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!

The Paul Rudolph Institute earns Platinum Seal of Transparency

The Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture is a Private Operating Foundation dedicated to financial transparency and since 2019 was awarded a Seal of Transparency from GuideStar, the world’s largest repository of trusted historical and present-day information on nonprofits, foundations, and the capital that funds them.

We're proud to say we've earned GuideStar's Highest Seal of Transparency for 2024.

The Platinum Seal of Transparency is the highest level of recognition offered by GuideStar. By sharing metrics that highlight the progress we are making toward our mission, we're helping you, our donors, directly see the impact your donations are making to move our organization forward. 

By updating our GuideStar Nonprofit Profile to earn a Platinum Seal, we can now easily share up-to-date organizational metrics with you, as well as GuideStar's immense online audience, which includes donors, grantmakers, our peers, and the media.

To reach the Platinum level, we've added information to our GuideStar Nonprofit Profile: basic contact and organizational information; financial information; qualitative information about goals and strategies; and quantitative information about results and progress toward our mission. By providing this information, we have demonstrated our commitment to transparency and giving donors and funders meaningful data to evaluate our performance. 

The metrics we are reporting are a direct result of the generous funds donated to us. Without your support, our mission of promoting and preserving Paul Rudolph’s legacy would not be possible. We truly appreciate your continued support. To make a donation, please go here.

Visit our Nonprofit Profile on GuideStar to see why we earned this seal. To learn more, go to our organization profile here.

Modulightor is Made a Landmark and Gifted to the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture

Paul Rudolph & Ernst Wagner in 1975. Photo from the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture archives.

As the year draws to a close, we have two pieces of good news to share - and they both involve our headquarters: the Modulightor Building.

First, we are happy to report that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to make the building a New York City landmark at this week’s hearing on December 19th. At the public hearing on November 28th, 2023 four people testified in support of designation and no one spoke in opposition. In addition, the commission received 30 written submissions in support of designation. The building now joins Rudolph’s 23 Beekman Place residence and the Hirsch (Halston) Residence at 101 East 63rd Street as New York City landmarks designed by the Mr. Rudolph.

The Commissioners had praise for Mr. Rudolph’s work. Vice Chair Frederick Bland said, “Rudolph was the reason I became and architect, so he’s an important guy for me. I think this is a great designation. Partly, because there are fewer and fewer Rudolph buildings around and he’s undeniably an important midcentury and later architect.”

Commissioner Jeanne Lufty noted Rudolph’s Modulightor was being reviewed by the Commission along with Ulrich Franzen’s 1957 Barkin, Levin & Company Office Pavilion. “Both of these projects are aberrations from their brutalist style and so they are a little more refined and they are definitely a little more expressive of what was going on at the particular time, and as Fred said we are so fortunate to sort of capture them and preserve them and recognize them and I am so happy to be part of that process,” she said.

“This is one of my favorite buildings,” said Commissioner Everardo Jefferson. “And the reason is, is the intricacy of it. And the exterior is so intricate and then you go inside and it becomes even more intricate. And you begin to wonder about the mind of this guy, how he was able to put these pieces together and move them around. Its just a marvelous experience.”

Commissioner Michael Goldblum said, “I was lucky enough to tour this building a few years ago and its really a marvel, not only because of its design - which is remarkable - but because of the integration of the architect’s own personality and history into every aspect of the building. Its his Taliesin in a way, he wanted it to kind of be this little idealized expression of his ideology and methodology built in a mid-block site of Manhattan of all places. And its really a remarkable site and the prospect that the interior could become designated as well is I think to be greatly anticipated. When you see work like this, its so mechanistic and designed - its rectilinear. His drawings are so crisp and sharp and then you go and you see how he did it. The technology was so loose and handmade and artisanal in a way. It kind of works against the design but it makes it more charming at the same time. It is really a fascinating building and greatly deserving of protection.”

“The architects have a lot to say about this one obviously,” said Commissioner Stephen Chu. “I’ve always loved his sensibility to human scale and if you look at this, essentially glass building, it has so much human scale to it. And you compare it to a lot of the developer buildings being done right now which are very flat. This doesn’t have a lot of depth though, yet that minimal depth is able to achieve shadow, light and human scale which is so wonderful.”

Commission Chair Sarah Carroll concluded with, “so I think we have a lot of support for this one… I think this would be a great addition to our very special New York City landmarks. And I want to thank the owners. We have been working with the Institute that runs the building and they have been very engaged and very supportive and we’ve had really wonderful exchanges and conversations about this during the calendaring. And we’re also talking about the interior which is not yet of age, but we’re talking to them and we’ll keep an eye on that until it does become eligible for consideration.”

Commissioner Chen moved to landmark the Modulightor building and was seconded by Commissioner Goldblum.

"New York City's streetscape has always served as a canvas for some of the world's most creative minds, and the buildings designated today highlight two exceptionally innovative designs by internationally prominent modern architects, one at the start of his career, and the other towards the end of it," said Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair Sarah Carroll in a follow-up press release by the Commission. "I'm pleased that the Commission has chosen to recognize these modern architectural gems, and grateful that they'll be preserved for future generations to come."

After the decision, Ernst Wagner gave the following comment:

"During his lifetime, Rudolph wished our residence at 23 Beekman Place would become a study and resource center for the architectural community. When that didn't happen, I promised him that I'd use the Modulightor building to fulfill his wish and then created the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. It is fitting that the Modulightor building – designed by and dedicated to Paul Rudolph – will be preserved as a living example of his genius. Thank you to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for ensuring future generations will get to experience and learn from his work."

The landmarking of the Modulightor building resulted in the second piece of good news to end the year: the Modulightor building was gifted to the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture by Ernst Wagner.

As referenced in his above comment, Ernst founded the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture to keep his promise to Paul Rudolph that a study center would be created to share Rudolph’s ideas about architecture with the public.

We are profoundly grateful to Mr. Wagner for his continuous support of our mission to protect Mr. Rudolph’s legacy and promote his ideas about modern architecture. His gift allows the Institute to ensure the Modulightor building remains a publicly accessible, living example of Mr. Rudolph’s work and ideas.

We’ve got more planned for the coming year, and thank you to Ernst, the team at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and all of you for making this year especially notable!

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!

Thank you for supporting us at NYC's Landmark Preservation Commission

Members of the Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture with Liz Waytkus, Executive Director of Docomomo US (2nd from right) following the public hearing in support of landmarking Paul Rudolph’s Modulightor Building

Thank you to everyone who attended in person, spoke via zoom, and submitted letters of support at yesterday’s public hearing of New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

There was broad support for designating our headquarters - Paul Rudolph’s Modulightor Building - as a New York City landmark. Once approved, the building will become the youngest landmark in New York City!

The proposal received 28 letters of support by the time of the hearing (and we’ve received more since!)

Several former Rudolph clients and current property owners were joined by organizations such as the Historic Districts Council, New York Landmarks Conservancy, DocomomoUS and its local New York/Tristate Chapter, Iconic Houses, the Neutra Institute for Survival Through Design, US Modernist, the NY Center For Architecture, the Museum of Modern Art and the NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project in sending letters in support of the designation. Former Rudolph students, employees and fans from around the United States and the world also wrote the commission urging it to make Modulightor a landmark.

Thank you to everyone for your support in our effort to landmark our building! We are especially thankful for the people who mentioned the need to landmark the Rudolph-designed interior duplex apartment when it is eligible.

Ernst Wagner - representing Paul Rudolph’s Estate - was at the hearing in person and said later ‘Paul was looking down and is pleased.’

We’ve got a lot planned for the coming year, and thanks to everyone for making this year especially memorable!

NYC's Landmark Preservation Commission to vote on landmarking Rudolph's Modulightor Building

Following a unanimous vote to calendar Paul Rudolph’s Modulightor Building as a potential New York City landmark, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed designation of the Modulightor Building as a New York City individual landmark on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, at 9:30 A.M.

The public is invited to attend this hearing to present information or testimony relating to the proposed designation. The time allotted for each speaker is three minutes.

The public hearing will be held in the public hearing room at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, Borough of Manhattan.

Participation through the video conferencing application Zoom is also available. Please check the hearing page on LPC’s website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page) for updated hearing information and guidance. Public notice of the hearing identifying the proposed individual landmark will appear in the City Record of November 13, 2023, until November 27, 2023. The public hearing agenda will also be posted on LPC’s website.

If you wish to provide testimony related to the proposed designation, you are encouraged to sign up on the hearings page in advance of the public hearing and you may provide written testimony by emailing testimony@lpc.nyc.gov.

Participation by videoconference may be available as well. Please check the hearing page on LPC’s website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page) for updated hearing information.

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.

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, on the Monday before the public hearing.

New York City's Landmark Preservation Commission to consider landmarking Rudolph's Modulightor Building

In 2019 The Paul Rudolph Estate and the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture (PRIMA, then known as the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation) filed a Request For Evaluation of Paul Rudolph’s Modulightor building as a New York City landmark with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for identifying and designating the special buildings and sites that represent the architectural, historical and cultural heritage of New York City. The Commission’s Research Department accepts suggestions from the public regarding potential historic resources throughout the five boroughs. If a property appears to rise to the level of significance necessary to be considered for Landmark designation, the agency may conduct additional research, and may recommend it for consideration by the Commission.

Following subsequent conversations with PRIMA about the Commission’s interest in considering the Modulightor Building as a potential New York City landmark, the Commission plans to move forward in the designation process by holding a vote on October 3rd, 2023 to decide whether to calendar the building for a future public hearing.

Calendaring is the first formal step in the process for considering a building for designation. If the site is calendared, a public hearing will be scheduled so that all interested parties, including property owners and their representatives, relevant community boards, elected officials, community groups and members of the public can testify or submit written testimony regarding the proposed designation.

“The Modulightor Building’s remarkable front and rear elevations are composed of intersecting and overlapping horizontal and vertical rectangles of varying projection and size. Painted white, the steel I-beams form jigsaw-like screens that recall the De Stijl movement, Russian Constructivism, and Mies van der Rohe, as well a Rudolph’s celebrated Milam Residence of 1959-1961.”

— "The Modulightor Building" brief prepared by the Research Department of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission

You can download a copy of the LPC calendar showing the Modulightor Building as item #2 on the agenda here.
 
Here’s how to attend the meeting:

WHEN
TUESDAY, October 3rd at 9:30 AM

WHERE
The public hearing room at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, in the Borough of Manhattan.

Participation by videoconference may be available as well. Please check the hearing page on LPC’s website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page) for updated hearing information.

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.

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, on the Monday before the public hearing.

The Paul Rudolph Estate And The Paul Rudolph Institute For Modern Architecture Announce Settlement With The Paul Rudolph Foundation

NEW YORK, NY (July 21, 2023) –The Paul Rudolph Estate and The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture (”PRIMA”) today announced a settlement with the Paul Rudolph Foundation.

In 2020, the Paul Rudolph Foundation brought an action against PRIMA (formerly known as the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation) and Mr. Ernst Wagner, Paul Rudolph’s Executor and residuary beneficiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties have agreed to settle all claims in the matter with the terms of the settlement being confidential.

Part of the Lawsuit involved the ownership and copyright status of works authored by Paul Rudolph or his architectural office.

In his will, Paul Rudolph gave his Architectural Archives (collectively “Paul Rudolph Works”) 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 to the Library of Congress of those items among the Paul Rudolph Works that the Library of Congress determined suitable for its collections. These items became the Paul Rudolph Collection at the Library of Congress.

The Court ruled that Paul Rudolph Works in the Paul Rudolph Collection at the Library of Congress are in the public domain. The Paul Rudolph Foundation, Inc. v. Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation et. al, 2022 WL 4109723, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 8, 2022).

The Court also acknowledged that since the Library of Congress did not select the entirety of the Paul Rudolph Works, materials not in the Library’s Collection may not be in the public domain and Mr. Wagner may hold intellectual property rights to this material as the residuary beneficiary of Mr. Rudolph’s estate.  Id. at *7, n.4.

“The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture is dedicated to communicating, preserving and extending the legacy of world renowned architect Paul Marvin Rudolph,” said Kelvin Dickinson, President of PRIMA.  “We welcome the court’s decision that the Paul Rudolph Works at the Library of Congress are dedicated to the public so that his work is preserved and can be celebrated by future generations.”

Ernst Wagner, Executor of the Paul Rudolph Estate stated, “It is the common objective of the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture and the Estate of Paul Rudolph to carry out Rudolph’s wish to preserve and publicize his professional architectural career.  This settlement will allow everyone to move forward to increase the appreciation, understanding, accessibility, study and preservation of Rudolph’s architectural career.”                          

About the Paul Rudolph Estate

Ernst Wagner, a personal friend of Paul Rudolph and owner of Modulightor, a lighting company founded by Mr. Rudolph, is both the Executor of Paul Rudolph’s will and the beneficiary of his estate.

About the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture

The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture is a New York City-based non-profit 501(c)3 organization founded by Ernst Wagner to fulfill Paul Rudolph’s wish that an organization be created to preserve his architectural legacy.  Through preservation and advocacy efforts, educational initiatives, public events and maintaining and developing an archive of written and graphic materials, the Institute seeks to communicate the legacy of this unique American architect in a larger architectural and cultural context to interested students, journalists, scholars, and the general public. 

For more information about the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture, visit www.paulrudolph.institute and find them on Threads (@PaulRudolphInst), Twitter (@PaulRudolphInst), Facebook (@PaulRudolphInst) and Instagram (@PaulRudolphInst).

Download the press release here.

Humanizing the Contextual Environment: Rudolph's Solution to a Crisis of National Style

The Argument for Classicism:

The intersection of architecture and politics is a topic that has received considerable attention recently, as Indiana Representative Jim Banks attempts to re-mandate former President Trump's executive order, advocating for classical architecture in federal buildings. Bank’s proposal, titled “Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act,” seeks to reinstate Trump’s late executive order to establish a national precedent for government architecture, hoping to “make federal government buildings beautiful again.”

Trump's initial statement contained several overt attacks on modern architecture, calling federal buildings constructed over the last 50 years to be “undistinguished, uninspiring, and just plain ugly,” making specific references to Morphosis’s "San Francisco Federal Building" as one of the “ugliest structures in the city”.

San Francisco Government Building designed by Morphosis Architects.

Banks shares his allegiance to “traditional architecture”, while expanding on the previous order, stating that he hopes for an advocacy of a plurality of “American styles” such as “Gothic, Romanesque, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and Mediterranean” reflected in government buildings.

Another champion of the conservative effort and previous chair of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, Justin Shubow, comments that “it is crucial that the design of federal buildings reflects the preferences of ordinary Americans” stating that classical architecture accurately represents these ideals.

Rudolph’s Beliefs & Urbanism:

While disregarding the conservative notion, Rudolph similarly believed in a series of principles about architecture– that a building should respond to the “spirit of the times” through architectural effects such as site, function, space, and material. He labeled these as the ‘DNA’ of architecture, allowing a space to become timeless and ultimately transform with the landscape.

Of this rubric he created, he ultimately found two important design ingredients to which his spaces should respond: the internal control of light and space in a memorable manner and the external influence of the surrounding context on a design. As many of Rudolph’s designs were built in an urban environment, he labeled this contextual responsiveness as “urbanism.”

Contextual Responsiveness:

In a socio-political context, however, the ‘urbanism’ of government architecture retains an important role in setting a tone for its surroundings. In Rudolph’s own designs, the Boston Government Service Center begins to hint at spatial unification of three separate state buildings - for employment/social security; outpatient mental health services; and health, education and welfare. Resulting from his design, was a building that read as:

“A single entity rather than three separate buildings. In terms of urban design, this is undoubtedly one of the first concerted efforts to unify a group of buildings that this country has seen in a number of years.” — Paul Rudolph in "Another Major Project for Boston." Progressive Architecture (February 1964)

The Boston Government Service Center designed by Paul Rudolph in 1971. The drawing illustrates the separation of interior from exterior spaces as partitions wrap throughout the open pavilion. Rudolph maintains three distinct scales— human use, structural elements, and the building as a whole.

Balancing Ornamentation and Innovation:

In his efforts to create an architectural language that transcended time and style, Rudolph effectively creates a middle ground between classicism and the “undistinguished modern architecture” often found in postmodern examples.

In his time, Rudolph rejected the current postmodern philosophies, believing them to be superficial, tainted by eclecticism, and ultimately a “summation of architectural styles to reinstate decoration”. He believed however, that decoration existed in modern architecture via the manipulation of scale, material, and space. Without traditional forms of ornamentation, Rudolph created a new form of decorative architecture, universal and reflective of a constantly evolving society.

This new form of detail retained its meaning without an overly literal representation of egalitarianism, prestige, and power. His acceptance of the need to include ornamentation in modern architecture stemmed from the need to humanize the building with identifiable details, producing a scale to which people could relate. To Rudolph, buildings were used space formed to satisfy people’s psychological needs.

Inside the Boston Government Service Center. This picture shows Rudolph’s attention to the relationship between the human scale and the built environment, with texture serving as an identifiable reference for relatability to the space.

In spaces like the San Francisco Federal Building, however, the mechanical ornamentation on the facade of the building lacks any symbolic character. Instead, it begins to convey a totalitarian message, with its arbitrary metallic elements resembling a machine. Inconsiderate of scale as a necessary component for ornamentation the building becomes cold and lifeless, unable to express necessary elements of government architecture.

The design of government buildings require both principles of contextual symbolism and meaningful ornamentation, in which Rudolph’s approach to design poses a solution. Spatial organization, material, and scale all become means to convey decoration, evolving with a dynamic landscape yet still remaining as a space relatable to the human scale.

Frank Gehry’s Deconstructivist style Disney Concert Hall finished in 2003.

Burj Al Babas, an abandoned residential development located near Mudurnu, Turkey. There are 732 nearly identical houses, each designed to resemble a miniature chateau. The project was abandoned in 2019 after the developers filed for bankruptcy with a debt of $25 million.

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.

Hurricane Ian threatens Rudolph's Florida legacy as Residents Evacuate

By Wednesday night or Thursday morning, the National Weather Service projects that Ian will hit Manatee County, just north of Sarasota. Siesta Key, Longboat Key, Casey Key and Anna Maria are facing mandatory evacuations, restricted entry, and water will be shut off to prevent damage to the county's water system infrastructure.

According to the local Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Sarasota County called for evacuations starting yesterday. All residents in evacuation zones A and B (red and orange areas below) are under a mandatory evacuation, which includes anyone living in a mobile home. Residents living in evacuation zone C are strongly recommended to evacuate.

Evacuation centers are opening, including one at the new Riverview High School which replaced Rudolph’s original 1957 building that was demolished in 2009.

Sarasota County Evacuation Levels

Sarasota has faced significant storms in the past, but the last hurricane to directly hit the region was Category 3 Hurricane Donna in 1960. In 1966, the pavilion roof of Rudolph’s Umbrella Residence was blown off the house by winds from nearby Hurricane Alma. It was eventually rebuilt in 2011.

We wish everyone to stay safe and have spoken to friends in the area about the ongoing situation.

Some of Rudolph’s notable structures in the area threatened by Hurricane Ian are the following:

1948 Lamolithic Residence

1948 Revere Quality House

1949 Bennett Residence

1950 Healy Guest House

1952 Hook Guest House

1952 Sanderling Beach Club

1953 Cohen Residence

1953 Umbrella Residence

1956 Burkhardt Residence

1956 Deering Residence

1957 Harkavy Residence

DocomomoUS and the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture’s Response to the Proposed Modifications to Rudolph's Boston Government Center

On August 24, 2022, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued an announcement designating Leggat McCall Properties as the redevelopment partner for the Charles F. Hurley Building also known as the Boston Government Services Center. You can read a copy of the announcement here.

After reviewing the announcement and the renderings attached to it, DocomomoUS and The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture issued the following joint press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Kelvin Dickinson

E: office@paulrudolph.institute

P: 917-242-0652

Docomomo US and The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture (PRIMA) are jointly responding to the August 24, 2022, announcement by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the designation of Leggat McCall Properties as the redevelopment partner for the Charles F. Hurley Building also known as the Boston Government Services Center originally designed by the world-renown architect Paul Rudolph and opened in 1971.

We see the announcement and the attached renderings as just one step in the process of determining the best outcome for the Hurley building and the overall site. We are frustrated that the proposal does not fully preserve and restore the site that the Massachusetts Historical Commission describes as a “significant cultural resource.” The proposal lacks many details in terms of just how much of the original building and its significant features will be removed. While the proposal does not call for total demolition of the building, we will continue to ask the state to maintain as much of the original fabric as possible.

From the current renderings, the two new towers do not seem compatible with one another or the historic building (different materials, colors, and massing) and appear to be separate blocks that have “landed” on the Hurley rather than integrate with the original structure or each other. Our suggestion would be that the team consider reviewing Paul Rudolph’s original design guidelines for the site and work to better integrate any new construction with that methodology.

We are pleased to see the street wall that faces Staniford Street maintains the look and feel of the original design and retains the site's character defining features including the massive colonnade of concrete piers.

We anticipate seeing improved and expanded details that will show how the proposal respects the cultural heritage of the site. From the minimal details provided: the landscaping does not go far enough to be respectful; the announcement included no mention of the conservation of the Costantino Nivola murals; the proposal lacks to a description of how the parking garage will be integrated; nor does the announcement detail the Lindemann stairs that were said to be restored with this proposal.

Speaking on behalf of Docomomo US, Liz Waytkus stated that, “The interventions at the Government Center need to harmonize with the historic site. The announcement yesterday lacked a lot of information as to how that is going to happen. Docomomo US will continue to follow along and engage in this process."

"Rudolph's building is a monument to the government's service to its people and their confidence in the future of Boston," said Kelvin Dickinson, President of The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. "Using spatial motifs that reference Boston's historic connection to the sea, the Government Center is a unique symbol of its time and place. The revisions proposed in yesterday's announcement need to better show how they are consistent with the design guidelines Rudolph established for the site. The Paul Rudolph Institute will follow and encourage this throughout the design process."

###

You can download a copy of this press release here.

Introducing the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture

Paul Rudolph’s representation of the human figure used as the logo for the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture.

The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation and the Paul Rudolph Estate are excited to announce the launch of the Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture.

The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture (PRIMA) will replace the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation and expand its mission to provide outreach and information to educators, students, design professionals and the broader public interested in learning about the design principles of modern architecture exemplified in Paul Rudolph’s architectural work and teachings.

“Principles are principles. Principles don’t change. Styles change; attitudes change. Things are in a constant state of flux. The only grasp one can have on the profession is to get a handle on great principles.” - Paul Rudolph

Rudolph referred to these principles as the ‘DNA’ of architecture and they include issues of site, function, space, structure/materials, scale and style (referred to as the spirit of the times). These principles are timeless and are not just found in Rudolph’s own buildings: they are not restricted to any one style of construction, location or material.

“Modern architecture’s range of expression is today from A to B. We build isolated buildings with no regard to the space between them, monotonous and endless streets, too many goldfish bowls, too few caves. We tend to build merely diagrams of buildings.”

”One can say that the present tendency to reduce everything to a system of rectangles, both in plan and elevation, is an outgrowth of the modular concept and machine processes. We accept this discipline but we still long innately for the old play of light and shadow, for something curved.” - Paul Rudolph

Rudolph realized that for architecture to be successful, it must solve modern problems and reflect modern times with a respect for a traditional way of seeing and feeling space.

“People, if they think about architecture at all, usually think in terms of the materials. While that’s important, it’s not the thing that determines the psychology of the building. It’s really the compression and release of space, the lighting of that space—dark to light—and the progression of one space to another. Because one remembers in that sense.” - Paul Rudolph

As architecture and design adapt to the changing needs of our modern world - sustainability and climate change; urbanism; affordable housing to name a few - these principles can help us to design and build a better future that keeps and learns from the best of the past.

The New York City-based non-profit 501(c)3 organization was founded by Ernst Wagner, Paul Rudolph’s heir and executor of his estate, to fulfill Rudolph’s wish that an organization be created to preserve and educate others about his architectural legacy. The Institute will promote Rudolph’s design principles through preservation and advocacy efforts, educational programs, public events and maintaining and developing an archive of materials related to modern architecture.

The Institute’s logo is Rudolph’s representation of a human figure in the pen and ink drawings that made his work celebrated around the world. It represents Rudolph’s humanistic view of architecture that emphasizes the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation.

Rudolph described architecture as “used space formed to satisfy people’s psychological needs.” This definition places the user at the center of architectural experience and considers human beings as the starting point for any architectural philosophical inquiry.

The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture will continue to act as the exclusive worldwide representative for The Estate of Paul Rudolph LLC with regard to licensing third parties for any and all uses of the intellectual property rights of the Works of Paul Rudolph.

If you are interested in becoming involved with the work of the Paul Rudolph Institute, or to find out more about our programs as they develop, please complete the “Contact Us” form and note your interest in this work so we may contact you.

Paul Rudolph goes to the Dentist (but actually, it's the other-way around!)

Paul Rudolph’s organically curved floor plan for the dental office of Dr. Nathan Shore, in NYC—a work from the mid-1960’s. While Rudolph was known as a master of geometry and form (and their application to architecture, interiors, and furniture), this sinuous approach to planning was one to which he turned only occasionally. This “poche” version of the plan was used as a decorative graphic on the dental office receptionist station’s glass enclosure.

CREATION WITHIN A VARIETY OF SCALES AND TYPES: TRUE MASTERS WILL TAKE-ON ALL CHALLENGES

One of the signs of a master architect-designer is their ability to create interesting work at all scales. English architect Charles Ashbee, the Arts & Crafts era designer, is a strong example: designing everything from a typeface -to-furniture -to- houses -to- the renovation of a war-damaged city. His American contemporary, Bertram Goodhue, worked in a similarly broad range of scales: from his design of a typeface that is still in wide use (“Cheltenham”) -to- his Nebraska State Capitol, a building big enough to be seen from a distance of 20 miles.

Paul Rudolph indicated that he would be willing to take on even humble projects, and said:

“‘It makes no difference to me the size of the project. I’ve always said, ‘I would be happy to make a dog house for you, if you would let me make it a unique and very good dog house.’”

And, in fact, some famous architects have applied their architectural skills to dog house design: Frank Lloyd Wright (who called such a commission “an opportunity” in design), and Philip Johnson.

Young Jim Berger lived in a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright for the Berger family in San Anselmo—and, at age 12, he asked Wright to design a doghouse for his pet labrador retriever. Wright sent a construction drawing and “Eddie’s House” was built. Here, in 2017, Mr. Berger is seen with a reconstruction of it, which was on display at the Wright-designed Marin County Civic Center.

Philp Johnson’s 1997 design: a “dog house” on the Glass House estate. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s website: “This small structure was created by Johnson as a conceptual project for a classically-inspired tomb. However, when completed the small wooden object turned out to be just the right size for his and [David] Whitney’s new puppies to inhabit. . . .”

To our knowledge, Paul Rudolph never designed a dog house, but—across his half-century career, in which he engaged in hundreds of commissions—he was not above taking-on projects of a less-than-glamourous nature, or for clients with limited budgets.

One of the happy surprises we’ve encountered in the archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation is an article from the Journal of the American Dental Association—and it’s about just such a project: Rudolph’s 1967 design for a dental office for Dr. Nathan Shore.

THE DENTIST GOES TO RUDOLPH

Rudolph’s client, Dr. Nathan Shore, was a dental pioneer in working on TMJ —and wrote this key book on the topic.

Dr. Nathan A. Shore (1914-1984), was a dental specialist and pioneer in correcting a jaw condition called temporomandibular joint syndrome—known more widely as TMJ—-a subject upon which he wrote numerous articles and a book (and for which he devised a test to determine whether the pain was medical or dental in origin.)

In he 1960’s, Dr. Shore asked Paul Rudolph to design his dental offices: they were to be located within a nearly windowless 1,830 square foot space on Central Park South, in the midtown section of Manhattan. Rudolph divided this area into 19 spaces: 

• four dental operatories

• two hygienist operatories

• two con­sultation rooms

• an audiovisual room (for patient education)

• a business office

• a reception room

• a kitchen for staff use

• an X-ray room

• two laboratories

• two washrooms

• all the above spaces connected by a continuous corridor

• all remaining spaces, between the walls of the rooms, were utilized for storage.

Placing all these rooms and functions into the available square footage was an tour-de-force of space-planning efficiency. Although suite corridors were narrow, circular mirrors mounted on walls, and varied ceiling heights created an illusion of space.

Paul Rudolph’s floor plan for the Nathan Shore dental offices—probably the “presentation drawing” which was shown to the client (and/or other parties, such as the building management) to explain the design and obtain their approval. Each space in this quarter-inch scale plan is labeled; overall dimensions of the space are shown; and the entry is indicated by an arrow shown toward the bottom-center of the drawing.

A screen capture from the Museum of Modern Art’s website, showing a 1961 Jason Seley sculpture which is part of their collection: “Masculine Presence”. Like the sculpture that was in the Shore Dental office, this example is made from auto parts—Seley’s most frequent medium.

Furniture, in reception and some internal offices, included chairs by Charles and Ray Eames (from Herman Miller); and by Warren Platner (from Knoll International).

Desk lighting was provided by numerous “Lytegem” lamps (by Lightolier)—then and now, one of the most platonically pure lamp designs, made from a sphere and a cube—a composition strongly appealing to architects committed to the Modern aesthetic [This 1965 design, by Michael Lax, is in the collection of MoMA.]

The reception area contains a sculpture made of automobile hubcaps. It is by Jason Seley, a artist known for creating artworks from chromium steel automobile body parts.

The constructed design received coverage—perhaps the only article about it—in a 1971 issue of The Journal of the American Dental Association. The article, "Functional Design based on Pattern of Work in a Dental Suite", spoke of Rudolph’s design approach to meet the challenges involved in such a project, and included a description of the results, photos, and a floor plan. The article’s author, Eileen Farrell, had been an editorial supervisor at the American Dental Association, and some of her observations included:

"Dentistry in the round is one way to describe the unique dental suite designed for Dr. Nathan Allen Shore by architect Paul Rudolph of Yale. . . .The circular motif is repeated in various ways that add to the total effect. Lighting in the operatories, for instance, is diffused from a circular well in the ceiling across which the dental light slides on a track integrated with the ceiling diffusor. A curved Plexiglass screen divides the business office from the recep­tion room, making each space seem larger. A circular rendition of aspects of the temporomandibular joint decorates the door leading to the operatories.”

"Besides creating an illusion of space, the design aims at quiet and a sense of privacy. To this end, circulation of pa­tients and staff is kept to a minimum, and although there are eight staff members and a steady stream of patients, the suite never seems to be crowded. One reason is that the movement of traffic is in the round rather than back and forth. . . .When a patient arrives for his appointment, the secretary opens the door by remote control and admits him to the recep­tion area."

"Doctor Shore finds that his staff is happy in the well-designed quarters. . . .Functional design, he says, seems well suited to a most progressive profession."

Above are small screen-captures of the pages of the article about the Rudolph-designed Nathan Shore dental office. At the lower-right is a slightly enlarged portion of one page, showing the reception area—and, at its right side, one can see that the suite’s floor plan has been incorporated into the reception desk’s window, as an intriguing ornamental pattern. The full article can be accessed through the JADA website, here.

RUDOLPH AND CURVILNEAR DESIGN

The work of Paul Rudolph presents difficulties for historians—at least for the ones who are uncomfortable with the great range of forms in his designs, and the multiple approaches Rudolph used when answering hundreds of architectural challenges. Attempts to pigeonhole a great creative force like Rudolph are doomed to futility—but some observations on his formal vocabulary are worthwhile, like our analysis of his use of crystalline shapes at Burroughs Wellcome.

But what about Rudolph’s use of curved forms? Rudolph could hardly be said to be afraid of curves: they show-up early in his practice: most notably in the Healy “Cocoon” house of 1950. But projects where “free form” or “biomorphic” curvilinear elements and planning dominate are not all-that-frequent in his career. Some notable exceptions are his sculptural handling of concrete in his Temple Street Parking Garage and the forms and spaces of the Boston Government Service Center. But even in Rudolph’s Endo Laboratories—one of his finest projects from the beginning of the 1960’s, which is well-known for its curved elements—or his Daiei Headquarters Building in Japan, most of the curves are carefully controlled portions of circles or ellipses. Thus when we do encounter designs in which Rudolph uses free and energetic organic lines (as in Dr. Shore’s offices), there is good reason to give such projects extra focus—and even to celebrate this branch of Rudolph’s creativity.

In the spirit of our start of this article—pointing-out that design masters can productively focus on projects of all scales—we end with an example at the smaller end of the range of objects which Paul Rudolph designed: a desk for Endo Laboratories. Thoughtfully designed for efficient function, and carefully drawn, detailed and specified (as the drawing shows)—it also fully embraces “free form” curvilinear design.

An “executive desk”, designed by Paul Rudolph for the offices of Endo Laboratories, his 1960 project in Garden City.

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:

Floor plans of the Nathan A. Shore dental office (both “poche” and linework versions), and the drawing of the desk for Endo Laboratories: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Frank Lloyd Wright-designed doghouse: photo courtesy of Marin County Civic Center, as shown on the city’s website; Philip Johnson-designed doghouse: photo by and courtesy of Sean Sheer of Urban Dog; Jason Seley sculpture, within the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City: screen capture from a portion of the MoMA web page devoted to that sculpture; JADA article on the Nathan A. Shore dental office: screen captures from the 1971 issue, Volume 83, Issue 1; Cover of Dr. Shore’s book: from the Amazon page devoted to that book.

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.

Earliest Known Paul Rudolph Drawing?

It can probably never be precisely known what were Paul Rudolph’s earliest and final drawings. but this pair can be viewed as “representative bookends” of a career with an intense focus on drawing. LEFT: a pencil still-life, possibly done at the beginning of his architectural education. ABOVE: a perspective of the Wireless Road project for Thailand, made during Rudolph’s final decade of work.

THE FASCINATION OF BEGINNINGS

Narrative—our attraction to stories (both telling and hearing them)—seems to be hardwired into our neural pathways, and there fewer more powerful openings in our language than “Let me tell you a story…” -or- “Once upon a time…” -and of course-- “In the beginning…”. We’re entranced by beginnings, starting points, creation myths, and every major figure in our lives and culture—grandparents, presidents, Olympic stars—comes with an origin story. Superhero origin stories—whether it be Superman’s escapeg from an exploding planet or Spiderman’s fateful bug bite—have been told and retold (and re-re-retold), and yet we still enjoy seeing new versions of them.

A key part of origin stories are tales of the heroic figure’s earliest acts—the first times they show evidence of the skills, strength, talents, and integrity which will flourish through their later careers. Whether it be the young Washington and the cherry tree, or the apprentice Leonardo da Vinci’s painting so beautifully that he intimidated his master, these stories and early works are like the opening notes of the symphony of their lives.

A hero’s origin story which is known world-wide: a small capsule, taking the Kryptonian child that would become Superman, approaches Earth [as shown in the first episode of the 1952 Superman TV series.]

Le Corbusier’s only formal training in design was during his school courses in applied arts in association with watchmaking. This watchcase is perhaps his earliest known design work.

A work by Andrea del Verrocchio, in which his young apprentice, Leonardo, painted the angel at the far-left—done with such intimidating mastery that Verrocchio allegedly never again painted in color.

Architects also have their origin stories, and tales of their early actions receive the focus of historians and writers [Peter Blake’s “The Masterbuilders” includes covering those early years of Wright, Mies, and Le Corbusier.] While the first works of Mies and Wright may be lost (or look unpromising), we do have a fascinating early design by Le Corbusier—for an engraved watch case—and it hints at his lifelong focus on nature and geometry.

What about Paul Rudolph—his beginnings and first works? We’ll look at that here.

A VIRTUOSO OF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING

Paul Rudolph is known for his drawings—ones that combine precision of vision with dramatic effect.—especially his perspective sections. Two of his most famous drawings are the section through the Yale Art & Architecture Building, and his view of the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway (“LOMEX”) project.

Paul Rudolph’s section-perspective drawing through the Yale Art & Architecture Building (which has been red-dedicated as Rudolph Hall). The drawing gives a dramatic sense of the interpenetrating levels and the functions of the building’s complex of spaces. [It is worth going to the project page devoted to this building, where you can see an enlarged version of this drawing.]

Rudolph’s section-perspective through the LOMEX project. This drawing not only conveys the architectural drama of the architecture Rudolph proposed, and the multiple-functions of the Manhattan-crossing mega-structure, but it also situates the project within the cityscape. [It is worth going to the project page devoted to this building, where you can see an enlarged version of this drawing.]

Rudolph’s drawings have been celebrated in exhibitions, articles, and websites—and every book about him has highlighted both his virtuoso graphic skill as well as the way drawing was integral to his design process.

Two volumes which focus on Paul Rudolph’s drawings:
ABOVE: “Paul Rudolph: Architectural Drawings” is a large-format volume published during his lifetime and with his direct involvement. It includes an essay, by Rudolph, in which he speaks about his drawing process.
RIGHT: Published by Moleskine in association with Princeton Architectural Press, “Paul Rudolph: Inspiration and Process in Architecture” includes examples of Rudolph’s presentation drawings—but also highlights his sketches, displaying the architect in the process of exploration-creation, on-the-way to his finished designs.

AN EARLY INTEREST IN THE ARTS

Young Rudolph, working with another student on a design-oriented project.

Two of our recent articles focused on Paul Rudolph’s involvement in the fine arts: one on music, and the other on visual arts (especially painting). We quoted a letter from his mother, Erie Stone Rudolph, attesting to his early interest in both:

“He always liked to paint pictures too, as well as he liked to play the piano. Had always loved Music, and would be drawing a model house or painting a picture, then suddenly get up from that work to and go to the piano and practice. . . .Music was play to him as well as his painting and drawing pictures. . . . .Music, Art and Architecture were his three delights.”

Auburn Polytechnic Institute [now Auburn University] was where Paul Rudolph received his first formal architectural education (this was prior to Rudolph’s later time at Harvard, studying with Gropius). In an earlier article, we profiled what we believe may be his earliest architectural project—not just a school assignment, but one which was intended for actual construction: a gateway for the Auburn campus, which was to be a gift from members of the senior class. Rudolph’s drawing of the proposed design was published in a February, 1938 issue of the school’s newspaper, The Plainsman.

What may be Paul Rudolph’s earliest architectural project intended for construction: a gateway for the Auburn campus. Rudolph’s rendering was published in a 1938 issue of school’s newspaper, The Plainsman. The gate piers (and associated walling) appear to be composed of of brick with stone trim—choices which would correspond the the materials used in other buildings on the Auburn campus. Unfortunately, due to funding issues, the gates were never built.

RUDOLPH’S EDUCATION AT aUBURN: LIFE CLASS DRAWING

The archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation has one of Rudolph’s “report cards” from his time studying architecture at Auburn (which the school sent to Paul Rudolph’s father). It is for the first semester of the 1939-40 academic year, and gives an insight into what Rudolph was taking-in during this phase of his education. One of the classes listed on the report is “Life Class” (for which Rudolph received a good grade: a 90).

In arts education, “life class” is the term often used for class sessions devoted to “drawing from life”. In the era of architectural education when Paul Rudolph was a student, such “life classes”, to teach drawing, were a frequent part of other architecture school programs—so it is a reasonable conclusion that the “life class” which Rudolph attended was focused on freehand drawing, with the subjects being either live models or inanimate objects.

PAUL RUDOLPH’S EARLIEST DRAWING?

One of the most interesting objects in the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation’s collection is a drawing, signed by Rudolph—but it is not of any architectural subject. It depicts a small statue on an ornate base—and it might well be from one of the “life class” sessions which was part of Rudolph’s education at Auburn.

A signed, framed drawing in the archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation—possibly the earliest extant original work by Rudolph.

The drawing by Rudolph. To the right is a 12” architect’s scale ruler, which gives a sense of the artwork’s size.

The drawing, including its wood frame, is 15-7/8” high x 11-1/2” wide, and the medium appears to be pencil on a lightly textured paper. The paper itself is cream colored, but it is not known whether if it was originally that color, or if the cream coloration is due to oxidation over the years. If it was done at Auburn, that would place the drawing’s creation at approx. 80 years ago—an abundant amount of time for paper to “turn”. There is a water stain across the top of the drawing—but, fortunately, it is largely clear of the drawn image.

The frame seems to be of the same vintage as the drawing. The face of the frame is 1/2” wide, and the frame itself is painted wood. Wood frames, like this, were inexpensively available at “five-and-dime” variety stores (such as Woolworth’s and Kress)—-and the Rudolph family’s modest means would suggest such a source—but it is also a non-standard size, so it is possible that the frame was custom made at a local framing shop.

Rudolph’s education at Auburn was based on classical / Beaux-Arts ideals and methods—and the subjects that would have been chosen for life class (other than live models, if any) would have been corresponding classical sculpture (like figural statues), and architectural elements (like scroll ornaments and column capitals). If this drawing was done for school, its classical character—probably depicting a Greco-Roman water nymph (an “undine”) would fit well with the other subjects he’d be called-upon to render. But, as Rudolph loved to make art (as his mother tells us), this could have been a self-chosen subject—and table-top sculptures like this (stylized classical visions in the Deco mode) were widely available, and could have graced Rudolph’s own home.

A closer view of the prime image of the drawing: a still-life of a sculpture, probably of a an idealized or mythical figure. The intimacy of the drawing suggests that the object, from which Rudolph was drawing, was of table-top size.

A closer view of the upper part of the drawing, focusing on the figure. Its stylized classical form, as well as simplified shape of the scarf (or water wave) behind the figure, may be due to the era-of-manufacture of the object that Rudolph was drawing. Decorative objects, of this subject, scale, character, were a widespread product of the Art Deco era—and were made at a variety of price points, such that they were affordable even for a middle-class home (or a school with limited budget).

A detail of the bottom of the drawing, showing the base of the statuette. It was possibly sculpted to evoke classical acanthus leaves—or, if this the statue was of a water sprite (like the mythical undine), to depict waves.

Paul Rudolph’s signature, in pencil, is at the lower-right corner of the drawing. While his signature changed somewhat over the decades, its basic character was consistent.

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:

Paul Rudolph drawings: © The Estate of Paul Rudolph, The Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Clippings from Auburn University’s The Plainsman, and Rudolph’s grade report: from the archives of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation; Covers of two books on Paul Rudolph’s drawings, from the Amazon for those books; Le Corbusier watch case: vintage image; Krypton capsule approaching Earth: still from the first episode of 1950’s TV series, “The Adventures of Superman”; Andrea del Verrocchio’s painting (circa 1472-1475), “The Baptism of Christ”: from the Yorck Project - DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons.

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