Committee on Design

An interesting story and discussion in today's New York Times about a Brutalist style building that is deteroriating and ugly.  

From the New York Times
The Orange County government building in Goshen, N.Y., has a leaky roof, faulty ventilation and mold and, in the eyes of many, is just plain ugly. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. But it is a prime example of Brutalism, from the noted architect Paul Rudolph. Many want to preserve it, even though, like many examples of Brutalism, it has not aged well. Do even ugly, unpopular buildings deserve to be saved if they are significant? Or should a community, or owner, be allowed to eliminate architectural mistakes?  Read full article.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Parrish
Manager, Knowledge Communities
The American Institute of Architects
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing, it's certainly an interesting subject of debate.  The statement below, quoted in the article, I imagine would not be endorsed by the general public, particularly during a time of fiscal restraint and duress. Whether that's justification for abandoning this particular building remains TBD.  
It's a curious time, many contemporary architects are embracing a return to mid-century modernism wholeheartedly, while at the same time I hear many critics decry the building envelope deficiencies and the lack of attention to basic thermal efficiency principles of buildings done in the 50's, 60's and 70's.  And on the  other hand these same critics fondly adhere to the mantra that the greenest building you can do is the one  you don't build.  Finding a way to recycle this stuff responsibly without losing its essential character would seem to be the way to go, but also something much easier said than done.

"Preservation is not simply about saving the most beautiful things," said Mark Wigley.....

-------------------------------------------
Eugene Ely AIA, LEED AP
Sr Project Architect
San Jose, CA
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2012 15:01
From: Susan Parrish
Subject: Are some buildings too ugly to survive?

An interesting story and discussion in today's New York Times about a Brutalist style building that is deteroriating and ugly.  

From the New York Times
The Orange County government building in Goshen, N.Y., has a leaky roof, faulty ventilation and mold and, in the eyes of many, is just plain ugly. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. But it is a prime example of Brutalism, from the noted architect Paul Rudolph. Many want to preserve it, even though, like many examples of Brutalism, it has not aged well. Do even ugly, unpopular buildings deserve to be saved if they are significant? Or should a community, or owner, be allowed to eliminate architectural mistakes?  Read full article.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Parrish
Manager, Knowledge Communities
The American Institute of Architects
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------

The Rudolph building has, in all likelihood, been subjected to a lifetime of benign neglect and deferred maintenance, as well as insensitive alterations over the years. There are some very good Rudolph buildings. I haven't been in this one, but if it's true that, according to a posted article, it will cost twice as much to demolish and rebuild as to renovate, this is a no brainer. Versions of mid century modernism, now so urgently in vogue, will gradually evolve into something else as everyone struggles to be fashionable. The best of brutalism and postmodernism (I don't like these labels but they will have to do; and note the qualifier "best") are already being tentatively rediscovered- gold in the dustbin. T'was ever thus.

-------------------------------------------
Kenneth Moffett AIA
Bullock Smith & Partners
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2012 11:10
From: Eugene Ely
Subject: Are some buildings too ugly to survive?

Thanks for sharing, it's certainly an interesting subject of debate.  The statement below, quoted in the article, I imagine would not be endorsed by the general public, particularly during a time of fiscal restraint and duress. Whether that's justification for abandoning this particular building remains TBD.  
It's a curious time, many contemporary architects are embracing a return to mid-century modernism wholeheartedly, while at the same time I hear many critics decry the building envelope deficiencies and the lack of attention to basic thermal efficiency principles of buildings done in the 50's, 60's and 70's.  And on the  other hand these same critics fondly adhere to the mantra that the greenest building you can do is the one  you don't build.  Finding a way to recycle this stuff responsibly without losing its essential character would seem to be the way to go, but also something much easier said than done.

"Preservation is not simply about saving the most beautiful things," said Mark Wigley.....

-------------------------------------------
Eugene Ely AIA, LEED AP
Sr Project Architect
San Jose, CA
-------------------------------------------





-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2012 15:01
From: Susan Parrish
Subject: Are some buildings too ugly to survive?

An interesting story and discussion in today's New York Times about a Brutalist style building that is deteroriating and ugly.  

From the New York Times
The Orange County government building in Goshen, N.Y., has a leaky roof, faulty ventilation and mold and, in the eyes of many, is just plain ugly. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. But it is a prime example of Brutalism, from the noted architect Paul Rudolph. Many want to preserve it, even though, like many examples of Brutalism, it has not aged well. Do even ugly, unpopular buildings deserve to be saved if they are significant? Or should a community, or owner, be allowed to eliminate architectural mistakes?  Read full article.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Parrish
Manager, Knowledge Communities
The American Institute of Architects
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------

I commend Ms. Parrish for bringing this article to our attention.  I happen to like the building, and "Brutalist" modernism and in particular facilities extent designed by one of its premier practitioners, Paul Rudolph - should be preserved.

Is Frank Gehry's work any better, really?!?  Taste is subjective and usually circular in what is fashionable over time...we need to preserve cultural icons.  In the name of expediency several of FLW's major works such as the Larkin Building and Imperial Hotel were destroyed for the same extremely short-sighted, foolish reasons.

-------------------------------------------
Steven Gottesman AIA
Senior Architect
URS Corporation
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2012 11:10
From: Eugene Ely
Subject: Are some buildings too ugly to survive?

Thanks for sharing, it's certainly an interesting subject of debate.  The statement below, quoted in the article, I imagine would not be endorsed by the general public, particularly during a time of fiscal restraint and duress. Whether that's justification for abandoning this particular building remains TBD.  
It's a curious time, many contemporary architects are embracing a return to mid-century modernism wholeheartedly, while at the same time I hear many critics decry the building envelope deficiencies and the lack of attention to basic thermal efficiency principles of buildings done in the 50's, 60's and 70's.  And on the  other hand these same critics fondly adhere to the mantra that the greenest building you can do is the one  you don't build.  Finding a way to recycle this stuff responsibly without losing its essential character would seem to be the way to go, but also something much easier said than done.

"Preservation is not simply about saving the most beautiful things," said Mark Wigley.....

-------------------------------------------
Eugene Ely AIA, LEED AP
Sr Project Architect
San Jose, CA
-------------------------------------------





-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2012 15:01
From: Susan Parrish
Subject: Are some buildings too ugly to survive?

An interesting story and discussion in today's New York Times about a Brutalist style building that is deteroriating and ugly.  

From the New York Times
The Orange County government building in Goshen, N.Y., has a leaky roof, faulty ventilation and mold and, in the eyes of many, is just plain ugly. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. Officials shut it down last year and would like to demolish and replace it. But it is a prime example of Brutalism, from the noted architect Paul Rudolph. Many want to preserve it, even though, like many examples of Brutalism, it has not aged well. Do even ugly, unpopular buildings deserve to be saved if they are significant? Or should a community, or owner, be allowed to eliminate architectural mistakes?  Read full article.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Parrish
Manager, Knowledge Communities
The American Institute of Architects
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------