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!

Preservation Alert: How you can be a part of today's Landmark Commission meeting about the Halston Residence

UPDATE: today’s meeting at the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission will be virtual.

After rejection by the Full Board of Community Board 8, a proposal to alter the front facade of the Alexander Hirsch/Halston Residence will go before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission this afternoon for a ‘certificate of appropriateness’

You can download a copy of the LPC calendar showing it as item #13 on the agenda here.
 
The project number is LPC-23-07040 and the public is encouraged to attend and speak out against this proposal.

Here’s how to attend the public hearing so you can voice your opposition to this proposal:

WHEN
TODAY at 2:45 PM (exact timing of item is expected around 3:45 PM)

WHERE
Today’s February 28, 2023 Public Hearing/Meeting WILL BE VIRTUAL. Read below on how to join:

• Public Hearing/Meeting Agenda (times are subject to change)

• Applicant presentations

• The livestream will be available on our YouTube channel

Join the Zoom meeting using the link below:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82889856536?pwd=bHpRcnlQQ2dXczEwWUdTa1JRSGpPQT09 

Or Dial in using the numbers below
646 558 8656 US (New York)
877 853 5257 US Toll-free
888 475 4499 US Toll-free

Webinar ID: 828 8985 6536
Passcode: 534310

See instructions for participating in the virtual public hearings/meetings below.

Instructions for Participating in Virtual LPC Public Hearings/Meetings
Instrucciones para participar en vistas públicas/reuniones virtuales de LPC (Español/Spanish)
参加纽约市地标保护委员会（LPC）虚拟听证会及会议说明 (简体中文/ Simplified Chinese)
參加紐約市地標保護委員會（LPC）虛擬聽證會及會議說明 (繁體中文/Traditional Chinese)

If you have any concerns about access to and/or participating in the LPC’s virtual hearings, please contact Sonia Guior, Director of Community and Intergovernmental Affairs, at sguior@lpc.nyc.gov and they will work with you to make accommodations.

Community Board votes to reject changes to Rudolph's landmarked Halston Residence facade

Image: Engel & Völkers

PRESERVATION UPDATE

On Monday, February 13, the Landmarks Committee of New York City Community Board 8 unanimously passed the following resolution regarding the proposed changes to Paul Rudolph’s legendary Halston Residence:

101 East 63rd Street (Upper East Side Historic District) Steve Blatz, Architect. Valerie Campbell, Kramer Levin. A stable and residence originally constructed in 1881 but altered in 1966-68 by Paul Rudolph as a single-family home. Application is to alter an existing entrance recess.

WHEREAS 101 East 63rd Street was originally constructed in 1881 as a stable-residence;

WHEREAS in 1966-1968, the property was significantly altered by Paul Rudolph, the famed modernist architect and a former dean of the Yale School of Architecture;

WHEREAS 101 East 63rd Street is referenced in the 4th edition of the AIA Guide to New York City as follows: “A somber brown steel and dark glass grid gives an understated face to a dramatic set of domestic spaces within.”

WHEREAS the existing garage door is set back 3 1/2’ from the property line;

WHEREAS the entrance door is set back an additional 4’ (7 1/2’ from property line) with a canopy over it; the applicant feels that the entrance door attracts vagrants and refuse;

WHEREAS the applicant proposes pulling the entrance door forward 2’; the 3 existing down lights at the entrance would disappear; there would be a recessed slot above the door to provide lighting for the new entrance;

WHEREAS the most important aspect of 101 East 63rd Street is the way the building steps back from the lot line to the entrance;

WHEREAS the three down lights provide character and a lighting scheme for the space at the front entrance;

WHEREAS the not-always-friendly nature of Paul Rudolph’s work must be respected; the house is one of only three that Paul Rudolph designed in Manhattan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this application is DISAPPROVED as presented.

VOTE: 7 In Favor (Baron, Birnbaum, Camp, Cohn, Helpern, Parshall, Tamayo) ; One Public Member In Favor (Selway)

At Wednesday night’s Full Board Meeting, Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture President Kelvin Dickinson spoke during the opening public session and thanked the members of the Landmarks Committee for the unanimous decision and requested the full board do the same. He noted that three of the committee’s members are architects, all of whom supported the resolution to reject the proposed changes to the landmark façade.

Following little discussion except for acknowledgement that the project would likely ‘get noticed in the press’ the members of the Full Board voted to pass the resolution with a few members abstaining.

What Happens Next

The proposal will now go before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission on February 28, 2023 for a ‘certificate of appropriateness’

You can download a copy of the LPC calendar showing it as item #13 on the agenda here.

The project number is LPC-23-07040 and the public is encouraged to attend and speak out against this proposal.

SAVE THE DATE!

Here’s how to attend the public hearing so you can voice your opposition to this proposal:

WHEN
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at 9:30 AM

WHERE
The public hearing room at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, Borough of Manhattan, and the meeting will also be live-streamed and open to public participation by teleconference.

The final order and estimated times for each application will be posted on the Landmarks Preservation Commission website the Friday before the hearing. Please note that the order and estimated times are subject to change. An overflow room is located outside of the primary doors of the public hearing room.

What if I can’t go in person?

Virtual attendance by the public is encouraged given the continuing presence of COVID and the desire to facilitate social distancing. Any person requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the hearing or attend the meeting should contact the Landmarks Commission no later than five (5) business days before the hearing or meeting. Members of the public not attending in person can observe the meeting on LPC’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/nyclpc and may testify on particular matters by joining the meeting using either the Zoom app or by calling in from any phone. Specific instructions on how to observe and testify, including the meeting ID and password, and the call-in number, will be posted on the agency’s website, under the “Hearings” tab https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page, on the Monday before the public hearing.

Preservation Alert: Tom Ford proposes changes to facade Of Iconic Halston Residence

The restrained exterior elevation of the house, originally designed by Paul Rudolph in 1966-1967—purchased by Halston in 1974, and now a home for Tom Ford. Photo: Homedsgn.com

AN URGENT PRESERVATION UPDATE:

A proposal was submitted at yesterday’s Community Board 8 Landmarks Committee Meeting by Steve Blatz of Steve Blatz Architect to alter the existing façade of 101 East 63rd street, known as the Hirsch Residence and also the Halston Residence.

A copy of the presentation submitted at yesterday’s meeting is available for download here.

The Community Board 8 Landmarks Committee & What Happened

The Landmarks Committee of Community Board 8 reviews Certificate of Appropriateness applications, designations, and related matters for the individual landmarks and buildings within the six historic districts in the Board 8 area in New York City. This committee meets every month on the Monday before the Full Board meeting, unless otherwise noted.

An archived copy of the Public Hearing agenda for Monday February 13, 2023 can be found here.

According to our sources, the committee voted to reject the proposed changes.

What’s Next - How you can help!

Now, it will go before the full Community Board meeting tomorrow night.

The Full Board of CB8 meets monthly on the third Wednesday of each month (tomorrow!), reviewing recommendations made by committees and voted on them for final approval. Each meeting starts with public session, where constituents have 3 minutes to comment on issues coming to the board or express any issues or concerns effecting the community.

Additionally, a list of the CB8 Board Members can be found here.

What are the proposed changes to the Hirsch / Halston Residence?

According to the presentation submitted at yesterday’s meeting (available for download here) the proposal is to make changes to the façade at the recessed entrance to the building.

The plan of the existing recessed front entrance. Drawing from the CB8 presentation.

The plan of the proposed shallower front entrance. Note the hole cut in the existing façade for a new hose bib. Drawing from the CB8 presentation.

Note the entrance door is removed and pulled forward two feet. Drawing from the CB8 presentation.

Rudolph’s rendering of the Hirsch Residence façade published in the New York Times on February 19, 1967.

How to make an ‘Entrance’ - according to Rudolph

The effect of this change will remove Rudolph’s original intention to recess and obscure the residential entrance from the street.

In many of his projects, Rudolph intentionally recessed the building entrance so that visitors had to discover where to access the world he had created beyond. He would suggest as a clue, through a series of peeled ‘reveals’ or an oversized opening, that the entrance could be found if a passerby were to explore them further.

Several examples of this are the Sarasota High School, the Yale Art & Architecture building (now Rudolph Hall) and our own headquarters at the Modulightor building - shown below:

In the case of the Halston Residence, not only will the relocated door inappropriately align with the structure of the floor above giving it a flattened appearance, but the recessed lighting above the door will be altered, changing the appearance of the façade at night.

Ezra Stoller’s photo illustrating the deep shadows cast over the recessed door which will be lost if the door is pulled forward.

Who has the final say - the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission

After the Full Board Meeting of Community Board 8, the proposal will ultimately go before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission on February 28, 2023 for a ‘certificate of appropriateness’

You can download a copy of the LPC calendar showing it as item #13 on the agenda here.

The project number is LPC-23-07040 and the public is encouraged to attend and speak out against this proposal.

SAVE THE DATE!

Here’s how to attend the public hearing so you can voice your opposition to this proposal:

WHEN
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at 9:30 AM

WHERE
The public hearing room at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, Borough of Manhattan, and the meeting will also be live-streamed and open to public participation by teleconference.

The final order and estimated times for each application will be posted on the Landmarks Preservation Commission website the Friday before the hearing. Please note that the order and estimated times are subject to change. An overflow room is located outside of the primary doors of the public hearing room.

What if I can’t go in person?

Virtual attendance by the public is encouraged given the continuing presence of COVID and the desire to facilitate social distancing. Any person requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the hearing or attend the meeting should contact the Landmarks Commission no later than five (5) business days before the hearing or meeting. Members of the public not attending in person can observe the meeting on LPC’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/nyclpc and may testify on particular matters by joining the meeting using either the Zoom app or by calling in from any phone. Specific instructions on how to observe and testify, including the meeting ID and password, and the call-in number, will be posted on the agency’s website, under the “Hearings” tab https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page, on the Monday before the public hearing.

So - How did we get here?

A lot of publications mentioned Tom Ford’s 2019 purchase and his plan to restore the interiors at the time. For those of you who want to know more, we are republishing excerpts from our previous blog posts below:

A House with a History

Paul Rudolph designed the original residence at 101 East 63rd street for Mr. Alexander Hirsch in 1966. He created a Modernist oasis for his client, an intensely private person who wanted a place to escape to while still being in the heart of Manhattan. As Rudolph later described the project in Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s 1970 book, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph:

A world of its own, inward looking and secretive, is created in a relatively small volume of space in the middle of New York City. Varying intensities of light are juxtaposed and related to structures within structures. Simple materials (plaster, paint) are used, but the feeling is of great luxuriousness because of the space. The one exposed façade reveals the interior arrangement of volumes by offsetting each floor and room in plan and section.

The house later went from being a private refuge to a celebrity hot spot known for its notorious parties when it was sold to the fashion designer Halston in the 1970’s. Halston himself spoke about the space in a documentary about his life that was featured on CNN:

I’m Halston and this is my home. The architect was Paul Rudolph and the day I saw it, I bought it. Its the only real modern house built in the city of New York since the second world war. Its like living in a three dimensional sculpture.

For more information about the design of the original house, you can find drawings and photos of it on our project page here.

A Buyer as Famous as the House

As we reported in a previous blog post in March of 2019, the house was sold to fashion designer Tom Ford after being on the market for a number of years. The sale, first reported in an article in Women’s Wear Daily after being the subject of rumors for a few weeks, was reported across social media and the design community. Articles appeared in Garage, Vogue, GQ, Mansion Global, the Daily Mail and New York Times.

Halston had hired Rudolph to renovate the space when he bought it. Wall to wall grey carpet, mirrored and Plexiglas furniture and chain-mail curtains were installed as a result. Members of the design community were pleased to learn that Tom Ford intended to restore the interior to the glamour that many remembered.

A Restoration, or Renovation?

Shortly before the 2019 sale was announced, we were approached by Mr. Ford’s architect, Atmosphere Design Group, to obtain copies of Rudolph’s original drawings. We were told ‘the client’ wanted to restore the interiors.

We asked the architect to consider consulting with the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture during the design process to ensure the design was faithful to Mr. Rudolph’s original vision. They said they would consider it and were never heard from again. Given the architect is generally known for Mr. Ford’s retail store design, we were concerned when we learned a demolition permit was issued in August, 2019.

Following the CNN documentary, Netflix announced that it too was going to do a story about Halston and were scouting locations to use for filming. Netflix location scouts visited us in the Rudolph-designed apartment at Modulightor and we spoke to them about Mr. Ford’s proposed changes and they said they would call us after seeing the original home for themselves. That was followed by the New York Times publishing the Halston interior as #19 on its ‘25 Rooms that Influence the Way We Design’

As the iconic interior continued to be in the news, we waited to see what was being done to the space.

Then we got a call - “The space is gutted, Its unrecognizable.”

As we reported here in May, 2021 the proposed changes did not match the architect’s description to us.

At the time, the changes were interior modifications - the usual kitchen and bathroom updates. However we noted an ominous note on one of the drawings:

Note the garage door is dotted on the demolition plan, with a note calling for it to be replaced. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.

Despite being in a landmark district - and signed off by the Landmark’s Commission as having no affect on the building exterior - the drawings showed the original garage door was planned to be removed and replaced.

Little did anyone know that less than two years later, Mr. Ford would submit plans to modify the facade of the landmark building.

It's not easy being "Green" — If you tear-down a Landmark

Meet Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics. She owns Rudolph’s Kerr Residence in Florida & should be a fan. After promising to preserve it, her company tore down the only Rudolph in NC – the Burroughs Wellcome building in RTP. Now she’s going to lecture on Green Construction…

Burroughs Wellcome was recognized as landmark-worthy in a HABS report by the National Park Service. We fought, along with other organizations, to save the building & thousands of you signed a petition to stop the demolition. But what did Martine do? She sent her PR team to ask us to take down parts of our website that referred to the petition and demolition…

She cares about ‘green construction, including the world’s largest zero carbon building & laboratories, office buildings & residences.’ Zero carbon is not ‘green’ when you send 546,335 cubic feet of construction & 3,100 tons of steel to the dump to make way for your new project…

#Greenbuild invited her to give a keynote at tomorrow’s Global Health & Wellness Summit on Sept 9, 2021. According to https://informaconnect.com/greenbuild/summits/ the summit will ‘discuss how spaces are being redefined amid the ongoing climate crisis’ but does Martine’s solution make the problem worse in order to ‘fix’ it? The greenest building is the one that already exists…

PLEASE SHARE & IF YOU’RE GOING TO ATTEND ask WHY she tore down a Paul Rudolph landmark. Ask if the millions of $$ a year she makes as CEO of the company is the GREEN they mean in ‘Green Construction.’ More about the building is on our website (which Martine’s PR team doesn’t want you to see) at www.bit.ly/rudolphdemo

#PaulRudolph #greenbuild #greenbuilding #greenconstruction #RTP #architecture #brutalism #climate #wellbeing #UnitedTherapeutics @WELLcertified @USGBC @rickfedrizzi @docomomous @WorldGBC @ArchitectsJrnal @AIANational @archpaper @ArchRecord @usmodernist @preservationaction @bwfund @presnc @preservationdurham @c20society @brutalism_appreciation_society @sosbrutalism @ncarchitecture @savingplaces @modarchitecture

---

IMAGE CREDITS

NOTES:

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation gratefully thanks all the individuals and organizations whose images are used in this non-profit scholarly and educational project.

The credits are shown when known to us, and are to the best of our knowledge, but the origin and connected rights of many images (especially vintage photos and other vintage materials) are often difficult determine. In all cases the materials are used in-good faith, and in fair use, in our non-profit, scholarly, and educational efforts. If any use, credits, or rights need to be amended or changed, please let us know.

When/If Wikimedia Commons links are provided, they are linked to the information page for that particular image. Information about the rights for the use of each of those images, as well as technical information on the images, can be found on those individual pages.

CREDITS:

Photograph of Martine Rothblatt: Andre Chung, via Wikimedia Commons; Photograph of the Burroughs Wellcome building, in the process of demolition: detail of a photograph by news photojournalist Robert Willett, as they appeared in a January 12, 2021 on-line article in the Raleigh, NC based newspaper The News & Observer; Logo of the Global Health & Wellness Summit: from the web page devoted to the event.

We need to fight harder to protect the future of our past

FROM AN EXAMPLE OF CORPORATE PRIDE AND CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH—

—TO DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT AND MISINFORMATION.

The Burroughs Wellcome Building is no more.

• One of America’s most forward-looking buildings, an icon of design, and -

• the site of Nobel Prize-winning and life-saving research, and -

• a research center designed for growth - a feature so appreciated by the client that they brought the architect back (three times!) to expand the building, and -

• a building made, inside and out, to inspire and foster innovation, and -

• a design so striking that it was used as sets for film and television, and -

• a landmark of its region and state, and -

• one of architect Paul Rudolph’s largest creations -

—is gone.

Modern architecture is part of America’s cultural legacy - and buildings designed by Paul Rudolph are among some of the best examples of the our architectural achievements: Rudolph’s architecture simultaneously displays practical innovation, creative exuberance, spatial richness, and symbolic depth.

Built as Burroughs Wellcome’s US headquarters and research center (and a prominent landmark within North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park), the building was praised by the company leadership which commissioned it:

“This building is an exciting and ingenious combination of forms [in which] one discovers new and different qualities of forms and spaces . . . a splendid climate for scientific scholarship and for the exchange of ideas.” — Fred A. Coe Jr., President of Burroughs Wellcome

and was hailed by:

• architectural historians

• architectural critics

• heritage preservation organizations

• and—most meaningfully, by the people who worked there:

“. . . .all of us who recall the vibrancy of this building . . . .I count myself very fortunate to have worked there. It was an amazing structure. We were young, and life was full of hope and promise. We were all witnesses, if not direct contributors, to amazing scientific discoveries and their promotion, during an exciting time for medical research.”

“I spent 32 years with [Burroughs Wellcome]. . . At that time, if any space was conceived to bring out the creative, inspirational, thoughts—this was it, in my opinion. I loved working there. We invented and developed more pharmaceutical products in those years. . . .We were “family” but more to the point we were colleagues who were allowed to trust the expertise of each other.”

United Therapeutics - the current owner of the site - had asserted that a significant portion of the building would be restored and reused, but - despite Burroughs Wellcome’s important history and innovative design - they decided to demolish the structure without discussion. So little discussion, that local preservation groups we reached out to about the demolition permit thought it must be for an anticipated asbestos abatement. Wholesale demolition was not considered a possibility.

When supporters learned of its impending demolition, there was enough people trying to see it that security had to push an existing fence farther from it to hide the destruction from the public. People we spoke to who tried to photograph the building were threatened by security guards with trespassing and had photos deleted from their cameras.

PROTECTING THE FUTURE OF THE PAST

Burroughs Wellcome, a significant work of architecture, is now permanently, irretrievably lost. This puts a spotlight on the need to protect America’s cultural heritage—and that includes this country’s great buildings.

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation and other organizations are engaged in that fight to preserve our past.

The destruction of Burroughs Wellcome led the United States chapter of the international preservation organization Docomomo to create The Advocacy Fund:

As part of our #ModernLove campaign, and in response to the recent demolition of Burroughs Wellcome, Docomomo US is announcing the creation of a new initiative: The Advocacy Fund. Gifts to this new initiative will go directly to critical advocacy efforts and will support local and national work.

Modern Love means many things to us: it means celebrating iconic sites like the Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice that received a 2020 Modernism in America Award of Excellence; it means fighting for significant sites like the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden; and it means avoiding the loss of significant buildings like Burroughs Wellcome designed by Paul Rudolph that was demolished earlier this year because it lacked appropriate preservation protections.

With your support, Docomomo US can provide assistance to local advocates and campaigns, participate in local and national preservation review meetings including the Section 106 process, and continue to speak out on the issues that concern you the most.

If the loss of the Burroughs Wellcome building makes you angry, please consider donating to the Advocacy Fund. All gifts up to $10,000 will be matched by the Docomomo US Board of Directors!

Buildings by Rudolph—among the world’s most significant works of Modern architecture—are continually threatened with demolition or abuse. Vigilance and advocacy is needed.

We are committed to urging, advising, and campaigning for the preservation (and proper care) of PAUL RUDOLPH’s architectural legacy.

Please give to the Advocacy Fund to preserve the richness of Paul Rudolph’s contributions—and to show:

Demolition is never the answer.

FROM AN ICON OF AMERICAN DESIGN —

— TO DEMOLITION DEBRIS.

And if you see something going on at a Rudolph site—that a building may be threatened, or is not maintained, or is about to be marred by an insensitive ‘update’ - please let us know (we’re easy to contact.)

---

IMAGE CREDITS:

Top photograph of the Burroughs Wellcome Building: image courtesy of the Joseph W. Molitor architectural photographs collection, located in Columbia University, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Department of Drawings & Archives; Photographs of the Burroughs Wellcome building, in the process of demolition: photography by news photojournalist Robert Willett, as they appeared in a January 12, 2021 on-line article in the Raleigh, NC based newspaper The News & Observer; Perspective-section drawing, by Paul Rudolph, through the main body of the Burroughs Wellcome building: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation

You call that "Preservation" ? — UPDATE on the plight of the Biggs Residence

Paul Rudolph’s Biggs Residence in Delray Beach, Florida. Here it is shown in a 1956 photograph, in a prime, just-completed condition, as Rudolph had conceived it. But decades of changes by subsequent owners marred Rudolph’s design—and those included insensitively installed air conditioning equipment, and visually obtrusive additions. The intention: New owners and their architect declared that they wanted to “Bring it back to the way it should look..” and “Bring it back to the original layout and then assess what their next step will be.”

And what happened: Applying for a Certificate Of Appropriateness, they said: “The addition does not change or effect any of the distinctive features, finishes or construction techniques of the historic house. The house is being preserved and restored as originally designed by Paul Rudolph without any compromise arising out of the addition proposal, except for the connector at the rear, least public view.” In a report, commissioned by Delray Beach, the city’s consulting architect says: “In my professional opinion this is a false statement.”

“The demolition of this unique site has far reaching consequences for the legacy of Paul Rudolph, the Sarasota School of Architecture, the much-prized historical character of the city, and the neighbors who now have to contend with prolonged construction.”

—Official statement by the city of Delray Beach

THE BIGGS RESIDENCE: ITS IMPORTANCE—AND THE PROPER PROCESS FOR CHANGE

The city of Delray Beach’s map showing the buildings on their Local Register of Historic Places. The Biggs Residence (number 35) is within the red oval near the map’s right-hand edge. A larger version of the map is here.

The Biggs Residence—a Paul Rudolph design of 1955—is an important part of his oeuvre. It is also a prime example of Florida’s Mid-Century Modern architecture, by that era’s (and region’s) leader of Modern American design.

The Biggs Residence has been recognized as a significant part of Florida’s cultural heritage: in 2005 the city of Delray Beach’s Historic Preservation Board recommended that it be added to the city’s Local Register of Historic Places—and that was approved by the City Commission.

Any proposed changes to a building on that Register must be fully reviewed by the city’s preservation officer and and the historic preservation board. If approved by them, the project will receive a “Certificate of Appropriateness” (COA).

BIGGS: CHANGES AND CONTINUITIES

The Biggs Residence in 20i6, showing an accumulation of changes and/or additions.

Over the decades, subsequent owners to the Biggs Residence have not completely held to Rudolph’s original design. Additions and changes have departed from the building as Paul Rudolph conceived it—and the results have often been visually obtrusive. And, of course, any distinguished building that’s reaches a half-century of age will be in need of multiple kinds of care—just like a classic car—and how each owner handles that care & repair will vary with their knowledge, sensitivity, and means. Consequently, their effects on the building will range in quality—and sometimes the accumulated impacts will be profoundly contrary to the spirit of the original design.

Yet the main part of what Rudolph created at Biggs remained—the essential raised volume of living spaces. Also, as shown in the two comparison photos below, significant aspects of its original internal character had been maintained—and that’s to be valued and praised.

LEFT: An interior view of the Biggs Residence in 1959—showing the house in its original state, as designed by Paul Rudolph. This view of the central living-dining area is towards the dining table at the end of the room, which sits near the storage wall. At the far right is the entry passage to the kitchen. In this photograph, one of room’s pair of large and prominent steel ceiling beams is clearly seen

ABOVE: As of 2016, when this photograph was taken, the house’s main living space still retained its essential character of a spacious openness in its center, as well as other Rudolph-designed features: the emphatically displayed steel structure, and the wall of storage (behind moving panels) at one end of the room

CHANGES: The POSTIVE INTENTIONS

New owners acquired the Biggs Residence in 2018, and wished to make changes. That’s not unusual, nor is it to be disparaged: as lifestyles evolve, expectations for our residences change too—so even important and classic works of architecture sometimes undergo alteration, and this happens most often after they change ownership. But when someone buys a distinguished work-of-architecture, it is hoped that they will be sympathetic to the original architect’s conception, and any changes will be discrete and respectful—and, as noted in our last article, there’s a serious body of helpful preservation knowledge about how to proceed in such cases (and a whole profession standing ready to assist in these projects.)

In 2018 the owners visited the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation at our NYC headquarters in the Paul Rudolph Modulightor Building. They told us about their plans to remove the two additions (and add a discrete new one) that would allow the original home to look as close to Rudolph’s original design in almost 37 years. They also gave us copies of drawings and research they had collected as well as shared drawings and renderings of the final design with us. We were pleased with their proposal and considered this project to be in the “safe” category. We didn’t think anything of it at the time, but this would be the last communication we had with them.

As per proper procedure, the proposed alterations to the Biggs Residence were submitted for review (and re-review with amendments). The owner’s (and their architect’s) stated goals were admirable—and their declared intentions for the proposed work included:

“Bring it back to the way it should look.”

“Bring it back to the original layout and then assess what their next step will be.”

“The addition does not change or effect any of the distinctive features, finishes or construction techniques of the historic house. The house is being preserved and restored as originally designed by Paul Rudolph without any compromise arising out of the addition proposal, except for the connector at the rear, least public view.”

CHANGES: The RESULTS

We don’t dispute the good intentions of the owners and their architects. We realize that there’s often another side (or sides) to any story, and we truly welcome further information, input, and other points-of-view. But we were distressed when a report came in that far more changes had happened on-site than had been approved—as when we saw the March 12th headline from the Palm Beach Post (see it, with the beginning of their story, at right), along with a photo like the one at the top of this article.

We weren’t the only ones to be alarmed. The city of Delray Beach was on-the-case, bringing the owners before a magistrate. As part of their investigation, the city commissioned an investigative report from an independent architect (more about that, later).

THE CITY OF DEL RAY ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

Delray Beach values and protects its historic buildings. The city’s Historic Preservation staff work hand-in-hand with property owners, architects, and builders to guide them through the approval process and serve as a resource when restoring or renovating historic buildings and sites.  

The site at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, known as the Sewell C. Biggs House, was designed in 1955 by internationally renowned architect Paul Rudolph, who was part of the Sarasota School of Architecture and later Chairman of the School of Architecture at Yale University. The Sewell C. Biggs House is a historic structure listed on the Delray Beach Local Register of Historic Places. 

During August 2020, the Sewell C. Biggs House was demolished down to its metal frame. This action was not approved by the city and is a stark contrast to the original plan presented to and approved by the city’s Historic Preservation Board, which emphasized a desire to respectfully rehabilitate and restore Paul Rudolph’s original building with minimal changes. 

The decision not to inform the city effectively denied staff the ability to determine if the demolition was warranted, and the opportunity to inspect the site to assess how much of the original, historically significant, structure could have been saved. 

The demolition of this unique site has far reaching consequences for the legacy of Paul Rudolph, the Sarasota School of Architecture, the much-prized historical character of the city, and the neighbors who now have to contend with prolonged construction. 

Moving forward, the city’s goal is to work with the owners and the Historic Preservation Board to bring this historically significant building back to a state of historical integrity, as much as may be possible. The city has hired an architect with expertise in historic buildings to provide guidance to staff and help establish a path forward for the owners.

THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

A page from the report. It includes a photo, taken at the construction site in 2020, showing the remaining steel after the house’s roof and walls had been demolished.

When Delray’s Principal Planner in their Historic Preservation department sent us the above statement, they also sent along.

“. . . .the consultant report we received from Mr. Richard Heisenbottle, the architect the city hired to review the project following the demolition.”

Richard Heisenbottle’s report traces the history of the project, including: proposals and the documents submitted for review, testimony made before the Historic Preservation Board, revisions offered and reviewed, decisions made—and what he observed during a site visit.

The report compares what he owners and/or their architects stated, and what Mr. Heisenbottle assesses as to what really is the case—and some of the contrasts are stark (and you can read the full report here.)

Below are a few excerpts. First, the report’s author quotes from a promise or assertion made by the owners or their architect—and then (in parenthesis) is his assessment of the actuality of the situation.

• “The proposed work does not involve any removal of any characteristic features of the original house, such as the previously proposed plan to remove the 2nd floor and the galley kitchen, both of which will stay intact.” (This is an incorrect statement or a statement that has been violated. The work performed most definitely involved removal of characteristic features. The entirety of the perimeter walls, siding and roof framing have been removed. The galley kitchen has also been removed.)

• Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. “The characteristic elevated steel columns and steel beam structure will be structurally rehabilitated, but otherwise preserved as is with respect to its original design. (The steel column and beam structure are the only element of the original structure being preserved. All else, wall framing, roof framing, windows, doors and siding are all being replaced and replicated.)

• The proposed work does not add new features or elements from other buildings. (The Applicant’s plan does add new features.)

• “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible materials.” The existing steel structure will be repaired and rehabilitated not replaced. The characteristic features of the historic house such as the grooved wood siding, will be restored and replaced, and if damaged beyond restoration, will be replaced with matching materials.” (None of the grooved wood siding or exterior wall studs were saved or restored, everything was replaced without providing any notification to HPB of the need for or extent demolition.)

The report offers several conclusions, some key ones being:

• Upon review and evaluation of all materials submitted to the City by the Owner in support of their Certificate of Appropriateness Application No. 2 and Building Permit Application, and as a result of my on-site inspection of the property to access its current condition, I have concluded that the owner and his general contractor have gone well beyond what was authorized in the COA and what was authorized on the approved Building Department Permit Plans.

• The extent of demolition could not have been anticipated under the approved COA submittal documents or under the proposed Construction Documents.

• In addition to non-compliance with the LDR requirements for demolition of more than 25% of a historic structure, the owner raised the structure in violation of the approved COA and without advising and receiving permission to do so from the Building Department and the HPB.

He then looks at the option for reconstructing the building. “Reconstruction” has a specific and rigorous meaning and set of standards, as defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction and Guidelines for Reconstructing Historic Buildings” (and you can read more about them here.) The report’s author reviews the standards, in preparation for his final recommendation—one which we feel needs to be contested.

AUTHENTICITY?

While we applaud the thoroughness of the report, we dispute one of its conclusions—the one wherein its author says that a—

“. . . .properly executed rehabilitation and partial reconstruction can continue to be listed as a historic resource on the Delray Beach Local Register of Historic Places.”

Our experience, and supported by a professional preservation expert we reached out to about this matter, is that no reconstruction of a building can authentically match the original. That’s because of the several real and intractable phenomena of the construction process:

• No documentation is ever complete enough to convey all aspects of a building. Even the most through records will not include all of a building’s varying connections, adjacencies of materials, details, and the incorporation of various systems both material, structural and mechanical. [What architects term the “conditions”.]

• Current building, life-safety, and energy codes; rules imposed by insurance companies; and desired upgrades due to higher quality-of-life expectations can be accommodated—but one can only make a best guess at what the original architect would have done had they been commissioned to deal with these latter-day challenges.

• When one is trying to integrate such changed standards into a yet-to-be-built building (because the original had been demolished), there is no “push-back” from the material presence of an extant building—and hence nothing to discipline the new decisions.

• Every building project—no matter how thoroughly thought-out in advance (and no matter how complete the drawings and specifications seem to be)—has gaps in its conception. Questions inevitably come-up during construction: issues whose decisions definitely will affect the look and quality of the outcome of the project. Ideally, the architect is consulted on each of these issues (either during site visits, or during frantic phone calls from the site)—and gives their solutions. Each architect will solve things in their own way, and Paul Rudolph was well known to be demanding during such site visits. How, during a “reconstruction” could his reactions to construction issues possibly be anticipated? They cant.

We acknowledge that a “reconstruction” might proceed in the most conscientious and well-intended way, carefully attempting to recreate the original Briggs Residence. But, for the above reasons, the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation will not support such a rebuilding as an authentic Rudolph design—and we will note that in our comprehensive list of the works of Paul Rudolph. The original residence will remain ‘demolished’ in our project list.

Even with all the changes and additions over the years, this photo shows that essential aspects of the Biggs Residence were still extant as of 2016—prior to the recent act of demolition.

---

IMAGE CREDITS

NOTES:

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation (a non-profit 501(c)3 organization) gratefully thanks all the individuals and organizations whose images are used in this non-profit scholarly and educational project.

The credits are shown when known to us, and are to the best of our knowledge, but the origin and connected rights of many images (especially vintage photos and other vintage materials) are often difficult determine. In all cases the materials are used in-good faith and in fair use in our non-profit scholarly and educational efforts. If any use, credits, or rights need to be amended or changed, please let us know.

When Wikimedia Commons links are provided, they are linked to the information page for that particular image. Information about the rights to use each of those images, as well as technical information on the images, can be found on those individual pages.

CREDITS, FROM TOP-TO-BOTTOM, AND LEFT-TO-RIGHT:

Biggs Residence in the 1950’s: photo as shown in the report, “Evaluation of COA Approval 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 RJHA Project No. 20-3494”, commissioned by the City of Delray Beach;  Biggs Residence condition after current demolition work: photo as shown in the report, “Evaluation of COA Approval 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 RJHA Project No. 20-3494”, commissioned by the City of Delray Beach;  Delray Beach Local Register of Historic Places: courtesy of City of Delray Beach;  Biggs Residence with additions in 2016: © Linda Lake / The Fite Group Luxury Homes;  Biggs Residence Living-Dining area in the 1950’s: photo by Ernest Graham, from a vintage issue of House & Home magazine, June 1959, courtesy of US Modernist Library;  Biggs Residence Living-Dining area as of 2016: © Linda Lake / The Fite Group Luxury Homes;  Biggs Residence as of 2016: © Linda Lake / The Fite Group Luxury Homes

What's “REAL”? (and What’s RIGHT) In Preservation: Restoration? Recreation? Reproduction? Renovation? Rehabilitation. . ?

Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion—one of THE key icons and exemplars of Modern Architecture—was built for a 1929 international exposition in Spain. It lasted only briefly, and—for decades thereafter—it was only known via its floor famous plan, a detail drawing of a column, and a handful of photographs (of which this view is the one most repeatedly reproduced.)

Mies died in 1969, and—nearly two decades after he had passed—a reconstruction of the Barcelona Pavilion was completed on the same site as the original. It has provided interesting experiences for architects (who never had a chance to visit the short-lived original)—but whether it should ever have been re-built remains a question within the architectural community.

"Never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse!"

"Demolishing is a decision of easiness and short term. It is a waste of many things—a waste of energy, a waste of material, and a waste of history. Moreover, it has a very negative social impact. For us, it is an act of violence."

— Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal, winners of the 2021 Pritzker Prize in Architecture

A CASE THAT RAISES QUESTIONS

The Barcelona Pavilion, designed by Mies van der Rohe, was built for an exposition in 1929—a “world’s fair” wherein 20 countries participated, and in which there were also exhibits on industry, science, art, history, crafts, science, and agriculture. The fair lasted for less than a year, and the structure which represented Germany—the Barcelona Pavilion—was demolished along with the rest of the fair’s buildings (as is usually done with such fairs).

The Barcelona Pavilion’s “cruciform column”: this plan-detail of it was one of the few original Mies drawings available—and has been the focus of attention for nearly a century.

After Paul Rudolph visited the Barcelona Pavilion, he made a series of fascinating analytical drawings—one of which is shown above—and all of which you can see here (where you can also read Rudolph’s thoughts about his moving experience of the building.)

Mies’ design became famous: an “icon”—an ontological distillation of a key thrust of architectural Modernism. Mies’ building lasted for only about 8 months, yet it continues to penetrate and have hegemony over architectural imaginations to this day. It did that via a handful of photographs and a couple of drawings—and it’s a testament to the power of the Mies’ concept that the Barcelona Pavilion has remained relevant for nearly a century, even on such thin evidence.

Later in Mies’ life, he was asked about rebuilding the Barcelona Pavilion, and he’s reported to have thought that it wasn’t a bad idea, and—-as the original construction drawings had been lost—he mentioned that his office could cooperate by making drawings for it. But, during Mies life (1886-1969), nothing came of the project.

In the mid-1980’s that changed: between 1983 and 1986 the building had been permanently rebuilt—and on the same site it had originally stood.

Very few of the people who’d be the most interested in the building—the architectural community—had a chance to visit the Barcelona Pavilion when it was briefly extant (and obviously none after its destruction). So the rebuilding has been celebrated, as it has allowed one to finally experience, in person, what they’d read about, studied, obsessed over, and dreamt of. [Paul Rudolph made a visit, which he found highly moving—and which you can read all about, here.]

Even though the reappearance, “in the flesh”, of the Barcelona Pavilion has benefits, its rebuilding has also been not without controversy—and it has brought forth serious questions:

1. Could a truly accurate rebuilding be done without the original architect’s direct involvement? [Which was clearly not possible in this case, as Mies had passed years before the rebuilding project even started.]

2. Even if Mies had been involved, would he have made changes in the a rebuilt design?—and how would that affect its authenticity. [Paul Rudolph observed that many things he saw at the site were not architecturally “resolved”—and that, Rudolph thought, was part of its magic. That imperfection may be “par for the course” with a rapidly planned and constructed, temporary exposition building—-but the temptation to “fix” such things, later, might have been too much for anyone (especially Mies) to resist.]

3. An important part of the experience of the Barcelona Pavilion was the effect caused by the materials used: slabs of natural stone—including some personally selected by Mies. These had been destroyed or dispersed, when the building was demolished in 1930. [How could one know that the newly chosen materials truly matched the originals in tone, grain, color, and texture?]

4. How much documentation was actually available, in order to do an accurate rebuilding? [In this case, while valiant attempts were made to sift for all documents and archeological evidence, there was still a significant gap between whatever original information was found, and what had to be extrapolated.]

5. Are there things that are better left in the realm of the imagination, and which should not be materialized (even when we have the power to do so)? [Philip Johnson—THE long-time associate, expert, and evangelist for Mies—said of the rebuilding project: “The problem before us is should a dream be realized or not? We have made such a myth of that building. Shouldn’t it be left in the sacred vault of the memory bank?”]

These questions remain—-and they are pertinent today, as we are, more-and-more, presented with new building projects which, allegedly, intend to rebuild, recreate, reproduce, or restore something that has been lost.

One problem is that the the thinking and language around these questions has become elastic, slippery, and with elusive meaning or intent. There is a lack of rigor in preservation—-not in the professional field, per se (about which we have immense admiration—-more about that below), but in the way that claims of preservation have been made which seem questionable. Making the situation even more difficult is that all this exists in a troublesome (and troubling) larger cultural context…

A REALITY / TRUST DEFICIT

A chart from the Pew Research Center’s study of Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019 The overall downward trend, from 1964 to the present, is evident. [Note that the largest and steepest drop was in the wake of the mid-1970’s Watergate scandal.] Whether such mistrust is deserved (and how one might ever determine such a titanic question) is another issue—nevertheless, the general direction of public sentiment is quite clear.

At the end of the 20th century, a symposium was held in New York on the topic of “Authenticity”. Topics ranged from the ubiquity (and intense popularity) of un-authorized “knock-off” copies of fashion items (like Gucci handbags) -to- the legitimacy of sampling in music; and—perhaps to spur new thinking about the question of “realness”—the event’s organizers had arranged for a drag queen to be the day’s host. It’s no secret that what can (and cannot) be trusted to be real, to be authentic, seems to be increasingly fluid — i.e.: the ongoing excitement about developments products for virtual reality (and their increasing consumer availability); that polls show trust in government has been on a nearly 60-year downward trend; our present (and elongating) moment when business, schooling, and socializing is done via screens; and everybody seems to have their own (and mutually exclusive) set of “facts.”

In the context of this, is it any wonder that we’re sensitive to such questions as:

• What’s real ?

• What’s authentic ?

• What’s “Original” (and what’s “Original Intent”) ?

• What has integrity ?

And these questions of integrity, of what is original, of what is authentic—the kind of truthfulness that might be found in architecture —comes up starkly in the domain of architectural preservation.

Ayn Rand’s architect hero, Howard Roark (at right) at a moment-of-truth: considering whether to compromise on the integrity of his design.

INTEGRITY aND ARCHITECTURE

Perhaps you’ve come across a building (or part of a building) which has been newly constructed—and the sponsors claim that their project is historically renovated, or that it is an authentic recreation, or that it is true to the spirit of the original architect, or that it is rehabilitated to match the original construction (or they characterize the work with similar such language.)

Do such claims have a solid basis? Or are they part of the “Creeping Surrealism” noted earlier?

Clearly, there shouldn’t be blanket verdicts on this (and one must judge on a case-by-case basis) — But, these days, one could hardly be overcautious when considering such claims, for, as Ayn Rand put it so starkly:

“A building has integrity, just as a man and just as seldom."

And that integrity (or lack thereof) can apply to preservation projects—ones which claim to be done with care, and rigor. But there’s also good news: there is a body-of-knowledge—and a profession to apply it—where such rigor can be found.

PRESERVATION—a pROFESSIONAL APPROACH

Fortunately, there is a well-developed discipline of Preservation—by which we mean the field that is historically and scientifically rigorous, professionally ethical, and which has a well-developed set of supporting institutions. activities, and tools. Some of those include:

• standards-setting organizations

• schools

• certifications

• professional groups, conferences, and ways of identifying and honoring distinguished work in the field

• journals

• publications

• databases

• government and public engagement

For example: One can see the wealth of preservation knowledge that’s been developed by looking at its publications. We asked Barbara A. Campagna, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C—a leading professional in this field, with in-depth experience in preservation—about this. We asked for the names of some of the key journals of the field—ones in which the profession of preservation shares its growing body of information and practical wisdom—and she mentioned: the Association for Preservation Technology’s APT Bulletin, the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, and DOCOMOMO International’s DOCOMOMO Journal—all of which are peer reviewed.

PRESERVATION LANGUAGE FOR CLEAR THINKING

The profession has as worked-out an extensive vocabulary—terms which can help bring clarity to any proposed project.

For example: The National Parks Service refers to “Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties”—and offers a concise glossary of the key terms:

• Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time.

• Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character.

• Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.

• Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.

Each of the highlighted words above has their own separate set of standards (and clicking on them will bring you to the the relevant pages where that’s gone into.) The National Parks Service also offers training and an extensive set of publications which cover many areas, including general preservation strategy as well as in-depth technical information—and you can access them here.

But they is just one of numerous preservation organizations (both national and local) which also offer advice, data, and a great range of assistance—the National Trust for Historic Preservation being another major resource.

CASE STUDIES sHOWING A POSITIVE DIRECTION

There are several projects, within Rudolph’s oeuvre, where renovation was done with responsibility and care. Notable is that these were done well after Rudolph’s passing—so they show that it is possible to do such work (including bringing a building up to later standards) well, and still be loyal to the original architect’s vision.

HEALY GUEST HOUSE (THE “COOCOON” HOUSE)

The Healy Guest House (1950) in Sarasota, Florida, is a waterside vacation residence designed near the beginning of Paul Rudolph’s career. Known for its catenary roof, inventive structure, and fresh form, the design—combined with Rudolph’s virtuoso drawing technique—was to help initiate Rudolph’s fame as one of America’s most creative young architects. Much published and studied over the decades, the City of Sarasota has added it to its list of Locally Historically Designated Properties in 1985.

In 2018, the house was leased to the Sarasota Architecture Foundation. They did a number of important renovation projects at the house, and—according to David Zaccardelli, the SAF board member overseeing the process—they “. . . .replaced the front door; restored the louvers, stripping them to natural grain wood; painted the exterior; and restored the front and rear porch, including the originally designed metal bench on the porch overlooking Bayou Louise. We also repaired the driveway and walkway pavers and installed new screens.” Following the renovations, the SAF contracted a local interior designer to furnish the residence in period-appropriate 1950’s-style furniture—and then reopened it for public tours.

Paul Rudolph’s perspective rendering of the Healy Guest House—which shows its iconic catenary curve roof.

The guest house, a Florida vacation structure built for the Healy family, sits along the water in Sarasota.

JEWETT ARTS CENTER AT WELLESLEY COLLEGE

The Mary Cooper Jewett Arts Center (1955-1958) was a breakthrough for Rudolph: it was his first major non-residential project to get built (and indeed, his latter career would include numerous buildings for education.). A complex program had to be accommodated—but, just as important: Rudolph sought to design a Modern building that would be sympathetic with the Wellesley’s existing vintage buildings. Those had been done in a “Collegiate Gothic” mode—a traditional style which had been popular approach for the design of campuses. Rudolph had no interest in reproducing the exact forms and details of the older buildings, but he did seek to resonate with them—and so he used shapes, proportions, glazing, and structure in ways that would fit well into the existing campus.

After about a half-century of use, the building needed a variety of repairs, and the college commissioned a comprehensive study of its condition. Significant work was judged to be needed for the windows: Rudolph had framed the glazing in wood, and by the mid 2010’s the window assemblies were in need of replacement. Several options were considered, but the best one—rebuilding the windows to match Rudolph’s design, but using a hardier wood, and carefully integrating double-glazing—was seen to be too expensive for the available budget. In 2019, the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation participated in discussions about the renovation plans, and encouraged the preservation team to hold to Rudolph’s vision—and suggested a funding and scheduling approach that would allow the university to do the renovations correctly (and be able to afford to do so.)

Paul Rudolph’s Jewett Arts Center, at Wellesley College. To resonate with campus’ other buildings (which had been designed in the Collegiate Gothic style), the new building was detailed to include coupled columns, pointed skylights, modulated metal screening, and a carefully articulated wood-framed window system.

One of Paul Rudolph’s details of the building’s exterior. This is a plan-detail, showing a concrete column (In a 4-lobed shape, which evokes the campus’ vintage Gothic-style building details), and a corner of the wood-framed glazing system. When constructed, the building was single-glazed (which was standard for the time).

YALE ART & ARCHITECTURE BUILDING

Paul Rudolph’s most famous work, the Yale Art & Architecture Building (1958-1964, rededicated as “Rudolph Hall” in 2008) had—after a major fire, years of patchy repairs and partial/unsympathetic renovations, and four decades of hard use by students—fallen into sorry shape. Yale even considered demolishing it, but a variety of causes (including significant support from Sid. R. Bass) brought forth a respectful and comprehensive renovation. The work included a focus on major systems (HVAC, lighting) and materials (particularly the condition of the exterior concrete and the glazing): they were upgraded, brought up to code, fixed, and—most important as the guiding principle—done in a way that maintained the forms and spirit of Rudolph’s vision for the school.

Although Paul Rudolph is famous for his perspective drawings, he also sometimes chose other graphic forms—like axonometric or isometric projections (the latter of which is used here, in his drawing of the Yale building.)

Windows—their form, details, and framing—are a part of every architects palette—and Paul Rudolph varied how they were handed in his design at Yale. Here they’re shown the process of replacement during the renovation.

PRESERVATION: THE ONGOING CHALLENGE

Sometimes preservation is straightforward—but more often there are difficulties—technical, budgetary, and philosophical. The ancient Greek riddle of the Ship of Theseus provides a paradigmatic example of the latter:

That legendary hero, Theseus, upon finishing his adventures and long journey, returned to Athens by ship. Honoring him, the ship was kept in the harbor for hundreds of years—held sacred as a memorial to this great and most heroic warrior. But, over centuries, the ship’s parts needed to be replaced: first a few planks, then a mast, a beam, some decking…. By end of many years, every part of the ship had—piece-by-piece—been replaced. It happened slowly—so gradually that it had hardly been noticed—but what ultimately stood in the harbor was a ship made entirely of new materials, none of which had been present in Theseus’ time. So the questions arose: Could this really be considered Theseus’ ship? Did it have a claim on authenticity? The form of the ship was the same, and the replacements were done slowly, over long years—and each time with meticulous care and good faith—but was it the same ship?

Had Theseus’ ship been preserved? That’s the essence of the question—one that’s been puzzled over for two millennia. The model can applied to many things: How much of the human body can be replaced, and still be considered human (or the same person)? How much can the staff of a design firm turn-over, before the fundamental nature of the entity is lost? How many members of a group can be replaced, and it still be the “same” band (or sports team)?

And what about when preserving a buildings? How much can be changed, and still be an authentic work of the original architect?

These issues are pertinent to the legacy of Paul Rudolph!

• How much of a Paul Rudolph building can be changed or replaced, and it still really be a Paul Rudolph design?

• Can one demolish a Rudolph building and re-build it later (with all or substantially new materials)—and claim that it is still a real work of Paul Rudolph?

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation is pledged to protecting Rudolph’s legacy—including a focus on preservation. We are alive to these questions—and we aspire to bring integrity, knowledge, and rigor into all the cases which come to our attention. WE ARE WATCHING.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

• If you know of any Paul Rudolph buildings that might be threatened—please contact us at: office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org

• If you are thinking of renovating or changing a Paul Rudolph design, please feel truly welcome to talk to us: we’ll be happy to share our knowledge and experience.

• Stay up-to-date with bulletins about the latest developments—and to get them, please join our foundation’s mailing list. You’ll get all the updates, (as well as other Rudolph news.)—and you can sign-up at the bottom of this page.

The Ship of Theseus, a famous and ancient riddle (and philosophical problem) with ongoing relevance for preservation—including for Paul Rudolph buildings.

---

IMAGE CREDITS

NOTES:

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation (a non-profit 501(c)3 organization) gratefully thanks all the individuals and organizations whose images are used in this non-profit scholarly and educational project.

The credits are shown when known to us, and are to the best of our knowledge, but the origin and connected rights of many images (especially vintage photos and other vintage materials) are often difficult determine. In all cases the materials are used in-good faith in our non-profit scholarly and educational efforts. If any use, credits, or rights need to be amended or changed, please let us know.

When Wikimedia Commons links are provided, they are linked to the information page for that particular image. Information about the rights to use each of those images, as well as technical information on the images, can be found on those individual pages.

CREDITS, FROM TOP-TO-BOTTOM, AND LEFT-TO-RIGHT:

Barcelona Pavilion, 1929: vintage photo;  Barcelona Pavilion, rebuilt in the 1980’s: Ashley Pomeroy via Wikimedia Commons;  Mies’ Barcelona Pavilion cruciform column detail: vintage drawing;  Paul Rudolph analytical drawing of the Barcelona Pavilion: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation;  Chart of trust in government: Pew Research Center;  Drawing of Healy Guest House: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation;  Photograph of Healy Guest House: courtesy of the Sarasota Architectural Foundation;  Photograph of Jewett Arts Center: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation;  Detail of column and glazing system at Jewett Arts Center: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation;  Isometric drawing of the Yale Art & Architecture Building: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation;  Photograph of glazing renovation at the Yale Art & Architecture Building: Hoffmann Architects, Inc., via Wikimedia Commons;  Mosaic of ancient Greek ship: Dennis Jarvis, via Wikimedia Commons

The Engel Residence - featuring a stunning Rudolph addition - is on the market

Photo by Daniel Milstein Photography © PlanOmatic

Paul Rudolph’s Engel Residence at 20 Pleasant Ridge Road in Harrison, New York is for sale.

The original residence was constructed in 1939, and Paul Rudolph designed an addition to the home in 1986.

The Engel Residence addition is the result of a personal friendship between Cecile Engel and Paul Rudolph, who was a contributor to a book of essays she edited and published (Delphinium Blossoms: An Anthology).

The secluded 7,452 sq. ft. residence is situated on a private 4 acre landscaped property with an in-ground pool and tennis court, providing a tranquil oasis just 40 minutes from Grand Central in nearby New York City. The property abuts a maintained horse and hiking trail.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The Rudolph addition features dramatic entertaining rooms with floor-to-ceiling picture windows and sliding doors looking out over the beautiful natural surroundings. The first floor includes several Rudolph design interventions including a one-of-a-kind temperature controlled 3,000-bottle wine room.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

A 1,570 sq. ft. stunning Master Suite designed by Rudolph offers serenity with soaring ceilings, floating beams and masterfully hidden lighting throughout the adjacent walk-in closets and oversized ensuite Master Bath complete with jacuzzi tub and travertine tiles.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The property features a free form heated pool, tennis court, rolling lawns, stone terraces, and lush landscaping.

Property Details

Square Footage: 7,452 s.f.

Lot size : 4.0 acres (174,240 s.f.) landscaped with pool & tennis court, abuts a maintained horse/hiking trail

Location: Harrison, New York

Systems: Central Heating and Central Air Conditioning

Layout: 5 bedrooms and 5.5 baths, spread across a two level floor plan. The house features a detached garage with space for 2 cars accessible by covered walkway.

Taxes: 2019 -2020 ($23,350 / year)

The home is being offered for sale by the current owners for $1.9 million USD.

You can learn more about the Engel Residence (including more images of the interior and exterior) at the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation’s page for the property’s sale here.

It is always a good time to celebrate Paul Rudolph’s architecture —and we can’t think of a better way to celebrate the New Year than finding a new owner who will appreciate and preserve this modernist gem.

You can reach out to us at office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org for more information.

MEETING ALERT - The Future of Rudolph's BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER - December 17th

Paul Rudolph’s overall design drawing for the Boston Government Service Center. A significant portion of the complex—the Hurley Building at left—is still under threat of full or partial demolition—but we’ve heard that the state agency that’s seeking to develop the site may be open to including preservation as a central tenet of the project. You can help reinforce that direction at the upcoming Public Meeting on December 17th.

THE SITUATION:

The BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER—one of Paul Rudolph’s largest and most multifaceted public buildings - remains threatened.

The state has proposed developing the site—and a key part of their plan is handing-off an integral part of the complex—the HURLEY BUILDING—to a developer. There have been various reports and meetings to present the state’s plans—and they’ve received a lot of push-back.

We’ve published several articles on the building, including ones examining and questioning this development project (like this one, which looked at the alternatives the state’s been considering.) Several critical letters, statements, and reports—protesting the assumption that demolition is the only path to a positive future for this complex—have been issued, including from the Boston Preservation Alliance and Docomomo-New England.

Even so, the state’s “messaging” about the project (while offering some useful information and ideas) also persists in trying to divorce Paul Rudolph from design responsibility for the building—thus attempting to undermine the Hurley Building’s architectural significance (and we’ve addressed that myth here.)

MEETING ALERT:

TONIGHT - Thursday, December 17th, at 6:30PM —there will be a VIRTUAL [Zoom] PUBLIC MEETING about the project.

DCAMM says that:

• Attendees will learn about the state’s goals for the redevelopment

• Staff will present draft Project Proposal for the redevelopment

• Staff will ask for your comments

You are invited to attend (and attendance is Free)

TAKE ACTION:

• Attend the Public ZOOM meeting on Thursday, December 17th, 6:30 PM—and speak out: Important information will be shared and your presence will show support for the preservation of this important work of public architecture. Full meeting info is below—but you must RSVP (see link below.)

• Sign the petition: “Save the Boston Government Service Center” — sign it HERE - and share it with your friends and all who appreciate great architecture.

A corner view of the Hurley Building (with a portion of the body of the building in the background at right)—an integral part of of the Boston Government Service Center designed by Paul Rudolph. Public input is invited at November 19th’s ZOOM meeting—and you’re urged to attend and comment (see registration info below).

HOW TO ATTEND THE MEETING:

NAME OF EVENT: Charles F. Hurley Building Redevelopment

DATE & TIME: Thursday, December 17, 2020 — 6:30 PM

FORMAT: Virtual (“ZOOM”) Public Meeting

TO ATTEND: the meeting is Free and Open-To-The-Public—but you must RSVP (see below)

RSVP HERE: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Zw1ed5LORHqn_M2OsqgqBg

SPONSORED BY: Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM)

ZOOM REGISTRATION ASSISTANCE: If you need assistance accessing the ZOOM registration link, please email apoggenburg@reginavilla.com -or- call (617) 357-5772 x 26

DCAMM WEBSITE [Note: this is the government’s current info page on the project]: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/charles-f-hurley-building-redevelopment

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO DCAMM ABOUT THIS PROJECT: e-mail them to: HurleyReDev.dcamm@mass.gov.

The artist’s impression of the Great Seal of the United States—a section of one of Constantino Nivola’s impressive and inspiring murals within the Boston Government Service Center’s Hurley Building. These murals cannot be moved—adding to the urgency that the Hurley building be preserved.

PHOTO CREDITS:

Paul Rudolph Drawing of Overall Design of the Boston Government Service Center: © The estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Corner View of the Hurley Building: Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith; Nivola Mural Eagle: Photo by Kelvin Dickinson © The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation

Meeting Alert: the Future of Rudolph's BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER - November 19th

Paul Rudolph’s overall design drawing for the Boston Government Service Center. A significant portion of the complex—the Hurley Building at left—is still under threat of full or partial demolition—but we’ve heard that the state agency that’s seeking to develop the site may be open to including preservation as a central tenet of the project. You can help reinforce that direction at the upcoming Public Meeting on November 19th.

One of the earlier reports, commissioned by DCAMM (the state agency planning to move ahead with development of the site—including possibly demolishing all or part of the Hurley Building.). We examined the various options they were considering, presented in that report, in an article here.

On of the strategies of those who want to demolish all or part of the Boston Government Service Center’s Hurley Building is to spread the idea that Rudolph was not the prime designer of the complex (including Hurley)—a myth we’ve addressed here.

Shown above is a model of the complex, with the Hurley Building closest to the front-left of the picture (the model also includes the unbuilt office tower.) In the background can be seen architectural drawings of the complex: an elevation and numerous floor plans. Around the model are key players in the creation of the Boston Government Service Center: (left-to-right) Nathaniel Becker, Dick Thissen, Charles Gibbons, Joseph P. Richardson, Edward Logue, Jeremiah Sundell, Unidentified (George Berlow or William Pedersen?)—and Paul Rudolph at far right.

THE SITUATION:

The BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER—one of Paul Rudolph’s largest and most multifaceted public buidings—remains threatened.

The state has proposed developing the site—and a key part of their plan is handing-off an integral part of the complex—the HURLEY BUILDING—to a developer. There have been various reports and meetings to present the state’s plans—and they’ve received a lot of push-back.

We’ve published several articles on the building, including ones examining and questioning this development project (like this one, which looked at the alternatives the state’s been considering.) Several critical letters, statements, and reports—protesting the assumption that demolition is the only path to a positive future for this complex—have been issued, including from the Boston Preservation Alliance and Docomomo-New England.

Even so, the state’s “messaging” about the project (while offering some useful information and ideas) also persists in trying to divorce Paul Rudolph from design responsibility for the building—thus attempting to undermine the Hurley Building’s architectural significance (and we’ve addressed that myth here.)

A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT?

Now the project will be opened to additional public feedback at a November public meeting.

That’s important because: the state agency that’s planning on developing the site (DCAMM: the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance) seems to have become receptive to including preservation as a central tenet of the project. Their recent statements about the Hurley development indicate they are going in this positive direction—and it would be good to reinforce this in the upcoming public meeting. So you’re invited to attend and speak out about preserving the integrity of this Rudolph design.

MEETING ALERT:

Soon— Thursday, November 19th, at 6:30PM —there will be a VIRTUAL [Zoom] PUBLIC MEETING about the project.

DCAMM says that:

• Attendees will learn about the state’s goals for the redevelopment, and how they’ll work to ensure getting a “redevelopment partner” that will help to achieve those goals

• Staff will present draft Design Guidelines for the redevelopment

• Staff will ask for your feedback

You are invited to attend (and attendance is Free)

TAKE ACTION:

• Attend the Public ZOOM meeting on Thursday, November 19th, 6:30 PM—and speak out: Important information will be shared and your presence will show support for the preservation of this important work of public architecture. Full meeting info is below—but you must RSVP (see link below.)

• Sign the petition: “Save the Boston Government Service Center” — sign it HERE - and share it with your friends and all who appreciate great architecture.

A corner view of the Hurley Building (with a portion of the body of the building in the background at right)—an integral part of of the Boston Government Service Center designed by Paul Rudolph. Public input is invited at November 19th’s ZOOM meeting—and you’re urged to attend and comment (see registration info below).

HOW TO ATTEND THE MEETING:

NAME OF EVENT: Charles F. Hurley Building Redevelopment

DATE & TIME: Thursday, November 19, 2020 — 6:30 PM

FORMAT: Virtual (“ZOOM”) Public Meeting

TO ATTEND: the meeting is Free and Open-To-The-Public—but you must RSVP (see below)

RSVP HERE: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZckduCqpj4oE9cIeuXZcbcV34qntuuqoSyV

SPONSORED BY: Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM)

ZOOM REGISTRATION ASSISTANCE: If you need assistance accessing the ZOOM registration link, please email apoggenburg@reginavilla.com -or- call (617) 357-5772 x 26 by no later than Friday, November 13th

DCAMM WEBSITE [Note: this is the government’s current info page on the project]: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/charles-f-hurley-building-redevelopment

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO DCAMM ABOUT THIS PROJECT: e-mail them to: HurleyReDev.dcamm@mass.gov.

The artist’s impression of the Great Seal of the United States—a section of one of Constantino Nivola’s impressive and inspiring murals within the Boston Government Service Center’s Hurley Building. These murals cannot be moved—adding to the urgency that the Hurley building be preserved.

PHOTO CREDITS:

Paul Rudolph Drawing of Overall Design of the Boston Government Service Center: © The estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Key players in the creation of the Boston Government Service Center: news photo, source unknown; Corner View of the Hurley Building: Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith; Nivola Mural Eagle: Photo by Kelvin Dickinson © The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation

The Clear & Passionate Voice for Great Architecture— Especially Burroughs Wellcome

Kate Wagner’s essay—defending Paul Rudolph’s Burroughs Wellcome Building, and taking on the shallowness with which great architecture is often devalued—opens with a dramatic view of the Burroughs Wellcome Building by the distinguished architectural photographer Joseph Molitor. Image courtesy of Joseph W. Molitor architectural photographs collection. Located in Columbia University, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Department of Drawings & Archives

A VOICE FOR SANITY IN ARCHITECTURE—LIKE NONE OTHER TODAY

Who is the most incisive, clear-eyed, and forthright critic on today’s architectural scene?

As an irrepressible voice for architectural sanity, KATE WAGNER has few rivals. Thus we were struck (and delighted) by her recent, brilliant defense of Paul Rudolph’s Burroughs Wellcome Building—one of the architect’s most exciting and masterful designs, which is now threatened with demolition—in her essay, “This Brutal World”

A sample image from the McMansion Hell website, in which a photo of a McMansion is analyzed by Wagner.

For those not familiar with Kate Wagner’s work, it’s always good to recount that she first came to prominence with her take-no-prisoners website, McMansion Hell—a space where her talent for giving undiluted assessments of the pretentions, impracticalities, and wasteful tastelessness of “McMansions” (and the culture that produced them) had ample space to be displayed.

If you’re not already an admirer of her analyses, this sampling will give you and idea of Wagner’s direct-as-nails rhetoric (as applied to one of the houses she was critiquing on that website):

“If you combine all of the insipid elements of the other houses: mismatched windows; massive, chaotic rooflines; weird asphalt donut landscaping; pompous entrances, and tacked on masses; you’d get this house. The more one looks at this house the more upsetting it becomes . . . . What sends this one over the top is its surroundings: lush trees and clear skies that have been desecrated in order to build absolute garbage.”

But her writings and wise advocacy have not just been about spotlighting overcooked (and undertalented) design. She has focused upon other vital issues such as land use, urbanism, residential space planning, and the history of architectural styles. Wagner has been a featured writer in Architectural Digest, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, Curbed, and other venues—and now can be read in The New Republic.

The essay appeared in the September 29, 2020 on-line edition of The Architect’s Newspaper-East.

DEFENDING PAUL RUDOLPH’S WORK—AND THE TREASURES OF GREAT ARCHITECTURE

Her essay, “This Brutal World” went well beyond considering the fate of that great building, Burroughs Wellcome—for she also offered a powerful attack on the cultural/economic world-view which places so little value on our country’s national treasures of architecture.

She starts by sharing her first powerful encounter, as a youngster, with a Paul Rudolph building: the amazing (and now disfigured) Orange County Government Center, in Goshen, NY—and how that impacted her entire life.

The Orange County Government Center, in Goshen, NY—as designed by Rudolph (and before its present disfigurement). Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith

“Many years ago, long before I became an architecture critic, I was a 14-year-old stuck in the back of a Buick crossover whose driver, my mother, had taken a wrong turn while looking for the Goshen, New York, Dunkin Donuts. We ended up in the parking lot of the most extraordinary building I had ever seen—Paul Rudolph’s Orange County Government Center, more commonly known as the Goshen Building.”

“. . . .Despite the outward signs of disrepair, the breath seized in my chest and as my eyes drifted over the compression and expansion of the building’s extruded masses, I realized that I had stumbled upon something extraordinary. I asked my mother, who grew up in Goshen and was visiting relatives there, if she knew what the building was. She rolled her eyes and said, ‘Ugh, that’s the DMV.’”

“When we returned home to North Carolina from our family reunion, I took to the computer and searched for the Goshen, New York Department of Motor Vehicles. Some clicking got me through to the Wikipedia page for Paul Rudolph, a mid-century architect who was once the Dean of the Yale School of Architecture. It was at that point I fell in love and became obsessed—not only with Rudolph’s work, but with architecture as a whole.”

“My life is marked by a threshold of before and after Paul Rudolph.”

At right are some of the buildings which Kate Wagner mentions in her article: architecture by Paul Rudolph that has been demolished, damaged, or—like Burroughs Wellcome and the Boston Government Service Center—are currently under threat. From top-to-bottom: Shoreline Apartments, Micheels Residence, Christian Science Center, Boston Government Service Center, Burroughs Wellcome.

And Kate Wagner tells of the actions that she began taking:

Photographic credits for the above five images, from top-to-bottom: Image courtesy of Joseph W. Molitor architectural photographs collection. Located in Columbia University, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Department of Drawings & Archives; © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith; Archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith

“In 2010, I had stumbled on a news article about the pending demolition of the Goshen Building. I was devastated.”

“I got into many arguments with my mother, who at the time shared the majority opinion of Goshenites and thought the building an unlovable eyesore. I decided to do everything that I, a high-school sophomore hundreds of miles away, could to save it. I wrote letters to Goshen politicians, my first-ever writings on architecture; I donated my babysitting money to Docomomo. . . .I was a freshman in college. I was beginning graduate school when Orange County finished lobotomizing Rudolph’s building with a horrific contemporary addition. Reflecting on the loss years later, I can’t help but be upset.”

Her article goes into Rudolph’s career, but then notes the threats to the survival of other parts of his oeuvre—the latest of which, in jeopardy, is Burroughs Wellcome.

“Rudolph designed numerous houses around the country and a great many important projects including the Yale Art & Architecture Building, the Boston Government Service Center, and numerous buildings for the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. However, Rudolph lived long enough to see the tide turn against modern architecture, and his reputation tarnished as a result. The wrecking ball soon tore through Rudolph’s portfolio. Riverview, Buffalo’s Shoreline Apartments, houses in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Florida, and the Christian Science Organization Building rank among the fallen, while the Boston Government Service Center is under grave threat. The latest victim in this saga of devastation is his Burroughs Wellcome Co. Headquarters and Research Building in Durham, North Carolina.”

There is a great deal more in Kate Wagner’s fine essay (and we urge you to read it—in full—here.) But it might be good to close by sharing excerpts from some of the points she makes about the larger issues to which she brings her powerful focus:

“I. . . .think that I am a fool for believing that the tide of public opinion has changed enough to have prevented a major work of architecture from being carelessly demolished. I am an even bigger fool for believing that public opinion is what stops the destruction of works of art—that the core problem is awareness rather than money. . . .It doesn’t matter if Burroughs Wellcome is priceless, unique, a work of spatial, formal brilliance. To its owners it is a burden, a resource sink, a negative sign on a spreadsheet. . . .It is an asset of business, an object whose use-value will always be subornidated to its exchange value. . . .”

“I write this as a means of processing the impending loss of a building I care deeply about as a historian and as an individual, but also because I believe that the preservation community is facing a hard truth: Their battle is not against one bulldozer-happy company or developer but against an economic system that reduces architecture to an asset that sits upon an even more valuable asset—land. The court of public opinion has no say over the rule of the wallet, and even the success of a decade-long campaign to recuperate Brutalism from the trash heap of history cannot alone save Burroughs Wellcome from the wrecking ball. Time repeats itself—I once sat in a chair in my room on a laptop typing up letters and school assignments devoted to saving the Goshen Building; ten years later, I sit in my office and type this essay about mourning another building by the same architect. Both times, despite it all, grief is mixed with hope.”

Note: We hope that the demolition of the Burroughs Wellcome Building is not inevitably “impending”—and the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation is fighting to save it. Please see below about how you can help.

The threat to Burroughs Wellcome is part of a pervasive problem, as is illustrated here: the same web-page in The Architect’s Newspaper (on which Kate Wagner’s article appeared) also showed links to other articles—each of which is about the demolition of good and/or interesting modern buildings.

YOU CAN HELP SAVE BURROUGHS WELLCOME !

The Burroughs Wellcome building is threated with imminent demolition.

It’s loss would be a disaster—a titanic waste of our nation’s cultural heritage. Remember:

When a great building is destroyed, there are no second chances.

NOW— THERE ARE TWO THINGS YOU CAN DO:

• Sign the petition to save Burroughs Wellcome— Please sign it here.

• We can keep you up-to-date with bulletins about the latest developments. To get them, please join our foundation’s mailing list: you’ll get all the updates, (as well as other Rudolphian news.)—you can sign-up at the bottom of this page

Burroughs Wellcome’s famous, soaring entry lobby, which Kate Wagner had heard the present owners were going to use as part of a visitor’s center. That was before their current intentions, for demolition of the building, became known. Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, photograph by G. E. Kidder Smith

Paul Rudolph's 1982 Edersheim Residence is on the market

The Edersheim Residence in Larchmont, New York in 2020. Photograph by Filip Michalowski of CT Plans, courtesy Houlihan Lawrence

Paul Rudolph’s Edersheim Residence at 862 Fenimore Road in Larchmont, New York is for sale.

The original house was constructed in 1958 and owners Maurits and Claire Edersheim hired Rudolph to design alterations to the property in 1982, following his interior renovation of their New York City Apartment on Fifth Avenue in 1970.

The Edersheim apartment in New York City in 2019. Photos by Ethan Shapiro © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.

The Edersheims requested Rudolph design alterations and additions to the property again in 1989 and 1991. Original Rudolph designs include a pool/guest house, main residence entry, covered porch, expansive built-ins, skylights, interior lighting and a complete renovation of the main structure.

The Covered Porch under construction. Photo by R.D. Chin from the Archives of The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.

The Pool/Guest House under construction. Photo by R.D. Chin from the Archives of The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.

The Pool/Guest House under construction. Photo by R.D. Chin from the Archives of The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.

The Edersheims would become some of Rudolph’s most faithful clients, choosing him to design several projects including an office suite for Mr. Edersheim at the Salomon Smith Barney office in New York’s World Trade Center Complex in 1994.

The compound (renovated in 2020) includes the Main Residence, a separate Apartment/Office and a Pool/Guest House. This is a rare opportunity that is perfect for sheltering in place.

Located in Larchmont, NY - just north of New Rochelle and New York City - the home is sited on a 2.49 acre landscaped lot and is listed for $6.4 million USD.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The property includes indoor & outdoor swimming pools, wet/dry sauna, media room, gym, and multiple work spaces. The open flow floor plan features several additions designed by Paul Rudolph. The Master Suite includes a 21 jet tub, steam shower, rain/body showers, dual water closets, towel warmers, vanity/ dressing area and attached closets.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

About 10,000 sq feet of outdoor living space includes a 1,000 sq ft screened-in outdoor covered porch with an outdoor kitchen for entertaining.

View fullsize

View fullsize

The residence is located on a unique 2.49 acre private landscaped property in Larchmont and is an easy NYC commute with access to golf, country clubs & the water.

You can learn more about the Edersheim Residence (including more images) at the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation’s page for the property’s sale here.

You can also reach out to us at office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org for more information.

What's In A Name? When a "Rudolph" Really Isn't One

A home in Chester, NY that the owners claim was designed by Paul Rudolph. Image from a previous listing on Weichert Realtors.

When you represent the estate of an architect who has designed residential properties, you eventually receive word that they are going to be sold. At that point, in steps a real estate agent with the marketing vocabulary and poetic license to find a new owner.

As Christine Bartsch writes in her blog Writing Creative Real Estate Listing Descriptions: 3 Pro Tips (and a Warning!), “The better your listing description is, the better your chances are that buyers will come see your home in person. And the more showings you have, the higher your odds are to get multiple offers.”

It can sometimes be hard to find a new owner for a Rudolph-designed home. They can be of a certain age that they seem too small for today’s buyers (like the Cerritto Residence) or in a location that is no longer remote and in danger of being demolished for a bigger house (like the Walker Guest House) or they can be in a style that can make them hard to love (like the Micheels Residence).

In some cases the owners reach out to the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation and we work with them to find a new owner who will preserve the property. We list these properties on our website with instructions here.

As we state in our mission statement, one of our goals is to help provide connections between sellers of Rudolph properties with preservation-minded buyers and design-sensitive real estate professionals. In order to ensure the properties are preserved, it is important they are owned and maintained.

So its interesting that - while its already challenging to preserve original Rudolph designs - we come across properties that claim they are Rudolph designs when there is no evidence that they are.

Note: The following homes are not included in Rudolph’s project list and we have no evidence (in either drawings, photographs or written communication) that they are Rudolph designs. We are happy to update our archives if the owners contact us and can provide supporting documentation.

Let’s take a look at three of these homes:

904 Virginia Drive in Sarasota, Florida

The original house in 2007

The new house in 2020

According to the property’s listing:

This entertainer's dream home is located in the heart of Sarasota's Cultural District. This home was designed by renowned architects Ralph Twitchell and Paul Rudolph in 1940 with construction being completed in 1941. The home was remodeled and expanded in 2009, and refreshed in 2019. The design is a perfect blend of contemporary and mid-century modern.

As soon as we read the listing (sent from a Rudolph fan) we knew the Rudolph reference was mistaken because he joined Twitchell’s office in the Spring of 1941 - the same year construction was completed.

We reached out to several friends in Florida and learned the original address is indeed a Twitchell design, known as the ‘Second Lu Andrews residence’. Pictures of the home appear in John Howey’s 1997 book The Sarasota School of Architecture, 1941-1966.

We were provided a note by a previous owner in the 1990’s that explains a short history of the home. Below is an excerpt:

“There was a small piece in our paper yesterday in the real estate section about the Lu Andrew home in Tahiti Park. I was moved to give a brief history of her second home built in 1939, which my husband and I owned about six years ago. Both homes were built by her boss Ralph Twitchell.

When Pat and I started looking to buy our first home we were living on Hickory street and had both been living here and there in the IBSS neighborhood for years. It was our hope to find a house in the area, and we spent a year looking.

Walking our dogs we came upon 904 Virginia Drive, a for sale sign had just been erected and we immediately went back home to call our realtor to inquire about this charming modern house. We set up an appointment for the very next day, the price was a bit out of our range, but with the idea of negotiating we remained positive.

Meeting the realtor at 904 we knew right away that the outside of the property was a dream, and once the door opened we knew instantly that we had finally found our home. It was small, 900 square feet, perfect for two. It was important for us that the house we bought wasn't entirely bastardized.

Walking into 904 we were delighted by the original integrity, design and layout. Putting an offer in quickly, and dealing with owners that loved the house and yard, it was a given that it would all work out.

Once we occupied the Twitchell house we started to research it's previous owners and history. In the hopes of meeting it's original owner we went to see if Lu Andrews was home at her Tahiti Park address.

Arriving there, we knew from the looks of the house that it hadn't been lived in for quite some time. One of her neighbors saw us and we all started talking and she told us that Lu's son had put her into a nursing home just a few months ago. She knew a lot about the history and about Lu, and was kind enough to let us know where Lu was now living. We called the nursing home and made an appointment to meet with her.

We learned that Ralph built the home for Lu and her son, that Lu slept in the living room on built-in day beds (no longer there) that her son slept in the back bedroom and the front room was to rent out to someone so that it was affordable for Lu. Times ware tough in Sarasota in the 40's, the building boom declined rapidly and when the war broke out work was hard to get. Being a single parent with a son to raise, Lu moved to Washington DC to work as a secretary. She had lived in 904 for a short time, never to return. she moved back to Sarasota after the war and the Tahiti Park house was built for her by Ralph, but the materials used were more humble as the economy here was still tight. She was a dear lady, and her memory faded back and forth, but we were still able to extract this brief history.

Once our children arrived the house was becoming quite small, so we investigated adding on and hired the architect John Howey. We felt John would be perfect as he had just published a book on the Sarasota School of Architecture. Plans were drawn and during the process my neighbor across the street had decided to sell his home, and it was offered to us. Economically it was a wise decision, building the addition was expensive in comparison. We would be going from 900 s.f. into 2000 s.f. without the headache, but with the loss of our sweet Twitchell home.

Sometimes we make decisions with the hopes the what we decide will stay the same, unfortunately two years ago 904 was forever changed.

The beautiful 100 year old river cypress torn away from the walls - paneled throughout the ceilings and walls - piled high into dumpsters. When living at 904 while reading in bed my eyes could not help but to always delight in the beauty of the cypress grain, every bit worthy, of it's title, River Tide, as the grain looks like the water moving along the shore. As if the cypress tree is so ingrained into the life of the water from which it is born.

Twitchell often left a whimsical signature in the homes he built, stars cut out from the cypress, and the cut out itself, neatly imposed near entryways. As the demolition continued at 904, Pat was able to salvage the star paneling and many paneling boards.

On the back of some of the boards was a stamp from the lumber mill from which the cypress originated. In 1922 Cummer Sons Cypress Company was built on 100 acres in Pasco County, in the town of Lacoochee, Florida. The town of Lacoochee thrived for nearly 40 years, where Cummer Sons Cypress, a giant in the logging and lumber industry, made their last stand near the Withlacoochee river. It closed in 1959, and with its demise the town fell into hard times, as the mill was the main employer, providing jobs and housing mostly for African Americans.

I still dream about 904, mostly that I have forgotten a treasure, tucked away in the beautiful memory of a cypress tree.”

The home was modernized in the 2000’s and then later sold to a new owner who demolished 95% of the house and rebuilt it. As our source in Florida told us, “Twitchell at 904 Virginia Drive is long gone.”

On a side note - a wonderful SketchUp model of Lu Andrews’ 3rd house at Tahiti Park referenced in the note above can be found here.

1212 East Sierra Way in Palm Springs, California

A photograph of 1212 East Sierra Way from the property’s listing on Zillow.

The AirBNB listing for the 4,100 s.f. property states:

This iconic mid-century multi-level home in the prestigious Indian Canyons neighborhood was designed by renowned architect Paul Rudolph. Casa Colibri is a sprawling property with expansive rooms and an abundance of floor-to-ceiling windows that shed light on the spectacular, mid-century interior.

In this case, we were alerted by Docomomo - a non-profit organization dedicated to the documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the modern movement - asking for confirmation. The listing says the exact location will be provided after booking. A little digging and we discovered a similar listing for ‘Casa Colibri’ on Vrbo which also states, “this iconic mid-century multi-level home in the prestigious Indian Canyons neighborhood was designed by renowned architect Paul Rudolph.”

What caught our eye was the Vrbo listing headline - “3 bedroom 5 bath mid-century 4100 sq ft home featured in modernism week tours.” When members of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation were in Palm Springs for Modernism Week in 2019 to see the Walker Guest House replica we had no idea we were only a 6 minute drive away. No one we spoke to mentioned a Rudolph-designed home was in town, and information about Rudolph at the replica’s installation made no reference to it.

A public records search of Palm Springs (along with a little flying around via Google Earth) and we learned that Casa Colibri is located at 1212 East Sierra Way. According to the property records, the residence was built in 1977. We also found a Zillow listing for a previous sale by Douglas Elliman in 2017 that states:

A house of pure architecture and one of Indian Canyon's most dramatic houses. The different levels recall the work of modernist architect Paul Rudolph and are part of what makes the sight lines so interesting. Extensively renovated by Solterra Construction in 2008 this home has comfortable yet contemporary style and lots of architectural drama.

Within a few years a house that ‘recalls’ Paul Rudolph has become ‘designed’ by him.

19 Greentree Lane in Chester, New York

Photo from the Property Description Report from the Orange County, NY Municipal website

The 7,202 sqft home - which sold for $285,000 in 1995 and then $238,000 in 1999 - jumped 1,034% in price to $2,700,000 in 2014. According to public property records, the home was originally built in 1986 and last modified in 2000-2001. The additions include a 240 s.f. carport, 650 s.f. attached garage and 80 s.f. covered porch. No date is available when the heliport was added on the property.

The residence was listed and delisted several times since 2013 and marketing mentions Paul Rudolph although you might miss it based on the spelling:

“The Hudson Villa is named after its historic origin. Created by the renowned architect Paul Rudolf, the estate is a masterpiece of design and craftsmanship featuring a private white-sand beach and a resort-like setting less than an hour away from New York City.” - Hudson Valley Style Magazine, 07/09/2020

On its own website, the property description states:

“Designed by the renowned American architect Paul Rudolph, the home pays homage to the lodge tradition - precise craftsmanship is evident in architectural accents including cathedral ceilings, light-flooding skylights, and warm stone elements. Security and privacy are front of mind in the design, layout, and features of the property.”

We encourage you to visit the website and judge Rudolph’s participation for yourself based upon the pictures of the home’s interior.

Or, you can check this listing from the Off The Mrkt blog in September 2018:

Reality TV personality and mentor on Scared Straight and MAURY, Dave Vitalli, is selling an aspen style safe house in Chester, New York for $3,088,000.

This safe house located at 19 Greentree Lane was originally built by Paul Rudolph, a renowned architect, in 1986. Rudolph spared no expense when it came to making sure the house would withstand the threats of the world outside. 

The safe house is built of thick slabs of concrete and reinforced steel to help maintain the structure just in case something were to happen. It also has generators, wells, and septic systems in place to allow for comfortable off the grid living. This property has also been previously used as a retreat for diplomats, celebrities, and dignitaries through the years.

The site includes a link to Rudolph’s wikipedia page, because they wouldn’t be able to find a link for the home in our project archives.

Its also interesting to note that the home’s location - Chester, NY - is located in Orange County. Orange County is best known for several Rudolph-related preservation controversies including the destruction of the John W. Chorley Elementary school in Middletown and the partial destruction and insensitive addition to the Orange County Government Center. Could the controversy and Rudolph’s name in the local paper have inspired the marketing connection?

The USModernist organization - which follows and promotes the preservation of modernist homes - says the house was “for sale 2014-2018, advertised as a Paul Rudolph design, based on a claim by the owner. We found no evidence to support that claim whatsoever, and the owner declined to produce any.”

USModernist contacted the property’s real estate agent in 2017, who could not produce any documentation but that Rudolph’s authorship is something ‘the family told them.’ The agent also said the owners commissioned Rudolph to do the renovation.  However, they bought the house in 1999 after Paul Rudolph had passed away in 1997.

After speaking with us, USModernist informed the sales agent and asked that the record be corrected. Instead, the house was delisted only to return yet again as a Rudolph in several relistings with different agents ever since.

Rudolph comes up a few times in the history of this property - either ‘sparing no expense’ in 1986 or renovating the property in 1999 from the afterlife. We note with irony that the renamed ‘Hudson Villa’ is trademarked on the listing’s current website, while taking liberty with the mention of Rudolph’s involvement in the ‘trademark’ design.

Why Now?

Several sales of Rudolph properties have been in the news lately, so we aren’t surprised that Rudolph’s name is being used as a marketing tool.

In 2019, two original Rudolph properties were sold. The 1952 Walker Guest House in Sanibel, Florida was sold at auction by Southebys-New York in December for $750,000 and, with auction house fees, the total came to $920,000. As we reported earlier this month, it is in the process of being moved to a location in California.

The other sale was Rudolph’s 1986 Triestman Residence which went through a subsequent interior modification by the new owner.

In 2020, Rudolph’s 1949 Bennett Residence was sold for $395,500 after being listed for just 3 days. We learned that the new owner purchased it sight unseen for the full asking price - even in the middle of a pandemic.

This year also saw the sale of the Walker Guest House Replica that was on display during Palm Springs Modernism Week (a short drive from the would-be Rudolph) by Heritage Auctions. Bidding began at $10,000 - the budget for the original home when it was first built.

So when we find sellers using Rudolph’s name as a way to get more attention, we take it as a sign of success in our efforts to keep Paul Rudolph’s work in the public’s consciousness.

None of this is meant to make a value judgement about the homes mentioned above, just that they are not Paul Rudolph designs. As is the case with art or architecture, its ‘buyer beware’ and in some cases definitely not ‘you get what you pay for.’

The Bennett Residence - rare Sarasota School Gem - is on the market

Photo: Louis Wery, Archive of the Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.

The Allen and Barbara Bennett Residence is now for sale. A rarely available property - and one of the few remaining original Twitchell & Rudolph homes to still exist - the restored residence is looking for a new owner who appreciates Mid-Century Modernism.

Located in Bradenton - just north of Sarasota, Florida - the home is sited on a corner lot and is listed for $395,000.

The design brings together native and modern materials – heart cypress, lime block, plate glass – into a disciplined composition reflecting the principles of the Sarasota School of Architecture.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Sited at ground level, the floor plan works well for wheelchair access. Glass walls open to the outdoors and a private garden courtyard. The Ocala block fireplace and accent walls ground this unique design in its natural surroundings.

View fullsize

View fullsize

The home was restored by architect and author Joseph King who wrote extensively about Rudolph, and is featured in the 2002 book Paul Rudolph: The Florida Houses.

You can learn more about the Bennett Residence (including more images and a virtual tour) at the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation’s page for the property’s sale here.

Celebrate National Preservation Month by Preserving Paul Rudolph’s architecture

It is always a good time to celebrate Paul Rudolph’s architecture —and we can’t think of a better way to celebrate National Preservation Month than finding a new owner who will appreciate and preserve this modernist gem.

You can reach out to us at office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org for more information.