Welcome to the Archives of The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. The purpose of this online collection is to function as a tool for scholars, students, architects, preservationists, journalists and other interested parties. The archive consists of photographs, slides, articles and publications from Rudolph’s lifetime; physical drawings and models; personal photos and memorabilia; and contemporary photographs and articles.

Some of the materials are in the public domain, some are offered under Creative Commons, and some  are owned by others, including the Paul Rudolph Estate. Please speak with a representative of The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture before using any drawings or photos in the Archives. In all cases, the researcher shall determine how to appropriately publish or otherwise distribute the materials found in this collection, while maintaining appropriate protection of the applicable intellectual property rights.

In his will, Paul Rudolph gave his Architectural Archives (including drawings, plans, renderings, blueprints, models and other materials prepared in connection with his professional practice of architecture) to the Library of Congress Trust Fund following his death in 1997. A Stipulation of Settlement, signed on June 6, 2001 between the Paul Rudolph Estate and the Library of Congress Trust Fund, resulted in the transfer of those items to the Library of Congress among the Architectural Archives, that the Library of Congress determined suitable for its collections.  The intellectual property rights of items transferred to the Library of Congress are in the public domain. The usage of the Paul M. Rudolph Archive at the Library of Congress and any intellectual property rights are governed by the Library of Congress Rights and Permissions.

However, the Library of Congress has not received the entirety of the Paul Rudolph architectural works, and therefore ownership and intellectual property rights of any materials that were not selected by the Library of Congress may not be in the public domain and may belong to the Paul Rudolph Estate.

OCGC2.jpg

LOCATION
Address: 255 Main Street
City: Goshen
State: New York
Zip Code: 10924
Nation: United States

 

STATUS
Type: Government
Status: Built; Partially Demolished & Altered

TECHNICAL DATA
Date(s): 1963-1970
Site Area:
Floor Area:
Height:
Floors (Above Ground):
Building Cost:

PROFESSIONAL TEAM
Client: Orange County Board of Supervisors
Architect: Paul Rudolph
Rudolph Staff: William Bedford, James Brown
Associate Architect: Peter P. Barbone
Landscape:
Structural: Lev Zetlin & Associates
MEP: Caretsky & Associates
QS/PM:

SUPPLIERS
Contractor: Corbeau-Newman Construction Corporation
Subcontractor(s):

Orange County Government Center

  • Planning for a new government building for Goshen begins in 1962.

  • On June 14, 1963 James McNeely, an architect from Paul Rudolph's office, and Peter Barbone, an architect from Middletown, NY, present preliminary plans for a new Government Center to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The proposal is planned to house the expected growth of the local government through 1985.

  • On March 14, 1964 Orange County Board of Supervisors defeat a $4.4 million USD plan for the Orange County Government Center by a 19-16 vote (two-thirds majority vote is required for passage)

  • On April 09, 1965 the Orange County Board of Supervisors approves a $4.6 million USD plan for the Orange County Government Center project by a 32-4 vote.

  • On February 03, 1966 the Warwick Chamber of Commerce adopts a resolution objecting to the design on the Orange County Government Center.

  • On February 11, 1966 the Orange County Board of Supervisors approves Rudolph’s design (in association with Peter Barbone) by a vote of 31-4.

  • Construction of the Government Center begins on August 12, 1967.

  • There are 14,000 square yards of orange carpeting used in the building, all run in one direction, from north to south.

  • There are more than 10,000 cement blocks used on the construction.

  • The first meeting of the Orange County Legislature inside the new building is held on January 02, 1970.

  • The building is substantially completed and a dedication ceremony is held on October 16, 1970. Rudolph tells the audience of 750 people at the event, “You have a building here that should last 100 years.”

  • At the dedication ceremony, the Reverend Dwight E. Faust of the Goshen Presbyterian Church read a dedication prayer:

It has walls,; may they never separate government and people. It has windows; may they be symbols of enlightenment. It has spaciousness; may this encourage depth of thought and breadth of spirit. It has steps; may they lead us upwards. It has a roof; may it never suppress us. With thanksgiving for those who planned and labored here and with the expectation of good things from those who serve us in our country, we dedicate this building.

  • On March 09, 1971 Orange County Executive Louis V. Mills asks the Public Works Department to draft plans for expanding the Government Center parking lot.

  • On August 10, 1972 Executive Mills and County Clerk Charles N. Winters confirm that more space is needed in the Government Center.

  • Acknowledging that many people are confused when they enter the Government Center, Executive Mills issues a written guide to the building on January 22, 1973.

  • On September 06, 1974 Public Works Commissioner Louis Cascino announces that his department has started repairs on the Government Center roof to fix several leaks.

  • On June 02, 1975 a lawsuit filed by Corbeau-Newman, the general contractor for the Government Center, is settled. Of the $239,000 USD settlement, Paul Rudolph is asked by the Orange County Legislature to contribute $39,000 USD.

  • County Executive Mills issues a memorandum to the Legislature’s Finance Committee on April 28, 1977 stating concern about the Government Center’s poor appearance and lack of funds for the building’s maintenance.

  • On April 23, 1984 the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee approves a $1.7 million USD capital improvement budget including funds to replace the Government Center’s roof.

  • On January 24, 1990 a special committee of the Orange County Legislature meets to discuss solutions to the Government Center’s lack of office space. the committee agrees to consider adding a new courtroom wing to the building.

  • The Orange County Legislature on August 27, 1991 approves an appropriation of $600,000 USD for further emergency repair work to the Government Center.

  • In 1997 the New York State’s Court Facilities Capital Review Board declares the Government Center’s main judicial building, which contains adult courts and local supreme courts, unfit for occupation.

  • In 2000 a new courthouse addition, designed by Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn, is completed at the north end of the Government Center. This new wing contains Criminal and Family Courts as well as County Sheriff cellblocks. The Civil Courts, Probation and District Attorney’s offices are expanded within the existing Government Center.

  • During a State of the County address on March 07, 2002, County Executive Edward Diana announces his intentions to replace the Government Center with a new facility.

  • On April 13, 2006 Democratic members of the Orang County Legislature announce opposition to a new Government Center, arguing it will divert tax dollars from more pressing problems.

  • During a prestation to the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee on September 21, 2010, Executive Diana announces he is dropping plans for a $114.4 million USD Government Center and will hire an architect to recommend options for replacing all or part of the existing complex.

  • On December 18, 2010 an application is submitted to the New York State Historic Preservation Office requesting to evaluate whether the Orange County Government Center is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.

  • On August 23, 2011 the New York State Historic Preservation Office notifies Executive Diana that the Orange County Government Center meets the criteria for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.

  • On August 28, 2011 Hurricane Irene strikes Goshen.

  • On September 07, 2011 Tropical Storm Lee strikes Goshen.

  • Executive Diana closes the Government Center on September 08, 2011 until further notice due to damage caused by heavy rains in the area.

  • On September 15, 2011 Executive Diana presents the Orange County Legislature with an independent study commissioned to suggest options for the future of the Government Center.

  • Executive Diana conducts a media tour of the Government Center on September 28, 2011 to demonstrate that the building is not fir for occupancy in its current condition. At the start of the tour, Executive Diana states, “as far as I’m concerned, we’ll never occupy it again.”

  • On October 01, 2011 Executive Diana submits a report to the Legislature with three construction options for a new Government Center. The options range from $136.4 million USD for a new building to $67.2 million USD to renovate the existing building.

  • On March 01, 2012 during a State of the County address, Executive Diana unveils a revised proposal for a new County Government Center with an estimated cost of $75 million USD.

  • The Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee approves Diana’s proposal by a vote of 5-4 on March 23, 2012.

  • On May 03, 2012 the Orange County Legislature does not approve Executive Diana’s proposal by a vote of 11-10 in favor (failing the two thirds votes needed to pass).

  • On May 04, 2012 a local newspaper receives a copy of FEMA’s Government Center inspection report following Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. In the report, inspectors conclude that most of the building damage was not caused by the storms, but by poor building maintenance.

  • The next day, on May 05, 2012, the Orange County Legislature creates a special committee to investigate if Executive Diana withheld FEMA’s Government Center inspection report while lawmakers debated his $75 million USD plan to demolish and replace the complex.

  • On February 06, 2013 the Orange County Legislature approves a $10 million USD bond to renovate the Government Center by a vote of 15-6.

  • On June 24, 2013 the Orange County Legislature selects a team of architects and engineers to develop options for renovating and replacing sections of the Government Center complex.

  • A team of consultants hired to design and oversee construction of the new Government Center present two proposals on November 25, 2013 to the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee. One proposal keeps intact all three sections of the complex while the other suggests demolishing one section.

  • On December 09, 2013 the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee approves a $67 million USD plan to overhaul the Government Center by a vote of 5-2. The committee selects a design that preserves only two of the three Government Center’s structures. The committee does not vote on a $63 million USD alternative that would leave all three structures intact.

  • On December 12, 2013 the Orange County Legislature approves a $67 million USD renovation of the Government Center by a vote of 18-2. The approved plan preserves only two of the three Government Center structures, replacing the third with a new structure.

  • On April 21, 2014 the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services and Ways and Means Committees approve a $67 million USD bond to renovate and expand the Government Center.

  • The Orange County Legislature approves a $74 million USD bond to renovate and expand the Government Center by a vote of 18-3. Before the vote, Gene Kaufman, principal at Gwathmey Siegel Kaufman & Associates, offers to purchase the existing complex and design a new one next to it.

  • On June 05, 2014 Philip Clark, CEO of Clark Patterson Lee, the lead firm in the New Government Center design process, reports that officials from FEMA and the State Historic Preservation Office expressed concerns that renovation plans include demolishing one building and modifying the other two. A state or federal review might delay or block the proposed renovation.

  • In a June 10, 2014 memo to County Executive Steve Neuhas, Philip Clark suggests two options for the Government Center: proceed with the current renovation and risk a potentially lengthy design review, or build a new Government Center and sell the existing complex.

  • On June 28, 2014 Orange County announces that it will solicit proposals from firms to design and mange construction of a new Government Center. The request for proposals will be necessary if the County Legislature votes to sell the existing complex.

  • During a meeting with county officials on July 14, 2014 County Legislators learn that state and federal objections to the Government Center renovation and expansion may be bypassed by avoiding state or federal permits and by reallocating FEMA funding to other projects.

  • On July 25, 2014 Orange County asks FEMA to confirm that the Government Center renovation and expansion can avoid a federal review if $2.7 million USD in FEMA funding for the Government Center repairs is reallocated to other projects.

  • Gene Kaufman offers $4.5 million USD in cash on August 15, 2014 to purchase the Government Center instead of his original offer to purchase it through a fee reduction to design a new complex.

  • On August 20, 2014 Orange County Legislature’s Rules Committee votes to place the Government Center out to bid for sale at a minimum price of $4.5 million USD.

The remarkably complex program for the Orange County Center consisted of many specific interior spaces, such as courtrooms of many different types including juvenile delinquency, assembly spaces for the local government, spaces for the procurement by the public of varying licenses, fixed and rather special offices for various governmental officials including the judges and various clerical assistants, and storage of records. This scheme reflects the complexity and rather fixed nature of the program. The building is divided into three areas, one for the adult courts, one for the juvenile courts, and one for the governing assembly and licensing facilities. These three areas are subdivided but closely grouped around a court, allowing the light to enter through a rather elaborate series of clerestories made possible by higher ceiling heights for the more important and larger rooms. In the interior, the enclosed volume of one room often penetrates the adjacent room. Giving a sense of implied space beyond but allowing acoustical insulation. The resulting fragmented scale seems appropriate, since the building will be set in a small park and surrounded by residences relatively small in scale.
— Paul Rudolph in Moholy-Nagy, Sibyl, and Gerhard Schwab. The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. New York: Praeger, 1970. P. 102
Gothic Cathedrals are a bit drafty. It doesn’t mean we tear them down. Something by one of the 20th century’s most important architects should be kept in principle.
— Robert A.M. Stern FAIA in Sam Lubell. “County Executive Wants to Replace His Paul Rudolph Building.” Architectural Record, Apr. 2002.
[In the building’s atrium] people interacted with city government, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, the records office and the passport office; a balcony above the main floor led to the legislature, the county executive and the primary county government decision-makers. What this meant was that, as the leaders of county government went about their business, there was always the din of people coming in and out and doing their business. Critics said this was impractical. I think it was a purposeful and inspired idea by Rudolph.

As the leader of a disempowered minority, my only real opportunity to effect change was to force my colleagues literally to face arguments against their actions. The setup of the chamber was constructed to maximize the discomfort and awkwardness of strong disagreements. The building reminded leaders of democratic ideals and fostered tough debate. [It is a daily rebuke to how legislators] now run the country. That’s why they really hate it.
— Former legislator Rich Baum in Michael Kimmelman. “Landmark’s Last Hope For Rescue.” New York Times, 4 Mar. 2015.

DRAWINGS - Design Drawings / Renderings

DRAWINGS - Construction Drawings

DRAWINGS - Shop Drawings

PHOTOS - Project Model

PHOTOS - During Construction

PHOTOS - Completed Project

PHOTOS - Current Conditions

LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION
Orange County Government Center on the DocomomoUS website

RELATED DOWNLOADS

PROJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Valenti, Virginia. “Rudolph, Barbone appointed Clemson School Architects” Middletown Times Herald Record, June 26, 1964

Kinet, C. (1966, February 04). Criticisms of County Complex Aired in Goshen. Middletown Times Herald Record, p. 13

“Paul Rudolph’s elaborated spaces: six new projects.” il., plan, sec. Architectural Record 139 (June 1966): 135-139.

“Tribunal du comte d’orange a Goshen, N.Y.” il., plan, sec. Architecture D’Aujourd’hui 128 (October-November 1966): 6-7.

Middleton, Robin. “Disintegration.” plan. Architectural Design 37 (May 1967): 203-204.

“County Center May Open By Year’s End.” Middletown Times Herald Record, February 28, 1969. p. 61

Rudolph, P. and Moholy-Nagy, S. (1970). The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. New York: Praeger, pp. 102-107.

Kimpel, H. (1970, March 13). Orange Demands More Facts From Builder. Middletown Times Herald Record, p. 74

Kimpel, H. (1970, March 26). April 6 Hearing Set for Claims on Orange. Middletown Times Herald Record, p. 7

Kimpel, H. (1970, July 22). County Center Rises Among Barbs. Middletown Times Herald Record, p. 4

“Goshen Gala Dedicates $6.7 Million Complex.” Middletown Times Herald Record, October 16, 1970. p. 5

Schmertz, Mildred F. “County government center by Paul Rudolph.” il. (pt. col.), plan, sec., diag. Architectural Record 150 (August 1971): 83-92.

“Spazi gomito a gomito.” il., plan. sec. Architettura 17 (December 1971): 540-542.

Michigan, University. Law School. The American Courthouse, Planning and Design for the Judicial Process. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute of Continuing Education, 1973. il., plan, sec. pp. 262-263.

“Clearing The Record.” Middletown Times Herald Record, May 11, 1974. p. 7

Tynan, Trudy. “Work of county center architect has leaky history.” Middletown Times Herald Record, September 06, 1974

“Chronological list of works by Paul Rudolph, 1946-1974.” il., plan. Architecture and Urbanism 49 (January 1975): 159.

“Orange County office and courthouse building.” il. (pt. col.), plan, sec. Architecture and Urbanism 80 (July 1977): 133, 166-169.

Davern, Jeanne M., ed. Architecture 1970-1980: A Decade of Change. New York: McGraw Hill, 1980. il., sec. pp. 32-33.

Smith, G. E. Kidder. The Architecture of the United States. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1981, v. 1. il. pp. 435-436.

Hawthorne, C. (2013, November 17). What the Houston Astrodome Can Teach Us. Victorville Press Dispatch, p. 105

Hill, M. (2015, April 13). Unloved Landmark gets Update. Elyria Chronicle telegram, p. 22