Paul Rudolph's Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building landmark vote is TONIGHT at 6pm

Rudolph’s 1957 Blue Cross Blue Shield Building. Photo by Kelvin Dickinson

A vote to designate Paul Rudolph’s 1957 Blue Cross Blue Shield Building in Boston, Massachusetts as a local landmark will be held during tonight’s hearing of the Landmarks Commission. The hearing follows the release by the commission of a study report about the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Building on November 20, 2023. The report was later amended and a copy can be found here.

The Commission will hold two votes: first, to accept amendments to the Study Report, followed by a final vote on the landmark designation.

The Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture and the Paul Rudolph Estate thank everyone who let the City of Boston know that Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building should be a landmark.

Here’s how to attend tonight’s hearing:

WHEN - TUESDAY, February 27 at 6:00 PM.
The Meeting will begin at 4:00pm, with the Blue Cross portion starting at 6pm.

WHERE - This hearing will be held virtually and not in person. To participate, please use one of the following:

• Zoom Link - HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/98692200856

• Phone Call -  929-436-2866 and enter meeting ID 986 9220 0856

Thank you for your support of preserving Paul Rudolph's legacy!

Rudolph's Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building gets support at Boston's Landmark Commission

Paul Rudolph with a model of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building in Boston.

A proposal to landmark Paul Rudolph’s 1957 Blue Cross Blue Shield Building in Boston, Massachusetts was discussed at a public hearing of the Landmarks Commission Tuesday night. The hearing follows the release by the commission of a study report about the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Building on November 20, 2023.

After reading the proposal’s recommendation for landmarking, the commission jumped right into public comments. Acknowledging there was no attendance by elected officials, members of the Boston Planning & Development Agency or the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the property owner was first to speak.

The owner was represented by Steve Belkin, founder of Trans National Group, and Paul Malnati, Senior Vice President of Real Estate. Mr. Malnati has been involved since the original 2006 RFP for ‘Trans National Place’ designed by Renzo Piano, which had proposed to demolish Rudolph’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield building. They were joined by attorney Matthew Kiefer from Goulston & Storrs and CBT (Childs Bertman Tseckares) as architectural consultant.

The owner said they looked at several options to make Rudolph’s building ‘economically viable’ including adding additional stories, building an addition in the adjacent public plaza, and converting the building from office space to residential apartments. They did not state an objection to the proposed designation.

Speaking in favor of landmarking the building was Tim Rohan, an architectural historian from UMass Amherst who has written extensively about Rudolph and the building; Kelvin Dickinson, President of the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture; and Carter Jackson, a PhD candidate in architectural history at Boston University who wrote a HABS report on Rudolph’s nearby Boston Government Services Center.

“I think the building is idiosyncratic as much of Rudolph’s architecture is,” said Rohan, who also noted a descendent of the building’s iconic design is the Pompidou Center by Richard Rogers, who studied under Rudolph. “I think the public and citizens of Boston will not be served by a larger building on this site so I’m happy that Trans National is considering preserving it.”

Kelvin Dickinson said, “We urge the Commission to consider this historic property's architectural value and its special position as one of only three structures designed by Paul Rudolph in Boston. We therefore ask that the Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building be designated a landmark so that it may be preserved for future generations to learn from and experience.”

Carter Jackson said, “I second the last two speakers. I believe the building is very worthy of the landmark designation. I would also add that Boston was supposed to have two tall buildings by Paul Rudolph. The second one was the tower meant for the center of the Boston Government Services Center. It was supposed to be 25 plus stories, it ended up not being built and I think it really hurt that complex. Its made it seem quite incomplete and desolate. So I think it would be a real shame to lose this one.”

The commission then noted:

We did have quite a few people submit in favor of the study report and in favor of moving forward with designation of this as a Boston landmark. We received feedback from as far away as San Juan, Puerto Rico, and New Orleans as well as from other professors of art and architectural history from Boston College and Wellesley University as well as the author of “Paul Rudolph: The Late Work”.

The commission said submitted commentary would be available to commissioners and that all were in favor of the study report and moving forward with designation. No one spoke in opposition of the report.

Commissioner John Amodeo said, “given we’ve lost access to two facades (by construction of the adjacent Trans National Place) we’d want to protect the remaining facades and the vulnerable façade would be the façade facing the plaza that could in fact contain a building if the plaza is not identified as a character-defining resource.” He recommended including the plaza as part of the protected site.

Next steps include accepting written statements up to 3 work days after the public hearing. Given the interest in the building’s status, the commission decided to extend the period for written testimony until December 27th.

When the submission period ends, the hearing will be closed and any amendments to the study report will be drafted by staff. The commission will then meet and review the final study report and vote on accepting it and designating the building. The amended report and the date of the next hearing will be posted online. We will continue to follow this effort and let everyone know what needs to be done in the future.

Finally, the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture and the Paul Rudolph Estate urge everyone who hasn’t already done so, to please let the City of Boston know that Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building should be a landmark!

Please WRITE AN EMAIL OR LETTER urging the Landmarks Commission to designate Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Building as a local landmark to blc@boston.gov.

Thank you for your support of preserving Paul Rudolph's legacy!

Help Make Paul Rudolph's Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building a Boston Landmark

Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Building in Boston after completion. Photo by Joseph Molitor.

Paul Rudolph’s 1957 Blue Cross Blue Shield Building in Boston, Massachusetts will be considered for local landmark designation during an upcoming public hearing of the Landmarks Commission. The hearing follows the release by the commission of a study report about the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Building on November 20, 2023.

The report describes the building’s historical and architectural significance with the following:

The building at 133 Federal Street, colloquially known as the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building, is significant for its associations with the urban renewal movement that took place in Boston’s core downtown area in the 1950s and 1960s. It was the first new building to be erected in the Central Business District since the 1920s, and was one of the earliest buildings erected in Boston in the Brutalist style. It is one of three buildings in Boston designed by Paul Rudolph, and it is especially notable as his first tall building and an early prototype of the idiosyncratic design philosophies that would then influence the remainder of his impactful career. Its distinctive form with Y-shaped, precast-concrete piers and columns, large white quartz aggregate, and an innovative engineering and HVAC system hidden within the nonstructural columns were all a direct challenge to the glass curtain wall, and pushed the boundaries of contemporary architectural discourse. The building contributes to Boston’s collection of Brutalist architecture which transformed the city in the 1960s and 1970s, and represents the resulting shift in the design idiom of Boston and the United States from the International style to postmodernism. 

The recent threats to Rudolph’s diminishing body of work, combined with the 2009 Boston Landmarks Commission’s survey update of cultural and architectural resources in Boston’s Central Business District which determined that the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, inspired the petition for designation. 

This study report contains Standards and Criteria which have been prepared to guide future physical changes to the property in order to protect its integrity and character.

The report concludes with the following recommendations:

1. That the exterior of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building at 133 Federal Street be designated

   by the Boston Landmarks Commission as a Landmark, under Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975,

   as amended (see Section 3.4 of this report for Relationship to Criteria for Designation);

2. That the boundaries corresponding to Assessor’s parcel #0304206000 be adopted without

   modification;

3. And that the Standards and Criteria recommended by the staff of the Boston Landmarks

   Commission be accepted.

The study report will be discussed at a public hearing on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend this hearing and provide comments.

The Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture and the Paul Rudolph Estate urge everyone to please let the City of Boston know that Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building should be a landmark!

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

FIRST - READ the study report prepared by the Landmarks Commission. It documents the history of the building and its significance. It also details the options available to the Commission and the standards used to maintain the building once it is landmarked. You can download a copy of the report HERE.

SECOND - Please LEAVE FEEDBACK about the report on the Landmark Commission’s website. Comments can be anonymous and the city does take notice of the number of comments ‘for’ and ‘against’ the report. We left the following comment, for example: “This report is an excellent and thorough justification for the need to landmark Paul Rudolph's Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building. The architectural and historical significance well presented in the report demonstrate the urgent need for the building to be designated a historic landmark by the Boston Landmarks Commission.” Comments can even be something as simple as “I love this building - please protect it!” You can leave a comment about the report HERE.

THIRD - Please WRITE AN EMAIL OR LETTER urging the Landmarks Commission to designate Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Building as a local landmark to blc@boston.gov.

A sample letter is below. If you send a letter or email, please copy it to our email at office@paulrudolph.institute. You can also mail copies to our office at the following address:

The Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture
246 East 58th Street New York, NY 10022

SAMPLE LETTER

Brad Walker, Chair

Boston Landmarks Commission
20 City Hall Avenue
3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Email: blc@boston.gov

Re: Landmark Designation of Paul Rudolph's Blue Cross - Blue Shield Building

Dear Chair Walker,

I write to you to support the landmark designation of Paul Rudolph’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building at 133 Federal Street in the Central Business District of Boston. 

One of the first examples of the Brutalist style constructed in Boston, this property reflects Rudolph's ideas about modernism and his response to the increasing use of the glass curtain wall in modern architecture at the time.

I urge the Commission to consider this historic property's architectural value and its special position as one of only three structures designed by Paul Rudolph in the City of Boston. 

I therefore ask that the Blue Cross-Blue Shield Building be designated a landmark so that it may be preserved and protected in perpetuity.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your support of landmark preservation in Boston.

Sincerely,
Name
Address

FINALLY - PLEASE attend the online public hearing. Here’s how to attend:

WHEN - TUESDAY, December 12th at 4:00 PM.
The Meeting will begin at 4:00pm, with public testimony expected to begin at 5:00pm. Please make sure you join before 5:00pm!

WHERE - This hearing will be held virtually and not in person. To participate, please use one of the following:

• Zoom Link - HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/97276068692

• Phone Call -  929-436-2866 and enter meeting ID 972 7606 8692

Thank you for your support of preserving Paul Rudolph's legacy!

The Seagram Building - by Rudolph?

The Seagram Building in New York City, under construction, designed by Mies van der Rohe. Photo: ReseachGate, Hunt, 1958

Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building is one of the loftiest of the high icons of Modernism. For decades, it was almost a sacred object. Indeed, several of his buildings - the Barcelona Pavilion and the Farnsworth House (as well as the Seagram) - were maintained in a bubble of architectural adoration.

Is reverence for Mies going too far? Actually, it’s architect Craig Ellwood at Mies van der Rohe’s National Gallery museum building in Berlin (caught while photographing a sculpture.) Photo: Architectural Forum, November 1968

SEEMS INEVITABLE

Mies is considered to be one of the triad of architects (with Wright and Corb) who were the makers of Modern architecture - a holy trinity! Given Mies’ fame - and the quietly assured, elegantly tailored, serenely-strong presence of Seagram (much like Mies himself) - it seems completely inevitable that he would be its architect. Like an inescapable manifestation of the Zeitgeist, it is hard to conceive that there might have been an alternative to Mies being Seagram’s architect.

Mies is watching! Photo: The Charnel House – www.charnelhouse.org

BUT WAS IT?

In retrospect, seeing the full arc of Mies’ career and reputation, it does seem inevitable. Whom else could deliver such a project? A bronze immensity, planned, detailed and constructed with the care of a jeweler.

But - as usual - the historical truth is more complex and messy (and more interesting).

GETTING ON THE LIST(S)

Several times,  Phyllis Lambert has addressed the history of the Seagram Building and her key role in its formation. But the story is conveyed most articulately and fully in her book, Building Seagram—a richly-told & illustrated, first-person account of the making of the this icon, published by Yale University Press.

Phyllis Lambert’s fascinating book on the creation and construction of the Seagram Building. Image: Yale University Press

Part of the story is her search for who would be the right architect for the building. In one of the book’s most fascinating passages, she recounts the lists that were made of prospective architects:

“In the early days of my search, I met Eero Saarinen at Philip Johnson’s Glass House in Connecticut. In inveterate list-maker, he was most helpful in proposing what we draw up a list of architects according to three categories: those who could but shouldn’t, those who should but couldn’t, and those who could and should. Those who could but shouldn’t were on Bankers Trust Company list of February 1952, including the unimaginative Harrison & Abramovitz and the work of Skidmore , Owings & Merrill, which Johnson and Saarinen considered to be an uninspired reprise of the Bauhaus. Those who should but couldn’t were the younger architects, none of whom had worked on large buildings: Marcel Breuer, who had taught at the Bauhaus and then immigrated to the United States to teach with Gropius at Harvard, and, as already noted, had completed Sarah Lawrence College Art Center in Bronxville; Paul Rudolph, who had received the AIA Award of Merit in 1950 for his Healy Beach Cottage in Sarasota, Florida; Minoru Yamasaki, whose first major public building , the thin-shell vaulted-roof passenger terminal at Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport, was completed in 1956; and I. M. Pei, who had worked with Breuer and Gropius at Harvard and became developer William Zeckendorf’s captive architect. Pei’s intricate, plaid-patterned curtain wall for Denver’s first skyscraper at Mile High Center was then under construction.

The list of those who could and should was short: Le Corbusier and Mies were the only real contenders. Wright was there-but-not-there: he belonged to another world. By reputation, founder and architect of the Bauhaus Walter Gropius should have been on this list, but in design, he always relied on others, and his recent Harvard Graduate Center was less than convincing. Unnamed at that meeting were Saarinen and Johnson themselves, who essentially belonged to the “could but shouldn’t” category.”

WHAT IF’S

So Rudolph was on the list and considered, if briefly. Even that’s something—a real acknowledgment of his up-and-coming talent.

Moreover, Paul Rudolph did have towering aspirations. In Timothy Rohan’s magisterial study of Rudolph (also published by Yale University Press) he writes: 

“Rudolph had great expectations when he resigned from Yale and moved to New York in 1965. He told friends and students that he was at last going to become a ‘skyscraper architect,’ a life-long dream.”

That relocation, from New Haven to New York City, took place in the middle of the 1960’s—about a decade after Mies started work on Seagram. But, back about the time that Mies commenced his project, Rudolph also entered into his own skyscraper project: the Blue Cross / Blue Shield Building in Boston.

Paul Rudolph’s first large office building, a 12 storey tower he designed for Blue Cross/Blue Shield from 1957-1960. It is located at 133 Federal Street in Boston. Photo: Campaignoutsider.com

It takes a very different approach to skyscraper design, particularly with regard to the perimeter wall: Rudolph’s design is highly articulated, what Timothy Rohan calls a “challenge” to the curtain wall (of the type with which Mies is associated)—indeed, “muscular” would be an appropriate characterization. Moreover, Rudolph integrated mechanical systems into the wall system in an innovative way.

A closer view of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s highly articulated façade and corner, seen nearer to street-level. Photo: Courtesy of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Library

And, Rudolph did end up fulfilling his post-Yale desire to become a “skyscraper architect”—at least in part. He ended up doing significantly large office buildings and apartment towers: in Fort Worth, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and Jakarta. Each project showed him able to work with a variety of skyscraper wall-types, materials, and formal vocabularies. Rudolph, while maintaining the integrity of his architectural visions, also could be versatile.

And yet -

He was on that Seagram list, and we are left with some tantalizing “What if’s…

What if he had gotten the commission for Seagram—an what would he have done with it?