Yesterday, legislators in Orange County, New York failed to stave off the demolition of Paul Rudolph's Orange County Government Center. In January, county executive Steven M. Neuhaus vetoed a proposal that would entertain outside bids like Manhattan architect Gene Kaufman's, to purchase, restore, and repurpose the structure. Kaufman also proposed designing a new government center next door, with a proposed budget less than that of the county's current plan [...]. — curbed.com
Previously:
67 Comments
Sad. Not sure what could have saved this. The people in the town seemed to already have "shook hands" or gotten contributions that sealed the fate of this place. I recommend in the future that preservation advocates not float the idea of an "artist colony" to a group of people who seem already hostile to unique design. It was well intended, but even as someone who loves design and art, the word "colony" reminds me of ants. Who really wants artist crawling all around? Nobody. Next time you re-brand an endangered building, say it will be shared between young venture capitalists and progressive internet start-ups.
I hope that some of the building can and will be saved. Isn't that the plan...a partial demolition?
Here is a link to the firm hired for the new construction (Warning: mind numbing design):http://www.clarkpattersonlee.com
As for my above comment, I mistakenly thought it was referred to as an "artist colony" somewhere. My bad.
Part of the problem is that we still have a generation of americans who are pretty detached from the culture and history of art, design and architecture and are extremely conservative when it comes to aesthetics. Its probably a failure of arts education. I'm hopeful that younger generations raised on the internet will be more aware and have an appreciation for recent/current cultural movements.
I'm pretty engaged with the culture of history and art, and I think it's an ugly building. Maybe I should go back to art school for some re-education.
This whole idea that people need to taught to find buildings appealing is very odd to me. Shouldn't buildings appeal to us in a way that doesn't require us to be educated in a certain manner? It's great that buildings appeal on other levels as well, levels that require "insider knowledge". But shouldn't the lowest common denominator be the ability to appeal to someone with no indoctrination in the rationale of art criticism?
EKE,
"Shouldn't buildings appeal to us in a way that doesn't require us to be educated"
No. The entire reason we as a society value education is because society is not entirely intuitive. The philosophical underpinnings are not going to just occur to everyone. I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you.
Keep in mind that throughout history buildings we used as a tool for education. They were places that resisted ignorance.
Agree about the "artist colony" thing. Even its defenders weren't able to describe the values of this kind of work. The play of geometry is what sets Rudolfs work apart. It probably could have used a bit of work too. Architecture is the defense of authenticity in human experience and this was the definition of an authentic, one of a kind building.
Thank you davvid for that response to EKE.
This is so sad.
And EKE, the point isn't that you need to learn to LIKE it, it's that you need to learn to understand it and reject it on informed terms, not knee-jerk prejudices.
I'm not a huge fan of Polynesian food; that savory-fruity mix just doesn't appeal to me. But I've eaten it many times, to make sure I had given it a fair try (my husband loves it), and I'm not going around saying that all Polynesian restaurants need to be demolished.
Please reread what I said. I'm not saying that they should be appeal to us exclusively in intuitive ways. I'm saying that a building that cannot be appreciated at a basic level without an education in the arts is an unsuccessful piece of architecture, in my opinion.
I'm well aware that buildings can, and should be used as tools for education. But to appeal to human beings on an intuitive level is also very important. To do so is not to pander to ignorance, as davvid so condescendingly suggests. It is to recognize and engage human nature.
Why not have buildings that can do both? That's what I'm arguing for. I think good buildings first appeal to us emotionally, through beauty. Then, if it is a truly great building, other levels of meaning become apparent, some of which might be understandable only by those who have an understanding of the philosophy of architecture. These levels of meaning are what make architecture rich and satisfying in the long run. But I'd argue that a building that doesn't engage us emotionally, and doesn't give the uninitiated a reason to want it to be the way it is, is a failure. An example is most of the work of Peter Eisenman. Unless you want to parse through a puzzle box of deconstructivist philosophy, there's very little to engage the average person.
Donna, as you well know, I'm not saying that all Brutalist buildings should be be demolished. I'm not saying this one should either. I don't really care one way or another. I'm just saying that I think it's ugly, and apparently a lot of folks in Orange County agree. Let them decide.
We have the very best government that money can buy.
“Steve Neuhaus is the pay-to-play guy,” said Donnery. “He is a continuation of the past. If you elect him county executive, all you are going to do is change the name tag. There is going to be absolutely no change.”
...
“So, Eddie Diana has been the county executive," Neuhaus said. "A lot of those same donors that are donating to him — like the building trades, the construction contractors, all those different types of organizations that represent a lot of business interests — now that the dust is starting to settle, they are starting to flock to my candidacy more than they would to Roxanne Donnery’s, because Roxanne Donnery does not have any track record with businesses.”
http://chroniclenewspaper.com/article/20130705/NEWS01/130709993/Follow-the-money-for-county-exec#sthash.vw1zrXvO.dpuf
EKE,
First of all, the building does engage emotionally. Thats obvious.
Second of all, it is beautiful but in a very unconventional way. Beauty can be very complicated (see art history). It isn't all rainbows and butterflies. Humans sometimes resist seeing beauty if it conflicts with other ideas.
"Unless you want to parse through a puzzle box of deconstructivist philosophy, there's very little to engage the average person."
Don't assume that philosophy is something that only exists in the heads of a few silly people. This comes back to valuing education. I don't know about you but my education was not a process of forcing myself to believe things that seemed untrue. It was a process reading and hearing others articulate things that I had already sensed myself.
++ davvid
EKE, what do you make of this?
" While visiting the building today, I met a man named Tom who defined precisely what the tragedy is here. Tom was a member of the union that built the Government Center and later worked at the building as a contractor. He witnessed the changing of the interior soon after the building went up, in a “way that didn’t work with the original plan,” and saw how it was later left to rot. Tom admitted that the County had forced some changes on the structure, so the damage has now become irreparable in places. But he was adamant that this was a beautiful piece of construction, and that all it ever really needed was some upkeep. “If those bastards had only taken care of it, it’d have lived strong well past the day we’d all be dead.” " (http://hyperallergic.com/181345/behind-the-battle-to-save-a-brutalist-building/)
I don't know about you, but I have a lot of respect for work that can be praised by both academics and contractors, even if I don't like some or all of it for some reason.
Sounds like he's very proud of the work he did on the building. I'm sure that the building was very difficult to build, and took tremendous skill to execute.
Davvid-
What are the "other ideas" exemplified by the Rudolph building that are causing me to resist seeing its beauty?
If a building appealed to me in a way that it aligned with "things that I had already sensed myself", well...then I probably wouldn't need an art education to convince me that it had merit and was worth saving.
(By the way, I don't assume that philosophy is something that only exists in the heads of a few silly people. I think that deconstructivist philosophy is something that only exists in the heads of a few silly people.)
under construction, 1966 (http://volume-control.tumblr.com/post/20845058585/help-save-paul-rudolphs-orange-county-government)
EKE - It doesn't look like it was all that difficult to build it, man.
When I look at this construction shot, the building appears to have a remarkable relationship to the human scale.
Shouldn't buildings appeal to us in a way that doesn't require us to be educated
You don't need to be "educated" to appreciate something. Education just allows you to appreciate on different levels, often at the expense of others.
You can replace appreciate with disparage.
That construction worker in the photo is thinking, "Crap...which one of the 312 different flashing details do I use here "?
EKE,
"What are the "other ideas" exemplified by the Rudolph building that are causing me to resist seeing its beauty?"
I can't know for sure. But not too long ago we discussed zeitgeist and how you feel it should be resisted. You've also talked about how when considering context in architecture, place should be prioritized over time. This building and Rudolph's work generally isn't shy about marking its place in time.
"This building and Rudolph's work generally isn't shy about marking its place in time."
Very true.
As was Dachau. Not to invoke Goodwin's Law, but to make a different kind of point about place and time.
I hate to bring up the example of the dress that some people immediately see as blue and black and some as white and gold, but this building actually evokes equally divergent perception. I have shown photos of this building to many and it evokes such polarized responses. Maybe that is reason enough to keep it around, after all, that dress was in such demand it sold out.
I don't think the building's beautiful, but it's definitely striking, and that's why I'd have kept it. For better or for worse, we have a long stretch of our architectural history where architects built for the sake of innovation, concept or simply intellectual effect, without considering beauty (as most people find it in flowers, people's faces, etc.). So we do need to honor some of these achievements by preserving them. The ideals might have been messed up, but the intention wasn't. After all, folks like Kahn, Rudolph, and a few others where able to squeeze out conventional beauty from the intellectual maze that is modernist dogma. This is all EKE was saying, but unfortunately, modernists have to mischaracterize that point to keep their minds closed. So we now get the AIA selling the need for architects because we have built so much ugly shit that one "needs" an education to appreciate at all, since the sensory level of beauty is not considered. Don't know if that concept is too hard to digest, or it simply is rejected for fear of upsetting the mental cart. Here is an example, please enjoy watching this AIA video of Gehry talking about how he was drawn to chain link fencing because it was ubiquitous and "so universally hated".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtSdZ2B3c1c
This is the kind of motivation an AIA Gold Medal winner use? and he ain't the only one.
So yes, this building is interesting and is representative of a time and place and should be saved. A time that strove to appeal not to the person on the street, but only those who "got it". And yes, the building engages emotionally. Which emotions is open to question. What the modern traditional revival does is give architects who are free of the Hegelian trap of zeitgeist the ability to make deeper emotional connections with those that might come into contact with their buildings through cultural and historical references, but most importantly, through the kind of beauty that neurologists have now discovered is hard wired in us. We need not feel ashamed for not "getting it" or for doing what my daughter does when she decorates her buildings with beautiful shapes and colors. I don't begrudge anyone's interest in exploring aesthetics with materials that are universally hated. What I find sad is the AIA and the academic establishment still refusing to allow traditional architecture equal footing next to modernism, of whatever strain we are on.
It's one thing to take a cheap industrial material and find a use for it with sensitivity to its properties. It is another thing entirely to take a cheap industrial material and attempt to elevate it to high art just because it is cheap and "ugly".
Thayer, you said "...AIA and the academic establishment still refusing to allow traditional architecture equal footing next to modernism..."
What *exactly* do you mean by this? By traditional do you mean old, aka historic, or do you mean recent buildings built in a traditional style? And if you mean the latter, can you post an example that you consider an excellent building that the AIA/academia refuse to acknowledge as being of high quality?
Good luck Donna on that request.......
Forgive the length of the copy/paste, but I thought this was a pretty amazing contribution to the conversation about this building:
After I first wrote in defense of Rudolph and the building, a former legislator from Goshen, Rich Baum, reached out to me. Mr. Baum was a minority leader in the county during the 1990s. He believes the current fight is about more than aesthetics — that Rudolph’s architecture makes concrete certain values that irritate lawmakers desperate to demolish it. Mr. Baum gave a few examples.
The building’s atrium, he told me, was where “people interacted with county government, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, the records office and the passport office; a balcony above the main floor led to the legislature, the county executive and the primary county government decision-makers,” he said. “What this meant was that, as the leaders of county government went about their business, there was always the din of people coming in and out and doing their business. Critics said this was impractical. I think it was a purposeful and an inspired idea by Rudolph.”
The legislative chamber was designed so that lawmakers sat in rows facing each other, as in Britain’s House of Commons, not facing in the same direction. The consequence, Mr. Baum said, was that “as the leader of a disempowered minority, my only real opportunity to effect change was to force my colleagues literally to face arguments against their actions.” He added: “The setup of the chamber was constructed to maximize the discomfort and awkwardness of strong disagreements. The building reminded leaders of democratic ideals and fostered tough debate.”
In other words, Rudolph’s design was about openness, transparency, accountability. It was thereby a daily rebuke to how legislators “now run the county,” Mr. Baum said. “That’s why they really hate it.”
This is a provocative theory. Legislators can try to prove it wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/arts/design/clock-ticks-for-paul-rudolphs-orange-county-government-center.html?ref=arts&l
^ Fascinating.
Donna, by traditional I mean contemporary architecture that employs historic styles other than modernist, something that's almost never shown on this site, academia, or in the AIA awards. It's not hard to see why though. When you value different things, you end up with different results. You seem like a nice and thoughtful person, we simply don't have the same priorities as architects.
As for an example, there are some excellent buildings by any number of traditional architects that simply exist in a parallel universe, they just never see the light of day in modernist media. But it's stupid to try and convince you about their merit, since we have different values, and it's not important to the larger point about the AIA and how it's values and how they don't aligned with those we build for,
Again, I don't have an issue with the kind of architectural "innovation" that studies materials because they are "universally hated", but at least include buildings that are based on materials and forms that are loved for a change, Rather than 'looking up', architects might do better to 'look around' and see the people and places they are failing.
Thayer-D, you were asked, in no uncertain terms, for specific examples.
What do you make of David Chipperfield's work? What about Gunnar Asplund? Viollet-le-Duc?
If you and EKE don't start posting info on specific architects or projects, which you claim are under-represented, your arguments will continue to read as misguided nostalgia.
Are you guys fans of Claude Perrault's work on Vitruvius???
Oh-oh, Thayer. You were asked.... in no uncertain terms. You better do what he says.
I didn't ask you guys, it was Donna and Olaf this time.
Maybe to get us back on track - discussing the conditions of this project's demise - I'
ll post more intriguing info:
"Seeking to renovate the Orange County Government Center by internationally known architect Paul Rudolph, county legislators selected the team of Clark Patterson Lee (CPL), Holt, JMZ and DesignLABS, after interviewing applicants and taking an extensive tour and debriefing at the in-process work of Design LABS on its Claire T. Carney Library project for the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth. The project had our same purpose and was on a very similar Rudolph building in size and scope to the Orange County Government Center; it ultimately received high praise for design and costs. It was DesignLABS that the legislators sought.
Last year Philip Clark offered a high-paying position with CPL to Leigh Benton, then chairman of the committee having oversight on the Orange County Government Center project that Clark was hired to design. Benton was fined. Clark should have been fired. More recently Clark failed to anticipate problems with the state Office of Recreation, Parks and Historic Preservation (SHPO). We were appalled to learn (much after the fact) that DesignLABS and JMZ left the team we had chosen. DesignLABS cited “professional and extreme ethical” reasons.
We were left with CPL." (click the link below for full text)
By Matt Turnbull, Myrna Kemnitz and Roseanne Sullivan
(3 OC legilators with extensive experience in construction.)
http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150302/OPINION/150309876
I would be very interested in finding out what the story was with DesignLABS dropping the project.
Is pervasive corruption the reason people enter politics?
Also, I haven't read it yet, but here's a link to the Forensic Report prepared by CPL and DesignLABS.
threadkilla, it's stupid to get into a pissing match about which building is superior when our priorities are so different. I don't seek to contrast, to speak for my time, or to re-invent architecture, I aim to build durable, well functioning and lovable buildings that speak to their context and the larger cultural continuity. When I get a client that likes modernism, then I do that. When I get a request for something traditional and/or contextual which is more often the case, then I do that. I'm eclectic, and while I have certain favorite modes of expression, I enjoy the problem more than the product. This may be problematic for most modernists, but in our pluralistic world of differing cultures and outlooks, I don't think it's inconsistent at all.
Donna is in DC, so she could look at the Navy Memorial Buildings and the Newsmuseum. For memorials she could look at the Vietmam memorial or the WW2 memorial. These are both modernist and traditional examples, and while not perfect in any way, they all are excellent pieces of architecture in my opinion. Yet this is the kind of intellectual diversity absent in the typical AIA awards, academia, or even here on archinect, which is my main beef. This diversity exists in the built world as everyone knows, yet you tell me why we only get a certain perspective from the AIA? The AIA puts up young minorities to telegraph their openness to diversity, yet the buildings they celebrate and put up for praise tend to focus entirely on modernist ones. It's a sham, and everyone knows it, except those who are politically aligned with these groups continue to lie about observable reality.
Don't look around, please, just look up and believe! Right.
I aim to build durable, well functioning and lovable buildings that speak to their context and the larger cultural continuity. When I get a client that likes modernism, then I do that. When I get a request for something traditional and/or contextual which is more often the case, then I do that.
Solving practical design problems takes favor over tortuously contrived pseudointellectual artistic philosophy expressed in buildings as sculpture?
Sacrilege! Outcast him at once.
This month's Architect Magazine (the AIA "official" journal) features the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville by David Schwartz AIA. It's labelled "A Paragon of Classicism" and its main concert hall is described as "...a sophisticated house style redolent of Art Deco, Stripped Classicism, and Viennese Secession."
Yet somehow there's a conspiracy by the AIA to ignore any kind of traditional styles.
Derek that is very interesting, thanks.........Thayer-d if using Explorer and not on a phone right-click over the image and goto properties and copy http:// address or if Firefox and Chrome right-click and click "copy image location" and then back I'm Archinect click on the image icon and paste......just want to make we aren't seeing any images because of technical issues and not because you don't want to show us any.....
That is sooooo helpful of you, Olaf!
EKE I have seen you do it, but not Thayer-D yet, so wondering if it's reluctance or tech issues....
I didn't see the Schwartz symphony hall in the latest Architect. Must have missed it. The issue with the Progressive Architecture Awards? That's a really beautiful building, and I'm glad it was published.
But Donna, you know that seeing a building like that in Architect is an extreme rarity. It is vanishingly rare to see any contemporary classicism in Architect, or Arch Record. Just go to their website, try to find any traditional work there, and then try to tell me with a straight face that there is no ideological bias. I've stopped submitting trad architecture to the local AIA awards, because it is a forgone conclusion that they will simply not be considered. My firm has won many AIA awards for modernist work.
This bias is obvious and it is pervasive. I'm sorry, but not to recognize it is simply disingenuous.
But it does seem to me that a more inclusive point of view is starting to bubble up. All of the recent articles questioning the values of the profession are a sign of this shift in the wind. And if Architect Mag publishing the David Schwartz building is further evidence that the orthodoxy is thawing a bit, the I think that's great news.
This demand by some here for Thayer or I to post images is silly, and frankly, it's bullying. There are many, many thoughtful, excellent architects doing outstanding traditional and classical work, work that rarely if ever is recognized by mags like Architect or Record. Demitri Porphyrios, Robert Adam, Michael Imber, Peter Pennoyer, Ken Tate, Gil Schaffer... I could go on and on. The list is long. If you want to see their work, look it up on the web yourself.
It is in no way "bullying" to ask for examples. If there truly are many, many excellent projects by traditional architects they would be getting press, either in the standard magazines or in their own publications. There are many, many excellent projects in many, many different styles that never get published because there are just not enough pages in magazines to cover them all.
Anyone involved in publishing knows that articles need to cover projects with an interesting story. The Symphony hall is a lovely building, but it's not particularly interesting.
Then why did Architect publish it? And what would make it more interesting, in your opinion?
Architect just published that big white cube courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City. Put it on the cover, actually. It what substantive way is that a more interesting building than Schwatz's symphony hall?
Nice use of BOLD, by the way. :)
Olaf, thank you for that instruction, I was the last person I know to get a cell phone or I-phone or whatever. Not because I dislike technology but because I prefer buying old architecture books and traveling to old cities in America and Europe. My priority in architecture isn't technology, but rather beauty, so I study what I like, which is what I assume most others do also. This year, I aim to change and embrace technology as much as I can, but my oldest kid is only 9, so I can't lean on him just yet (starting though!)
Donna, I didn't take your comment as bullying but as avoiding the glaring point. You must be able to acknowledge the obvious to retain credibility regardless of your politics. Speaking of politics, throwing a token traditionalist in there is just that, politics, but the reality of what is built, market preferences, and simple surveys belies the AIA's storyline. Not to see that is simply disingenuous. As for your asking for examples, you leave that and the larger point on the table when it doesn't suit your argument. In fact I can't count the times you've left some of my questions hanging because they would betray your biases. I don't think there's any shame to liking and being biased towards modernism, traditionalism or whatever. But one should be upfront about it as we should be about the larger point if you are to retain credibility, and for whatever reason, you seem reluctant.
I found the article in Architect magazine. Its easy to see why I missed it, since it's a one-pager buried in the advertising in the first section of the magazine. It's not a feature on the Schermerhorn Symphony Center at all, but an announcement of David Schwartz having won the 2015 Driehaus Prize. My reading of it is that the phrase "A Paragon of Classicism" refers to Mr. Schwartz, not to the building, which was constructed in 2006 and is used to illustrate an example of his work.
Congratulations to Mr. Schwartz on receiving the Driehaus Prize.
Driehaus Prize - is that given to buildings that don't leak?
Thayer, I just object to the word "bullying" in this context. Please. It's a spirited discussion that is thankfully not stumbling into personal attacks for the most part.
The AIA and their magazine are going to cover the work that they think is relevant, to the profession and to the public. They, like Archinect, have no obligation to publish anything they don't want to pay attention to. As a dues paying and super-active member of the professional organization, I fully support their editorial content and awards going to projects that forward the discipline, which is a phrase I've used in these conversations many times. To me, that's an imperative in our professional conversation.
Rudolph's work forwarded the discipline, as did Gehry's Winton House. The Symphony hall is lovely, but not forward-looking.
So, again, please post some images and examples of traditionally styled buildings that forward the discipline. Here's one (by the same architect as the Symphony) that doesn't:
What is the definition of "forward the discipline"? By what criteria am I to judge what "forwards the discipline" and what does not?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.