Paul Rudolph’s Claire T. Carney Library at UMass Dartmouth, Western facade during renovation
When I read Robert Campbell’s recent article in The Boston Globe on designLAB’s sensitive renovation of a significant Paul Rudolph building at UMass Dartmouth, I was intrigued to learn more. The word that got me going was “Brutalism”. For some time now we’ve been covering this experimental, some call it aggressive or even willful and arrogant, form making. Our story on the ongoing struggles to keep Bertrand Goldberg’s iconic Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Chicago dates to 2009, our more recent blog on the last minute reprieve of Rudolph’s Orange County Government Center brightened my day even as I mourned the loss other important works from that optimistic period in our culture’s history. And so we welcomed Brunner/Cott & Associates’ ongoing blog series on the trials and tribulations of saving and adapting Brutalist buildings.
Eastern facade during renovation
It’s no surprise, then, that the Boston architecture firm, designLAB Architects’ success at the library at UMass Dartmouth re-awakened my evergreen curiosity about Rudolph, Brutalism, preservation, adaptation, research, and progress. So I went to the source and asked designLAB’s Robert J. Miklos, FAIA, to talk frankly about these and other issues swirling around one of the most controversial movements in architecture history. Here is what he said:
Susan S. Szenasy: Now that your renovation work on Paul Rudolph’s Claire T. Carney Library at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth is nearing completion, it would be great to hear some of your reflections on the project. I believe that you and your firm, designLAB, consider Rudolph an architecture hero. That relationship can be intimidating to some architects. Did you struggle with Rudolph’s spirit? Or did his spirit seem to be at ease with your re-interpretation of his iconic building?
Robert J. Miklos: Truthfully, we don’t see him as a hero. His work is heroic, perhaps, but I am a product of 1970’s GSD and was conditioned to reject the work of Rudolph. At designLAB, our ‘courtship’ of the hero was a long process of research and analysis before we were able to find any true ‘affection’ for his work.
Rudolph with the library site model
It started with a talented young designer on the team who studied his early work at the University of Florida. There, Rudolph truly is a hero, if not a cult figure. I traveled to Florida to tour all his work in Sarasota–it was inspiring. His career is filled with contradictions: rationalism vs. expressionism, structural determinism vs. a personal obsession for hexagonal form. While we were continually trying to understand the original intentions and spirit of this project, we always recognized it as one of many experiments filled with successes and flaws. A radical approach to the interpretation and transformation was necessary, yet we believe our approach is rooted in the spirit of Rudolph.
It’s also important to note that at designLAB, we are invested in expanding the language of a specific context, whether natural or constructed. In this project, the existing building was that context, which we termed ‘Post-Utopian’. Our methodology is similar to what we have used in other contexts, determining when to push back, when to be deferential. Throughout our design process we immersed ourselves in Rudolph’s ideas and process developing a dialog between existing and new where the interventions might amplify the power of his original ideas and compositional themes. We also were not afraid to correct inconsistencies in his approach.
Library’s eastern facade during renovation
A fundamental piece of Architecture 3.0 is to give everyone access to better design. Period. Better design can take the form of housing, civic structures, parks, sports centers, restored habitats or community developments.
Many organizations are developing open source options that increase access to such places.
The precedent of transparency, peer review, and collaboration built into the open source software can be influential in disrupting architecture from its status quo mentality in building design and construction. The results could be strengthened neighborhoods and enhanced quality of life.
Case in point: the recent 1/10th winner of the TED City 2.0 Prize 2012, WikiHouse.
WikiHouse is an open-source set of construction documents that “allows anyone to design, download, and ‘print’ CNC-milled wooden houses and components, which can be assembled with no formal skill or training.” One of its instigators, the designer Alastair Parvin from design collective 00:/, sees the future of design and construction of housing as a process “done not just by teams of professionals, but by open communities of user-makers, designing and making for themselves.” Open source plus digital fabrication equals a building economy that cab deliver (1) choice in design, (2) great design, and (3) customizable design. Sounds promising? It is. This is a revolutionary way of producing architecture. And Wikihouse is more than deserving of the TED Prize.
Living in a big city can be hard. If you live in New York, you have probably quoted the famous song, “If I make it there, I can make it anywhere.” But Portland-based developer Gerding Edlen recognizes the need for giving a softer side to the city.
They develop buildings that, from my perspective, promise to be soft on communities, soft on the environment, and soft on residents.
Gerding Edlen has spoken with Metropolis before, but now they are considering bringing rental development to the east coast, potentially to New York City. I spoke with Mark Edlen, CEO, about their development plans and how those plans fit into cities like ours, “the city that never sleeps.”
“We’ve seen a movement to the cities. Cities are the solution to our global population growth,” said Edlen. His firm recognizes that people see city living as a way to help solve global problems. They also see how it’s becoming more popular to live a mobile and sustainable urban lifestyle.
