Government Service Center: An Architectural and Urban Analysis of a Paul Rudolph Landmark in Boston

Government Service Center An Architectural and Urban Analysis of a Paul Rudolph Landmark in Boston

Wentworth Institute of Technology Northeastern University

Contents

04 Overview 14 Historic and Site Context 36 Architectural Analysis 56 Appendix

Project Team DCAMM Organizers: Ellen Whittemore, Charles Deknatel Wentworth Researchers: Teresa Le, Ciro Podany, Nicholas Torres Wentworth Faculty: Carol Burns, Mark Pasnik Prepared For The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Carole Cornelison, Commissioner Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance 2

3

Š Mark Pasnik

Overvi ew

reconsideration. The complex presents an instance of enormous potential to demonstrate responsible urban and architectural reinvestment in downtown Service Center is an assemblage of his signature elements: dramatic structural expression, bush-hammered concrete, baroque-like curvilinear forms, heightening and diminishing of scale, and interlocking of spaces. Intended to be composed of three buildings surrounding a shared plaza, only the Hurley and Lindemann buildings were completed, along with portions of the plaza. The high-rise tower, designed as the conceptual focal point, was canceled due to cost overruns and political interference. entering its fourth decade, a crucial point in determining its future. Due to its architectural uniqueness and successful adaptation projects in the intervening showcase the Commonwealth’s goals for responsible development, improvements to existing buildings, and leadership in sustainability.

Prepared in a collaboration between Wentworth Institute of Technology and DCAMM, this publication describes physical, historical, and architectural aspects of the complex. Compiled and digitized in a four-month period, this collection includes articles, critiques, construction 4

information, photos, and drawings. This broad set of reference material is meant to help guide future decisions and thinking on the building itself, attempting to coherently set out intentions, parameters, challenges, and possibilities for future action.

Rather than seeking to proscribe directions for the future, this document frames a set of questions about the building’s history and its current state. The goal is to help unleash the creativity of many others in considering ways to adapt the Hurley and Lindemann buildings to make them better participants in the urban fabric of Boston and for the citizens of Massachusetts.

5

6

7

8

9

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

Lindemann Plaza Entrance,1973

10

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

Lindemann Plaza Entrance (Now Conference Room), 1973

Hurley Plaza Facade

11

12

Chapel Interior

Plaza Looking Toward Lindemann Entrance, 1973

Plaza With Play Terrace Below, 1973

Hurley Plaza Facade, 1973

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

© Yukio Futagawa

Chapel Interior

Arcade Outside Lindemann Library, 1973

13

We need sequences of space which arouse one’s curiosity, give a sense of anticipation, which beckon space which dominates, which climaxes and acts as a magnet, and gives direction..

Historical and Site Context

Paul Rudolph, “The Changing Philosophy of Architecture,” Architectural Forum (July 1954), 120.

14

15

Sit e Pr ogr es si o n

1955 The area was once predominantly a residential neighborhood.

1962 Demolition of the site started after the separate urban renewal demolition of the West End. The demolition work on the

1969 Additional structures were torn down in the the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings started in 1969 and was completed in 1971.

Center. Many residential buildings were removed from the area to make room for the new urban plan.

1960

1970

2005

1991 A large sector of development was completed between 1969 and 1991. Density increased greatly, with construction of commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings on newly-consolidated sites, including new residential towers in the West End.

2014

By 2005 major work was completed for

Little about the urban structure has changed

making general improvements to the area.

Completed in 1999, the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse was built on the plot of land that was once designated for the Health, Welfare, and Education Tower.

been urban landscaping done to enhance borders, particularly with the new North End

1980

1990

2000

Population through the years 16

17

© Boston Public Library

Located to the east of the West End and as the westernmost edge of the Scollay Square Urban Redevelopment Projects, the site of the © Boston Redevelopment Authority

S it e His t o r y

past half century. The area has been continuously inhabited since at least the middle of the eighteenth century, with the southern part of the site’s footprint located on solid land (the northern slope of when the North End and Waterfront became overcrowded in the late eighteenth century. It mainly housed residents who could not afford to live on Beacon Hill, but could afford to be outside the crowded House, located on Cambridge Street, slightly west of the site, along with the Old West Church.

Aerial of Scollay Square in the mid-1950s © Boston Public Library

The neighborhood became a center of the abolitionist movement in the early nineteenth century. As a result, a large African-American population moved into the West End over the century. In the twentieth century, many of the wealthier residents departed for Roxbury, Brookline, and Newton, leaving the West End open for Boston’s most diverse neighborhoods, hosting Irish, Italian, Jewish, It was a vibrant, working-poor neighborhood.

On the other side of the site stood Scollay Square, an economic center of Boston and home to many entertainment options, some less reputable than others. By World War II it became known as an area of vice, Boston’s own “red-light district.” The push for renewal of these neighborhoods began as early as the National Housing Act of 1934, when many wealthy Bostonians viewed the West End and Scollay Square as slums. However the strong working-class connections to Boston mayor James Curley kept the neighborhoods alive until Curley fell from power in the late 1940s.

Property Line Plan, Old Versus New, 1962

18

1938 Bromley Map Overlayed With Current Buildings

19

© Boston Public Library

By 1950 John Hynes had risen to become mayor and was determined the city. With his “Workable Proposal For Urban Renewal” and authority from the federal government created under the Housing Act of 1949, clearance and rebuilding of the West End began in 1953.

The plan called for the leveling of below-code residences and narrow streets, to be replaced with a superblock of towers in a park in the style of Le Corbusier. The project displaced 2,700 families. Residents received their eviction notices in 1958.

In Scollay Square the new plan called for a complex of government

© Boston Public Library

Overview of planned urban renewal in the 1960s

West End before demolition © Boston Public Library

© Boston Redevelopment Authority

demolition of the entire neighborhood. In 1956, the area was declared blighted by the city; the newly formed Boston Redevelopment Authority was put in charge of land purchasing and redevelopment.

I.M. Pei created an overall master plan and envisioned the large civic space outside a new city hall, but each building was designed by a separate architect. By 1961, eviction notices were put out and demolition began, displacing 20,000 residents. Within the plan, an 8.4 acre site labeled “Parcel 1” was set aside for the development of the State Service Center including the demolishing of more than one-

West End after demolition

20

21

Pr ojec t T ime l i n e Hurley Building Completed

February: Construction of the Hurley Building started I.M. Pei hired to design the overall master plan of

Lindemann Building Completed

March: Vappi & Co. entered the contract for the Mental Health Building

Hurley and Lindemann Building Open

Construction of the Lindemann Building started

Demolition of Scollay Square Begins bids were received

Wentworth research and charrette

Commission denied bids for the Welfare, Health and Education Building which resulted in the contract with Desmond and Lord to be terminated

Agreement papers were signed for proposals of the Boston Paul Rudolph appointed as coordinating architect.

1960

1962

1961

1966

WHITE

COLLINS HYNES Boston Mayors

Massachusetts Governors

22

FURLOCO

1970

1967

VOLPE

PEABODY

1971

2014 FLYNN

MENINO

VOLPE

WALSH

PATRICK CELLUCI, SWIFT, ROMNEY

23

Tr ans it

Cambridge at New Chardon

1/4 Mile Radius (5-10 Min. Walk

New Chardon Street

Merrimack at Staniford

Public Transportation 24

T Stations by Line Color and Bus Stops

Cambridge at Staniford

Current site plan overlayed with original Rudolph plan

The building is located at 19 Staniford Street, Boston, bounded

by Merrimac (North), Staniford (West), New Chardon (East), and Cambridge Streets (South).

25

Considerably different than its burlesque and residential past, the site is surrounded by large-scale government buildings for the city, state, and federal levels to the east along with the medical and research are the quaint brownstones of Beacon Hill. To the north is the bustling low-rise entertainment district of the Blackstone Triangle, home to the

Surrounding Context 26

found to the northwest.

Healthcare

Higher Education

Cultural 27

Zoning Requirements

Max. FAR

Max. Height

1. New Chardon Street Medium Density Area PDA 2. Pemberton Square Protection Area

8/10 8 6/7 8 8/10 4 8/10 4 3 7/4 Per PDA 6/7/8 8 8/10 11 4/5 6/7 4/7 5 5 Per IMP 3 2

125’/155’/400’ 125’ 80’/100’ 55’ 125’/155’ 65’ 125’/155’ 65’ As Noted 80’/55’ Per PDA 80’/100’ 80’/100’ 125’/155’ 400’ 65’ 80’/100’ 65’/100’ 125’ 125’/155’ Per IMP None None

3

65’

4. Saltonstall Protection Area 5. City Hall Medium Density Area 6. Sears Crescent Protection Area 7. Congress/State Street Medium Density Area 8. Markets Protection Area 9. Blackstone Block Protection Area 10. Central Artery Parcels 7/9

16. Cambridge Street North Side Protection Area 19. Charles Street Jail South Protection Area 20. Charles Street Jail North Medium Density Area 22. H-3 Area 23. L-2 Area 24. L-2-65 Area 25. H-2-65 Area

Zoning 28

29

Ethnicities

Gender Distribution

Ages

Other 1%

0-9 4%

Multiple 2%

10-19 4% 65+ 12%

Asian 7% Black 5% 55-64 9%

Male 50%

Female 50%

35-54 21% 20-34 50% White 85%

Š Boston Redevelopment Authority

Demographics

Household Type

Owner/Renter

Group 9% Owner Occupied 25% Family Household 33%

The area chosen for the demographic study includes the West End, Beacon Hill, the northern parts of the Financial District, and the

Renter Occupied 75% Non-Family Household 58%

site. The study area is home to 22,394 residents and the average household income is $70,119. The median rent is $1,622. Each neighborhood provides its own cultural groups: Beacon Hill is mostly white professional adults in their late thirties and older, the North End is similar but with a lower median income, and the West End is still home to many professionals, around 34 percent of whom are foreign-born.

Source: U.S. Census 2010

30

31

234’

172’ 115’

125’

172’ 400’

110’

Average Height 48’

172’ 400’

78’ 100’ 131’ 112’

185’

113’

87’ 92’ 146’

82’

350’

60’

62’

20’

70’

250’

145’

294’

508’

275’ Average Height 48’

600’

560’

of height when compared to its surrounding context. The tallest part of the complex is around 90 feet, while buildings surrounding it range between 150 feet and 400 feet. The height is much more contextually where the average height is approximately 48 feet. Newer buildings

Building Heights 32

are expected to be up to 500 feet tall.

400+ Feet

200–400 Feet

100–200 Feet

0–100 Feet 33

3

4 5 11

7 18

9

2

Approved

12

1

13

6

14

17

10

New Developments 34

5. The Merano 6. Parcel 9

8

16 15

2. The Forecaster Building 3. Nashua Street Residences

Approved

Under Construction

Recently Completed

Under Construction 8. Boston Public Market 9. One Canal 10. 20 Somerset Street Recently Completed 11. The Victor 12. Lunder Building 13. Yawkey Center 14. Museum of Medical History and Innovation 15. The Liberty Hotel 16. Charles River Plaza 17. Saltonstall Building Redevelopment 18. Archstone Avenir

Square Footage Use 2,400,000 Space, 82,000 SF Retail 100,000 81 Residential Units, 2 Commercial Units 636,000 503 Residential Units 1,870,000 444,000 230 Residential Units, 210 Hotel Rooms 135,000 551,000 300 Residential Units 29,460 438,000 156,000

92 Rental Market Stalls, 3 Anchor Tenants 320 Residential Units, 21,000 SF Retail including Supermarket Suffolk University Academic Building

377,000 530,000 640,000 132,000

284 Residential Units, 15,000 SF Retail

640,000 600,000

298 Hotel Rooms, Conference Facility, Restaurants 241 Residential Units, 30,000 SF Retail 35

The generating ideas of most traditional cities are pedestrian and vehicular circulation, streets, squares, terminuses, with their space Service Center is the opposite of Le Corbusier’s dictum “down with the street.” It started with three separate buildings, their separate buildings, as others had proposed, but one continuous

Architectural Analysis

utilized a multi-storied building (not yet built) to announce the development from a great distance. The scale of the lower buildings was heightened at the exterior perimeter (street) so that it read in toilet and stair cores at the corners were used). The scale at the plaza six-story-high building it reduces itself to only one story. Since the high-rise building is an integral part of the whole, it calls for a particular kind of high-rise building.

Davern, Jeanne M. “A Conversation with Paul Rudolph.” Architectural Record 170 (March 1982): 90-97.

37

Co m p lex Ov e r v i e w

Health, Welfare and Education Building (Unbuilt Tower) Thirty-three story proposed and approved tower Designed M.A.Dyer, Desmond and Lord With the construction and opening of the other two buildings the tower was underfunded by $22 million

Facts Design Team

[Coordinating and Plaza Architect] Paul Rudolph [Associate Architects] Lindemann: Desmond and Lord Tower: M.A. Dyer, Pederson & Tilney [Contractor] Vappi and Company [Electrical Engineers] Lindemann: McCarron & Hufnagle Associates Hurley: Thompson Engineering Company [Mechanical Engineers] Lindemann: Francis J. Linehan, Jr. & Associates Hurley: Buerkel & Company, Inc. [Structural Engineers] Hurley/Lindemann: Wm. J. LeMessurier Plaza: Souza & True [Space Planning] Becker & Becker Associates [Sanitary & Fire Protection] Robert W. Sullivan, Inc.

Hurley Employment Security Building The Hurley building was named after

Construction Information

Massachusetts from 1937 to 1939

[Commissioned By]

& Abbot Completed in 1970 Opened in 1971

[Construction] 1967-1971 [Material] Concrete [Square Footage]

Site Square Footage: 282,965 SF FAR: 1.95 [Construction Cost] $32 Million (1970); $186.6 Million (2012) [Cost Per Square Foot] Hurley: $52.40/sf (1970); $305.61/sf (2012) Lindemann: $84.76/sf (1970); $494.34/sf (2012) * 2012 Costs Estimated by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Program

[Original Program] House Department of Health, Welfare, & Education, Department of Employment, Department of Mental Health [Current Program] Hurley: Department of Unemployment Assistance,Workforce Development, Labor Relations, Revenue, Career Services, Commission on the Status of Women Lindemann: Department of Mental Health Population: Approximately 2,500 State Employees

Landscaping and Garage Designed by Paul Rudolph Structural Engineer: Souza & True

Eric Lindemann Mental Health Center Named after Eric Lindemann who was a Boston Psychiatrist and Professor at Harvard in the 1960s Designed by Desmond and Lord and Paul Rudolph Completed and opened in 1971

© Mark Pasnik

The Architects Pr oj ec t A r c hi te cts Paul Rudolph

Coordinating Architect

Desmond and Lord

Lindemann Building Architect

M.A. Dyer

Tower Architect

Pedersen & Tilney

Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbot Hurley Building Architect

Paul Rudolph was the coordinating architect for all three buildings of the he was let go from the position later.

Rudolph started his architectural education at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, where he would receive his bachelors degree. He then enrolled to the graduate program at Harvard University where he studied under into the architectural world, he designed many noted buildings, especially at Yale University. Impressed with his work, Yale offered him a job Rudolph accepted.

Rudolph’s many designs focused on aesthetics and visual satisfaction.

They were a fusion of industry and architecture. He would incorporate modern materials with structures, high-quality craftsmanship with mass production techniques. And although often seen using in-situ concrete with potential to create powerful, dynamic sculptural forms.

“On September 28, 1966 the who saw it through.” believed in the scheme and carried out central space.”

Desmond and Lord were the codesigners of the Eric Lindemann Mental Health Center along with Paul Rudolph. After Rudolph was released from the project, the Desmond and Lord team carried on their original on the Health, Welfare and Education building, although it was never realized.

designers of the Health, Welfare and Education Building had been declared bankrupt, accepted a proposal by the of the Mental health Center, to act as substitute supervisory architects for the Health, Welfare and Education Building. Contract for said services were entered into on October 5, 1966.”

M.A Dyer along with Desmond and Lord were the designers of the proposed Health, Welfare and Education Building that was approved, but never built.

to generation, including such luminaries In 1973, SBRA was awarded with the AIA Firm award for their historic works over Hugh Shepley was the last descendant

management.

Hurley Building with Paul Rudolph at the

Inset photograph of Paul Rudolph in front of his signature concrete pattern.

40

41

A. Hurley Frontage at Cambridge Street Plaza

B

© Nicholas Torres © Nicholas Torres

There is a tremendous amount of potential in these along Cambridge, New Chardon, Merrimack, and Staniford Streets. The site acts as a hinge point

Cambridge are level with the exterior streets, providing an opportunity for retail at these points.

F

C. Hurley Frontage on Staniford Street

D. Lindemann Frontage at Merrimack Street Plaza

The basement in Hurley is mostly below grade along Staniford until the loading docks.

© Nicholas Torres

E

will be the approximately twenty-eight-foot grade change along the Staniford and New Chardon Street elevations, with Cambridge at the high point and Merrimack at the low. Accessibility requirements and level changes will be necessary at these locations.

The plaza level in the Hurley building is slightly below ground on Cambridge, while the ground level of

© Nicholas Torres

A

Also of note is the former Capital Police Headquarters along New Chardon, which is under a ramp from with the lower plaza and provides opportunity for small retail or other functions, constrained somewhat by thick concrete walls along the street. The plaza at the corner of Merrimack and Staniford is currently occupied by a parking lot, but could offer an opportunity for activation due to its size and location opposite North Station.

42

B. Hurley Frontage at Corner of Staniford and Cambridge

© Nicholas Torres

C

D

© Nicholas Torres

The current street level is not pedestrian friendly, in part becuase the building is surrounded by multilane roads. While the average column bay has a human-scaled spacing at twenty-four feet (similar to the separation of the bay windows of Beacon Hill) the height to the overhangs are much larger than the nearby neighborhood’s typical street frontage, as much as sixty feet in some places. This height contrasts to the lower-scaled plaza with its stepping levels. Along the sidewalks, the scale is large and imposing, with little of the frontage activated by retail or seating. There is also disparity in the sidewalks.

New Chardon and Merrimack are relatively narrow while Cambridge and Staniford are wide.

St r eet - Lev el A cti v a ti o n

E. Lindemann Frontage on Merrimack Street

F. Capital Police Headquarters under Ramp on New Chardon Street

43

A

D

F E

© DCAMM

© Nicholas Torres

Because of the fencing, the plaza has acquired a feeling that it is abandoned, unsafe, and a generally unpleasant area compared to Rudolph’s original intentions. The presence of homeless and mentally impaired people that use the Lindemann facilities likewise give visitors pause. Opportunities for

© DCAMM

B. Staniford Street Stairs

to activate the plaza as a whole. Unlike the street frontage, where the slopes make the introduction of program more complex, the upper plaza is aligned Level 1 and Lindemann Plaza Level) allowing for good interaction and options for retail or other uses between the buildings and open space. A gap must be bridged in places (about six feet wide) while respecting the need to bring light and ventilation to the parking below.

C. Former Play Terrace

D. Merrimack Street Stairs

© Nicholas Torres

C

A. Hurley Frontage on the Upper Plaza

© DCAMM

B

© DCAMM

Designed to be the common meeting ground for the entire complex, the plaza could become an oasis within the busy streets. The landscaping in its present form does not create a successful urban setting.

It can be split into two parts: the upper plaza built with the original building and covering the parking garage, and the lower plaza which was built with the Brooke Courthouse. The lower plaza features a large green oval and seating. It is busy during lunch hours, but lacks activation at other times The upper plaza is rarely occupied north of the Hurley entrance, with little to draw people in. The intended pass-through is now blocked by temporary chain-link fencing used due to code issues with railing heights. Similar fences are used around the plaza edges. For more information on the accessibility and code concerns, see the next section of this document.

P laza- Lev el A c ti v a ti o n

The lack of attention to the landscape is another problem to be addressed. Many of the planters that with debris, trash, and dead plants. The openness of the upper parking level is on grade with the lower plaza, allowing for a direct interface between these to host a variety of events while serving as a common gathering place.

E. Lindemann Frontage on Upper Plaza

44

F. Lower Plaza Parking Area.

45

Ent r anc e s

Key pathways and pedestrian routes intersect the building, creating public cut-throughs that establish a relationship from the contained plaza to the more public street and sidewalks. Due to safety and security issues, several of the building entrances and cutthroughs have been blocked. The main entry to the Lindemann Building has been re-routed to the garage level, rather than the original plaza level, due to accessibility issues with the original entrance.

Current Entrances 46

Closed Entrances

Throughways from Street to Plaza 47

Egress Stair Towers 48

Monumental Stairs

Plaza Edges

Restroom Cores

©Paul Rudolph

Plaza Planter and Low Wall

© DCAMM

Plaza Low Wall and Drop to Mezzanine Level

Typical Monumental Stair and Handrail

© DCAMM

Accessible entrances are a major problem. The only publicly accessible entrance for Lindemann is located in the parking garage on the mezzanine level, compared to the original intended grand entrance from the plaza, which has steps. The path to the current entrance from the street is convoluted, not well marked, and unsafe. There are several groundlevel entrances, but they are reserved for staff and ambulances. The Hurley Building’s main entrance is well marked, but not particularly noticeable from either the plaza or Staniford Street. It has a ramp coming from each side of the building, up from Staniford and down from the plaza, without a coderequired landing.

Typical Emergency Egress Stair Condition

© DCAMM

Many of the railings along the plaza edges are no more than thirty-two inches high, well below the current regulations of forty-two inches. The handrails in the monumental stairs are integrated in the concrete surface. While architecturally interesting, these rails do not meet the code separation requirements of four inches. The stair cores of the Hurley building have pipe railings with non-compliant top guardrails and abrasive strips. The stairs have a non-compliant rise of 7.5 inches and treads of 10.5 inches with a width of 4 feet, 4 inches. There is no extension of the guardrail twelve inches past the stair edge. In Lindemann the treads are 11 inches with a lip of 3 inches, risers are 6.5 inches and the guardrail is concrete with the handrail embedded, similar to the monumental stairs. The monumental stairs typically have a rise of 5.25 inches and tread of 15 inches.

Typical Integrated Handrail Condition

© DCAMM

Designed before implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), much of the complex does not comply with modern accessibility requirements.

Many parts do not meet current building codes, especially the emergency egress and monumental stairs. As stated in the study done by DHK Architects, it is important to approach accessibility adaptations with respect to the original design intentions and materials, enhancing the building’s design without overwhelming it. The report documents major concerns for the plaza: fall protection (the drop can be as much as ten feet); perimeter security; and accessible entrances.

C ode and A c c essi b i l i ty

Seating and Low Walls.

49

© Mark Pasnik

© DHK Architects

P r ogr am

The buildings are currently owned and house programs operated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Apart from walk-in centers for unemployment and workforce development, access to the complex is restricted to state employees. The Workforce Development, Revenue, Career Services,

© Nicholas Torres

The typical interior wall is formed via modular demountable partitions with electrical and telephone/data embedded. These are about three inches wide. Ceilings are a non-standard ACT drop ceilings. Apart from the concrete cores and exterior

© Nicholas Torres

Insurance Commission. The Lindemann Building houses a mental health center containing in-patient and clinical facilities, a transitional housing center, and homeless shelter.

building setup of the time, somewhat lacking in

The Lindemann Building follows a different typology because of its use as a health facility. When not concrete, interior walls are plaster on metal wire mesh Hurley Building Sixth Floor Common Space

Typical Lindemann Building Corridor

© Nicholas Torres

Vin Cirigliano, Deputy Director of Facilities Management and Design at DCAMM and long time maintenance director of the complex has expressed that the main problem with the complex is its lack of people friendliness. The concrete color is not inviting, and both buildings are very hard to navigate.

Concerns about comfort are prevalent, according Cirigliano, because the obsolete climate control system and single-pane windows. As a result, many occupants deal with uncomfortable interiors.

View Down into the Former Lindemann Plaza Entrance

Typical Upper Level Floor Plan 50

© Nicholas Torres

an often disorienting layout.

Lindemann Building Common Space

Core Elements 51

© Paul Rudolph Foundation

© Peter Aaron/Esto

© Peter Aaron/Esto

C as e St ud i e s Rudolph Hall Renovation

Art and Architecture Building [Yale University]

[Architect] Paul Rudolph Department chair at the time [Year Built] 1963 [Year Renovated] 2007-2008

Central Critique Space

Exhibit Space

By 2007, the construction for the renovation and extension of the Art and Architecture Building at Yale was under way. An 85,800 square foot addition was created adjacent to the existing 122,150 square foot Rudolph Hall. The renovations of the building included details such as replacing windows, with insulated glass, cleaning of the exterior skin, and replacing patches of damaged or weathered hammered ribbed concrete. The opening of previously concealed spaces revealed additional natural lighting.

© Peter Aaron/Esto

Kaufman Architects [Renovation Contractor] Turner Construction [Renovation Cost] $126 million

Southeast facade of the original Rudolph Hall and the new expansion

The 2007-2008 renovation and addition earned the toilets, waterless urinals, a gray water capture and reuse system, natural daylight introduced though wood, use of low volatile organic compounds reduction of construction debris.

52

53

[UMass Dartmouth]

© Nicholas Torres

© Nicholas Torres

© DCAMM

Claire T. Carney Library [Architect] Paul Rudolph With Desmond & Lord [Year Built] 1971 [Year Renovated] 2011-2012 [Renovation Architect] DesignLAB Architects With Austin Architects [Renovation Contractors] Consigli [Renovation Cost] $40 million The renovation of the Claire T. Carney library offered an opportunity to give the library a “face lift,” to create an addition and upgrade the older system within the building. The new addition enabled the library to stay relevant well into the

Learning Commons

Fifth Floor Breakout Space

The renovation’s objective was to cater to various types of learning and studying techniques.

design is still clearly visible. The glass skin also brings ample light into the building while enclosing an underutilized and under-maintained exterior space. Throughout the renovation process, the building remained assessable.

Before and after renovation photographs of The Claire T. Carney Library at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

54

© DesignLAB Architects

A new facade was created, however it did not replace nor cover Paul Rudolph’s original design.

Because this new facade consisted of a series

The interior design of the building was updated as well. The addition of vibrant colors and suitable learning spaces of various learning strategies captured the interest of students, making the library the heart of the campus once again.

55

scale around the perimeter and a diminishing of scale at the courtyard. The perimeter at the street is large; the pedestrian and interior courtyard terraces are scaled down. The use detemines the scale as well as its place in the cityscape.

Appendix

Cook, John Wesley. Conversations with Architects : Philip Johnson, Kevin Roche, Paul Rudolph, Bertrand Goldberg, Morris Lapidus, Louis Kahn, Charles Moore, Robert Venturi & Denise Scott Brown. New York: Praeger, 1973

56

57

Neighb or hood S i te P l a n

58

Mezzani ne F l oor

59

Plaza Floo r

60

Second F l oor

61

Elev at ion s

Plaza Elevation

Staniford Street Elevation

62

Merrimack Street Elevation

63

A Vision of Human Space

Carl John Black, Architectural Record, July 1973

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Ac k nowledgm e n ts

Wentworth Institute of Technology President Russell Pinizzotto Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost Charles Hotchkiss Associate Provost and Dean College of Architecture, Design, and Construction Management

Carole Cornelison Commissioner Dana Harrell Deputy Commissioner of Real Estate Management Vin Cirigliano Deputy Director of Facilities Management & Design

Michael MacPhail Chair, Department of Architecture

Elizabeth Minnis Deputy Commissioner for Planning Design and Construction

Keeran Hariprasad Assistant to the Dean College of Architecture, Design, and Construction Management

Director of Programming

Harvard Graduate School of Design Eric Hรถweler Assistant Professor in Architecture Juan Yactayo,

72

Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance

Melvin Klayman Knowledge Center Manager Boston Public Library DHK Architects GSD Frances Loeb Library MIT Rotch Library over,under Taylor & Burns Architects Wentworth Alumni Library