer.
“The three buildings are purposely designed so that they form a specific space for pedestrians only and read as a single entity rather than three separate buildings. In terms of urban design, this is undoubtedly one of the first concerted efforts to unify a group of buildings that this country has seen in a number of years.”
“I am opposed to putting a building on a podium when there are five floors below.”
“The benches are curved for sociability . . . they are my social statement. [The curving stairs] are not just steps, they are seats. Have you ever noticed that people are just as happy to sit on steps as on benches? The stairs will be used for circulation in the morning and evening but at midday they will be used for resting and enjoying the weather.”
“The irregular and complex form [of the plaza] is derived primarily from the irregular street pattern of Boston.”
“Too many specialists and bureaucrats with overlapping authority created a vacuum which left the way open for an idea. Six years later that idea is taking form. Four architects welded their building into a single whole, using the following criteria:
1. The space of Boston’s irregular streets should be defined by placing building parallel to them.
2. The irregular intersection of streets should be defined by setting the building back from the curb line to form small plazas.
3. All buildings should be entered through a central pedestrian courtyard.
4. The buildings paralleling the streets should be five to seven storeys high, conforming roughly with the building height across the street.
5. There should be one multi-storey building to announce the government center from a great distance and to allow the scale of the complex to hold its own with tall adjacent buildings.
6. The low buildings should have the pedestrian court at a small intimate scale achieved by stepping back the walls of the low buildings at the courtyard side.
7. The scale of the street facade should be much greater because of the automobiles
8. Regular bays at the street with columns 60 to 70 ft. in height should be utilized, but the more intimate scale of the courtyard should have columns corresponding to the series of one-storey high stepping facades.
9. The multi-storey building should act as a pivoting point at the entry to the plaza and serve as its principal spatial element.
10. All architects should use the same material (concrete) and similar fenestration. ”
“The State Service Center, three buildings in a single shell on a superblock at Chardon and Cambridge Streets, is an aborted, brilliant tour de force, minus the focal tower and dramatic serpentine stair that were part of the original scheme by Paul Rudolph and a bevy of collaborators. Its truncated version suggests that its drama may have been a little overwrought for its purpose.”
“I wanted to hollow out a concavity at the bottom of Beacon Hill, a spiraling space like a conch in negative relation to the convex dome of the State Capitol on top of the hill. I wanted it to wrap around a tower which turned and was not only visible in its upward thrust but penetrating visibly below the ground.”
“The generating ideas of most traditional cities are pedestrian and vehicular circulation, streets, squares, terminuses, with their space clearly defined by buildings. This means linked buildings united to form comprehensible exterior spaces. The Boston Government Service Center is the opposite of Le Corbusier’s dictum “down with the street.” It started with three separate buildings, their clients, architects and methods of financing. We didn’t build three separate buildings, as others had proposed, but one continuous building which defined the street, formed a pedestrian plaza, and utilized a multi-storied building (not yet built) to announce the development from a great distance. The scale of the lower buildings was heightened at the exterior perimeter (street) so that it read in conjunction with automobile traffic (columns 60-70 feet high plus toilet and stair cores at the corners were used). The scale at the plaza was much more intimate using stepped floors which revealed each floor level, making a bowl of space. As one approaches the stepped six-story-high building it reduces itself to only one story. Since the high-rise building is an integral part of the whole, it calls for a particular kind of high-rise building.
You would prefer to finish the project yourself?
The architect must understand the role the multi-storied building plays in the ensemble. The multi-storied building was designed as a cluster of pivoting shafts, each turning at the corners so that it leads the pedestrian into the plaza. It was not just another skyscraper. The ensemble illustrates partially the principles of a mega structure. It is multi-functional; it accepts the car by defining the space of the street plus treating the garage as an entrance to the complex; it is integrated into the surrounding fabric (at the street intersections there are small piazzas, one of Boston’s traditions). The bowl of the plaza is the counterpart of Beacon Hill and its state house one block away. It has nothing to do with stylistic elements (you could add classical details to the columns and cornices and it wouldn’t matter very much – I don’t know what could happen at the multi-storied building). When finished properly it will be “a place.””
“Rudolph’s manner of introducing variety has a certain consistency throughout in the use of thin vertical piers and long horizontals, the turns or jogs being marked by curvilinear masses. ”
DRAWINGS - Design Drawings / Renderings
DRAWINGS - Construction Drawings
DRAWINGS - Shop Drawings
PHOTOS - Project Model
PHOTOS - During Construction
PHOTOS - Completed Project
PHOTOS - Current Conditions
LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION
Boston Government Service Center on the DocomomoUS website
RELATED DOWNLOADS
Survey Form and National Register Determination Letter
01.24.2020 Massachusetts Historical Commission Project Notification Form
02.11.2020 Nivola Family Statement regarding the Nivola Murals at the Hurley Building
02.11.2020 Fondazione Nivola and the Museo Nivola statement regarding the Nivola Murals at the Charles F. Hurley Building
02.19.2020 Docomomo/US New England letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission regarding the Charles F. Hurley Building
03.09.2020 Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission
02.16.2021 Project Proposal for the Charles F Hurley Building Redevelopment Project by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance
02.16.2021 Project Proposal for the Charles F Hurley Building Redevelopment Project - Appendices
PROJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Another major project for Boston’s government service center.” il., plan. Progressive Architecture 45 (February 1964): 62-64.
Rudolph, P. and Moholy-Nagy, S. (1970). The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. New York: Praeger, pp. 94-101.
“Boston government center.” il., diag. Architecture D’Aujourd’hui 157 (August 1971): 88-91.
“Boston government services center.” il., plan, sec. Architecture and Urbanism 80 (July 1977): 286-291.
Boston Society of Architects. Architecture Boston. Barre, Mass.: Barre, 1976. il., map. pp. 4, 10, 12.
“Boston’s monuments.” il., plan. Architectural Review 142 (September 1967): 169-170.
“Boston’s state government center approved.” il. Architectural Record 135 (January 1964): 26.
“Centre administratif de l’etat de Massachusetts a Boston.” il., plan. Architecture D’Aujourd’hui 35 (September-November 1965): 32.
“Centro servizi publici a Boston.” il., sec. Architettura 17 (April 1972): 813-815.
“Chronological list of works by Paul Rudolph, 1946-1974.” il., plan. Architecture and Urbanism 49 (January 1975): 159.
Cook, John Wesley and Heinrich Klotz. Conversations With Architects. New York: Praeger, 1973. il. pp. 114-115.
“Coordinated architecture for government center.” il., plan, sec. Architectural Record 135 (March 1964): 195-200
Davern, Jeanne M., ed. Architecture 1970-1980: A Decade of Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. il. pp. 100-101
“Drawings and sketched of Paul Rudolph.” col. il. Architecture and Urbanism 49 (January 1975): 144.
Drexler, Arthur. Transformations in Modern Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1979. il. pp. 26-27.
Goody, Joan E. New Architecture in Boston. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1965. il., plan. pp. 70-71.
Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Complex in Boston is radically designed.” il. New York Times (7 November 1963): I, 25: 2.
Jacoubus, John. Twentieth Century Architecture: The Middle Years, 1940-1965. New York: Praeger, 1966. il. pp. 194-196.
Kemper, Alfred M. Drawings by American Architects. New York: Wiley, 1973. il., sec. p. 488.
Lyndon, Donlyn. The City Observed: Boston. A Guide to the Architecture of the Hub. New York: Random House, 1982. il. pp. 84-85.
Middleton, Robin. “Disintegration.” plan. Architectural Design 37 (May 1967): 203-204.
Ada Louise Huxtable, “New Boston Center: Skillful Use of Urban Space,” New York Times, September 11, 1972, 73.
“Paul Rudolph: dal 1962 a oggi.” il. Casabella 364 (December 1973): 53.
“Paul Rudolph’s elaborated spaces: six new projects.” il., plan. Architectural Record 139 (June 1966)L 140-141.
“Das picknick des photographen: Boston government service center, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.” il., plan, daig. Werk 59 (January 1972): 40-44.
“Recherches.” il., plan, sec., elev. Architecture D’Aujourd’hui 115 (June-July 1964): 66-69.
“Drei regierungsgebaude in Boston, USA.” il., plan. sec. Deutsche Bauzeitung 69 (August 1964): 587-588.
Rudolph, Paul. The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. Introduction by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy. New York: Praeger, 1970. il., plans, sec. pp. 94-101.
Interdenominational Chapel, Tuskegee Institute. Tuskegee, Alabama, 1960-69. Boston Government Service Center, Boston, Massachusetts, 1962-1971. Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita, 1973. (Global Architecture 20). il. (pt. col.), plans, sec. pp. [5-7], 22-40, [44-47].
Paul Rudolph, Dessins D’ Architecture. Fribourg: Office du Livre, 1974. il., plan, sec. pp. 126-135.
Schmertz, M. F. “County government by Paul Rudolph.” il. (pt. col.), plan, sec. Architectural Record 150 (August 1971): 83-92.
Scully, Vincent. American Architecture and Urbanism. New York: Praeger, 1969. il. pp. 204, 206.
Smith, G. E. Kidder. The Architecture of the United States. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1981, v. 1. il. pp. 257-258.
A Pictorial History of Architecture in America. New York: American Heritage, 1976. il. pp. 103-105.
Stern, Robert A. M. New Directions in American Architecture. New York: Braziller, 1969. il. pp. 34-36.
New Directions in American Architecture. Revised ed. New York: Braziller, 1977. il. pp. 34-36.
Pasnik, Mark; Grimley, Chris; Kubo, Michael, "Heroic: Concrete Architecture and the New Boston", Monacelli Press, New York, 2015, pages 118-129
Abramson, Daniel, “Representing the American Welfare State”, Grey Room Winter 2020 (78): 96-123.