The original Walker Guest House was just sold—but you have a second chance: a faithful replica is now up for auction!
A Year of Paul Rudolph - by the Numbers....
Hollywood Nods to Urban Design (and Paul Rudolph)
New Book on Paul Rudolph - focusing on his Drawings
A Paul Rudolph Holiday Greeting
Concrete for the Holidays (a gift suggestion!)
Halston meets tom ford - what is being done at 101 east 63rd
The great fashion designer Halston, enthroned in his living room—within the famous “101”, the townhouse in New York’s Upper East Side neighborhood in Manhattan . Photo by Harry Benson, from a feature on Halston in Life Magazine.
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 facade 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 recent 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.
A video portion of Halston walking through 101 East 63rd from the CNN documentary. Halston’s description of the house begins at 0:46:50.
His lawyer upon visiting the house quipped, “I’m going to enjoy making money for you Halston because you know how to spend it.”
For more information about the house, you can find drawings and photos of it on our project page here.
Perspective Section Rendering. © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
A Buyer as Famous as the House
As we reported in a previous blog post back in March, the house was finally 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 sale was announced, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation was 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.
Paul Rudolph’s Mezzanine Floor Plan. © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
Paul Rudolph’s Third Floor Plan. © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
We asked the architect to consider consulting with the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation 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.
Our request was not without precedent - the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation has given advice, free of charge, to owners of Rudolph-designed properties in the past. We were part of the design review of proposed replacement windows at the Mary Jewett Arts Center. We also helped a home owner in New Jersey find an architect to design an addition. In the end, he was able to hire Rudolph’s original project manager to construct the addition in way that fit into the original design.
A Cautious Optimism
We continued to hold out hope that - despite not hearing from the architect - the project was ‘in good hands.’ From online comments and at our public events, people were relieved to hear Mr. Ford had purchased the property as he was known for taking care of homes designed by significant architects, such as Richard Neutra.
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.’
What Will Change and What Will Stay the Same
The foundation immediately made phone calls and was able to obtain a set of the permit drawings. The following is what we learned about the work:
First Floor - Existing Plan. © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
First Floor - Demolition Plan. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
First Floor - Construction Plan. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
Second Floor - Existing Plan. © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
Second Floor - Demolition Plan. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
Second Floor - Construction Plan. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
What’s different:
All of the bathrooms are being gutted and some are combined to become larger. Looking at the elevations, we are pleased to learn it will include floor to ceiling mirrors with chrome vanities and toilets in some of them.
Mirrors, mirrors everywhere… reminds us of the note ‘melamine everything’ that was found during a renovation of Rudolph’s own 23 Beekman Place. We especially love the polished chrome toilet and vanity with undercounter lighting. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
The Kitchen will be enlarged (presumably for a menu greater than just ‘baked potatoes’)
Mirrors used for the kitchen back-splash are reminiscent of the kitchen designed by Paul Rudolph at the Modulightor’s duplex apartment. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
The Master Bedroom’s walk in closet is being removed and turned into a separate bedroom
What’s the same:
The main space for the most part is left alone. While this is a relief, it will disappoint anyone who was hoping the hardwood flooring, installed by a previous owner, would be replaced by Halston’s signature grey wall-to-wall plush carpeting.
The iconic living room will be left mostly as is. The furniture layout suggests it may be recreated to match Halston’s Rudolph-designed originals. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
The living room floor and stair treads are now wood. According to the plans, they will remain wood. Photo by Carl Bellavia, Archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.
The original funriture layout designed by Paul Rudolph for Halston. Photo by Harry Benson, from a feature on Halston in Life Magazine.
What could be a concern:
Despite being in a landmark district - and signed off by the Landmark’s Commission as having no affect on the building exterior - the drawings show the original garage door will be removed and replaced.
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.
The drawings call for renovations of the landscaping and roof to be filed separately
The Fourth Floor construction plan, showing no work to be done on the roof, but calling for new roof tree planters. Drawing by Atmosphere Design Group, from the NYC DOB.
The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation will continue to watch for future applications to see what is planned for these areas that fall under landmarks review and protection.
When Three Generations of a Family Have Loved a House...
Beloved Rudolph Design, The Walker Guest House, To Be Auctioned
Paul Rudolph Centennial Catalogs Get Positive Reviews
Ernst Wagner: Fighting to Preserve the Legacy of Paul Rudolph
Brutalism - In Home Decoration ? (Yes.)
S.O.S. Update # 4 : Proposed Demo & Development at Rudolph's Boston Government Service Center
Paul Rudolph’s original, overall conception for the Boston Government Service Center included a tower (which, unfortunately, was not built). The proposed development of the site brings up a serious question: Would/could new construction be as harmonious (with the existing buildings) as the design Rudolph created? Rendering by Helmut Jacoby. The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
In this developing story, the state of Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance issued a power point presentation about their redevelopment proposal for the Boston Government Service Center—one of Paul Rudolph’s largest urban civic commissions. We’ve been looking at the various slides in their power point “deck” and examining the various assertions they make—and bringing forth our sincere and serious questions.
In previous posts we’ve looked at the ideas (as shown in their presentation) on the current building, development, how current occupants of the building would be handled, etc… —and offered our concerns about each.
Let’s look at the their next two slides:
WHAT WILL BE DEVELOPED THERE?
Following each of the slide’s points, we offer responses/questions:
The redevelopment partner that the state chooses will be responsible for planning, financing, and permitting the redevelopment.
The key word here is: planning—and we ask: How are they getting input during that process? And from what stakeholders? (and how is it weighted, and who has a veto?)
This process will be subject to Large Development Review by the Boston Planning and Development Agency under Article 80, and to review by MEPA.
It would be useful to all parties to lay this out in more detail, so that all can see what’s involved—and where (at what points) real input and interventions can be offered to improve all proposals.
The site is zoned for more intensive use than is currently realized. – Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 8-10 (currently ~2.0).
Ideas about zoning (especially levels of density) change over time, as different planning theories and urban design schools-of-thought become popular and wane. Moreover, the question of desirable density is subject to political pressures. What makes a good building/public space/block/street is not always determined by zoning codes, equations, or the theories of the moment.
Generally, height is limited to 125’ towards the street edges, and up to 400’ on the interior.
Perhaps they’re saying that those are the current code’s height limits, which a developer must work within. It would be useful to know if that is the intent, or if there are other consequences.
Planned Development Areas (PDAs) are allowed on a portion of the site. The redevelopment partner may use the PDA process in order to allow the site to be more thoughtfully planned.
The consequences of this statement are not clear, and it would be useful to know more about PDA’s. The phrase “more thoughtfully planned” begs the question: more than what?
And let’s consider their next slide:
hISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROACH
Following each of this slide’s points, we offer our responses/questions:
DCAMM’s approach to redevelopment will acknowledge the architecturally significant elements of the Hurley-Lindemann site, while addressing its flaws.
The language begs the question about the building having flaws—-whose nature and quantity is unspecified. Any building can probably be renovated over time, and made more congruent with current needs—and we need clarity on what’s claimed and what’s proposed.
The Government Services Center complex was planned by prominent architect Paul Rudolph.
Yes, Paul Rudolph conceived of the overall plan and design: it is one of his major urban-civic buildings.
The complex was meant to include three buildings, but only two of the original buildings were built (Brooke courthouse was added later).
It is unfortunate that the scheme was not fully realized.
The Lindemann Mental Health Center was also designed by Rudolph, and is more architecturally significant than the Hurley building.
This project was designed as a set connected buildings that are strongly related—with a level of coordination in design that would create a feeling of wholeness to the block. That sense of wholeness is fundamental to good architecture—and is something to which Paul Rudolph was committed. Setting-up one building against the other is contrary to the way the complex was conceived and designed—and one can even see this from Rudolph’s earliest sketch.
DCAMM is required to file a Project Notification Form (PNF) with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). DCAMM will then work with MHC to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding future development at the site.
It would be useful to know more about this process, how it functions, and how input is received from all interested parties—and, in this case, what ingredients go into creating a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
NEXT STEPS: LISTENING AND ACTING
We will continue to respectfully review the state’s proposals—and raise sincere questions when appropriate.
If you have information or insights to contribute, for preserving this important civic building by Paul Rudolph, please let us know at:
office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org
Paul Rudolph’s original sketch for the layout of the Boston Government Service Center. The drawing summarizes the overall concept of having the set of strongly related buildings wrapping around the triangular site—with a large, open plaza in the center.. A tower is indicated by the hatched pinwheel-shape toward the middle. © The estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
S.O.S. Update # 3 : Proposed Demo & Development at Rudolph's Boston Government Service Center
The publicly accessible courtyard at the center of of Paul Rudolph’s Boston Government Service Center. While one sometimes hears accusations against the building, it should be equally noted that it is also a public oasis of green and peace. Photo courtesy of UMASS
In this developing story, the state of Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance has issued a power point deck about their redevelopment proposal; We’ve been looking at the various assertions they put forth—and offering our sincere and serious questions and concerns.
We’ve looked at (and offered our questions about) the first set of their powerpoint slides, and then did so with a second set.
Let’s look at the next two:
PLANS FOR CURRENT BUILDING OCCUPANTS
Following each of the slide’s points, we offer responses/questions:
DCAMM will work with all occupants and relevant union leadership to find temporary and permanent relocation space that suits agency operational needs in a cost-effective way.
With any relocation of multiple departments and numerous staff, the question must be asked: How much disruption to services (and employee lives) will be caused by this? -and- For how long? We understand that promises based on projected timelines are offered in good faith—but often projects are delayed (sometimes for years) by unexpected factors (for example: construction delays, changing budgetary priorities, changes in administrative structure, changes in leadership….) So: however long the relocation/disruption/dislocation has been projected to last, in reality is could go on for much longer.
Current plans entail the majority of EOLWD employees who currently work at the Hurley Building returning to the redeveloped site.
Since the development plans are not even sketched out, on what basis can this promise be made?
No state employees will lose their jobs as a result of this redevelopment.
Same as above: plans are not even known—on what basis can promises be made?
Employees will remain in or near Boston, in transit accessible locations
What’s meant by near and transit accessible needs to be defined.
And let us consider the next slide:
US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Following each of this slide’s points, we offer our responses/questions:
The US Department of Labor funded the initial construction and site acquisition of the Hurley Building, and still has a significant amount of equity in the site.
It would be useful to know the extent of the equity, and the tangible consequences of this statement.
As required by federal rules, the Commonwealth is working with USDOL to ensure that federal equity is used to further the work of the Commonwealth’s Labor and Workforce Development agencies.
Here too, it would be useful to have things made more explicit: What rules are being invoked? What federal equity is being referred to? and overall: What are the consequences of this statement?
NEXT STEPS: LISTENING AND ACTING
We will continue to respectfully review the state’s proposals (and raise questions when items need review or clarification.)
If you have information / resources / insights to contribute, for preserving this important civic building by Paul Rudolph, please let us know at:
office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org
Even with a few signs of a coming Fall, the center plaza’s oasis is still very green! Photo © the estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation
S.O.S. Update # 2 : Proposed Demo & Development at Rudolph's Boston Government Service Center
For context, it may be useful to look at the overall plan of Boston’s Government Center area, which was laid out by I.M. Pei. There are several prominent buildings in the area, which were all built as part of the development of this center. The large rectangular building (near the center of this drawing) is the Boston City Hall (by Kalllmann, McKinnell & Knowles). The large, gently curving building to its left is Center Plaza (built as offices and ground-floor retail) designed by Welton Becket. Rudolph’s Government Service Center follows the perimeter of the triangular site at the map’s upper-left. About equidistant between the City Hall and the Government Service Canter are the two towers (shown as offset rectangles) of the John F. Kennedy Federal Building by Walter Gropius and The Architects Collaborative. Quincy Market, the celebrated food marketplace, is the long, horizontal, dark rectangle at the far right. It was designed by Alexander Parris and built in the early 19th Century.
Here’s a satellite view of the same area as shown in the drawing at the top of this post (and shown at approximately the same scale.) If you look at the drawing above, the entire site for Government Service Center was to be utilized for its building (plus the outdoor plazas, also designed by Rudolph)—and there was to be a tower in the center. In the photo above, one can see that the tower was not built, and the right-hand side of the site is now occupied by a wedge-shaped structure which was constructed later: it’s a municipal courthouse building, designed by another firm. Image courtesy of Google: Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery
As we mentioned in our last update on this developing story, the State of Massachusetts’ Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance has issued a power point deck about the redevelopment proposal. In our last posting, we looked at their first slide: “Hurley Building at a Crossroads” (which was about the current condition and challenges of the building)—and offered our sincere questions and concerns.
Now it’s time to go a bit deeper into the deck, and consider the state’s further assertions and proposals. Let’s look at the next two:
REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Following each of the slide’s points, we offer responses/questions:
Ground-lease entire Hurley Building site to redevelopment partner, who will lead planning, financing, and construction.
Shouldn’t there be a wider array of input from the beginning, to achieve good, public-spirited design? That would be lost if the development process is walled-off at its beginning—only soliciting public input later, (after the parameters seem to have been set). Without getting public input early it, it can lead to less-than-optimal results for the state and its citizens.
Redevelopment partner will build office space for both private use and state use.
It would be useful to know how the ratio determined?
State to control office space for its own use over long term.
It is important that the definition of “long term” be made explicit. If there’s a termination date to that agreement, then—at that end-date—how are disruptions to be avoided? Conversely: the state already owns the site—so, as long as they are their own tenant, there’s no need to worry about end-dates.
Partnership will be competitively procured through a request for proposals (RFP), request for qualifications (RFQ), or similar
It’s important to keep in mind that the overall proposal requires turning public space and buildings over to private use. Occasionally this can be done as a win-win situation, but it depends on many factors—and one of them is the quality and track-record of the development partner. So a key question is: Will the qualifications examine whether the developer has a real record of tangibly “giving back” (through the quality of what they build/plan)?
Similar to approach used to renovate Saltonstall building 20 years ago.
It would clarify things if we were told by what set of standards that success was judged—and how that was measured, and how far the project went to fulfill that.
Commonwealth will consider both qualitative and quantitative information from potential partners, in order to maximize value for the Commonwealth.
It would be useful to all parties if the above terms could be clarified—particularly the qualitative aspect.
This is the most cost-effective way to meet the state’s downtown office needs while improving the site for all users and the City of Boston generally.
Much is condensed into this one sentence. Implicit are assertions about: cost-effectiveness, state needs, the nature of the improvements, and who the users are. These would each need careful definition and review.
Lets consider the next slide:
EXPECTED BENEFITS
Following each of this slide’s points, we offer our responses/questions:
New, modern office space for state employees for same or less cost than comparable space elsewhere.
Renovation can usually yield modernization as comparable/less cost---if done efficiently. Moreover, renovation is almost always the greener alternative.
Long-term cost stability for both capital and operating budgets.
It would be good to know what this is this being compared to.
Improved public realm across 8-acre block. Increased site utilization and activation.
There’s abundant knowledge, from today’s public space designers, about making plazas and public spaces more alive and used—and many good case-studies of success. Don’t destroy what we have—but, instead, use that knowledge to make these unique spaces more alive to the public.
Economic benefits from large-scale development (jobs, tax revenue, etc.).
What’s often missing from balance-sheet are the costs of over-(“large scale”) development: especially overburdening the already under-pressure transit system and city services. Jobs will also be created through the modernization of the existing building.
NEXT STEPS
We’ll continue to respectfully review the state’s proposals—and raise questions when items need review an clarification.
If you have information or resources to contribute to preserving this important building by Paul Rudolph, please let us know at:
office@paulrudolphheritagefoundation.org
The overall design for the Boston Government Service Center. Although it is the work of a team of archiects, the design leader was Paul Rudolph-and it is truly his conception. This axonometric drawing shows his original full design for the complex—including public plazas in the center and at the three corners. In the middle was to be a tower with a “pinwheel”-shaped plan (in this drawing only the first few floors of it are shown.) © The Paul Rudolph estate, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation.