The Demolition of Orange County Government Center Controversy - Coursework Example

THE DEMOLITION OFORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CONTROVERSY TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………………….1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Overview of the Rudolph’s Design………………………………………………………………..3 Media Platforms Involved and How the Episode Is Told ………………………………………...4 The Importance of Brutalism Style of Architecture as Theoretical Topic in the Episode………...6 Participants in the demolition of Orange County Government Center Debate…………………...7 The Genealogy of the Orange County Government Center Controversy………………………..10 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….12 References......................................................................................................................................13 The Demolition OfOrange County Government Center Controversy Introduction Orange County Government Center is the headquarters of the county government. The building houses many government offices including legislative room and judiciary. Orange County Government Center was designed and built by Paul Rudolph in 1967. However, over the years the building has had many problems ranging from leakages to dilapidation. Therefore, the sustainability of Rudolph’s architectural design has widely been criticized (Contreras 2014). At the same time, some architects as well as local residents have praised the Brutalist style of architecture adopted by Paul Rudolph. On the other hand, most of the legislators are supporting the proposal to demolish the building and instead erect another new county government center. The cost of demolish and building the new center has led to controversy (Dectry 2015). The local residents and some media platforms such the Times Herald-Record have opposed legislators’ move, terming it as wasteful. The debate has attracted various stakeholders including the county legislators, executive officials, judiciary, the media, organizations such as World Monuments Fund, and the local residents. The following paper seeks to discuss the debate surrounding the restoration or demolition of Orange County Government Center. The paper will focus on the genealogy of the episode, the design of the building, and the controversy surrounding the building’s demolition or restoration. Overview of the Rudolph’s Design The design of The Orange County Government Center was entirely the work of Rudolph. Rudolph tried to reimagine the form and color of the Brutalist style since by the time he was constructing the building, he had departed from the imperative Brutalism Architecture that required the concrete to be raw and rough (Dodd 2009). Rudolph constructed the Orange County Government Center with concrete blocks. The intention was to ensure that the building was as expressive as possible. Therefore, he designed molds that gave every block a ribbed surface. Further, he altered the mix of gravel and sand in order to achieve a buff color. In places where the mixture was refined, he was pushing a soft material. One of the ambitious aspects of Rudolph’s design was to make concrete expressive. In order to diminish the sense of monumentality of the building, Rudolph floated some sections above the ground (Dodd 2009). However, he had in mind that the building was to house both juvenile and adult courts, where each was to be in its own building. The structure had also to contain the county offices in the third court. In the design, Rudolph ensured that the interiors of the building were remarkable by efficiently intersecting the surfaces with the planes (Connor 2012). Consequently, each room, including the solemn courtrooms appeared to bleed into the next. The design and the spaces emerge as if they were different sized-boxes, which are unevenly stacked on top and bent to each other. In some instances, Rudolph extended the ceiling from one room to another. Additionally, he hinted at the possibility in some sections. The result was the overall sense of lightness and movement in the otherwise concrete-walled and imposing spaces. Further, the atrium of the building was meant to provide an interaction place for the county government officials and the residents (Dectry 2015). The atrium was also for the Department Of Motor Vehicles, the passport office, and the record’s office. In addition, the design also included the balcony that was leading to the legislature, where the decision makers of the primary county government interacted with the county executives. The inclusion of the balcony in the design was instrumental in ensuring that as the county government leaders continued with their business, there were a group of people coming in and out and going on with their activities as well (Dodd 2009). In Goshen, as was the case in the architectural community, Rudolph’s building did not find many admirers (Dectry 2015). The Orange County Government Center building was never put in the historical register or in any tours. However, besides the architectural concerns, practical aspects of the building have taken the center stage of the debate. The mechanical systems of the Orange County Government Center are now out of date. Further, the roofs of the building are leaking. Over the years, the Orange County Government Center has not been regularly repaired but only quick fixes, which have made the building to be unfit for visitors and employees. After the Hurricane Irene, Edward Diana ordered the closure of the building and since then, it has remained shuttered (Wagnall 2012). Repeatedly, Edward has advocated for a new complex, which has brought continued debate over the years. Media Platforms Involved and How the Episode Is Told As indicated earlier, the debate on the controversial demolition of the Orange County Government Center has been going on for a while (Contreras 2014). Consequently, many media platforms have picked the debate on various ways. The episode has been carried on in documentaries by newspapers and journals. It must be pointed out that print media have mostly relied upon the court and county government assembly’s proceedings to prove their side of argument. One of the media platforms is the Times Herald-Record, whose work has been highly featured in the paper. According to the Times Herald-Record, the decision to alter the Orange County Government Center building by the county was challenged in court by local residents. The main objection was pegged on the importance of the architectural design of the building. The paper observes that the residents also argued that the plan by the county was wasteful and that there would be another cheaper plan for saving the Orange County Government Center. Further, The Architects' Journal is also one of the main print media platforms, which have extensively covered the episode. According to the journal, despite the praise given to the Brutalist style adopted by Rudolph in the construction of the Orange County Government Center, the county government decided to preserve part of the building (Dectry 2015). The Architects' Journal argues that the decision to demolish a portion of the building was reached after it was agreed that the cost of repairing would be too expensive despite the reported leaks and other architectural problems associated with the building. The journal observes that the Orange County also proposed to alter some sections of the building and pave way for the construction of a new government center (Dectry 2015). The Architects' Journal notes that the Paul Rudolph’s plan involved gutting Orange County Government Center, stripping much of its corrugated, distinctive glass, and concrete exterior. The journal also observes that the county also expects to demolish one of the three pavilions of the building, which will be replaced by soulless, big glass box (Dectry 2015). Importantly, it should be noted that the Orange County Government Center building was one of the Rudolph’s architectural works in America (Dectry 2015). The journal contends that historically, the center has suffered abuse, whereas the new fans have come to know Rudolph’s genius and the county’s plan as vandalism. In addition, social media has not as well been left behind. Organizations, such as the World Monuments Fund, have put attractive photos on the social media platforms to advocate for the preservation of the building. The Importance of Brutalism Style of Architecture as Theoretical Topic in the Episode The controversy surrounding Orange County Government Center has been marred by court cases and legislative debates (Contreras 2014). On the other hand, the media has taken upon itself to offer different criticism over the matter. Most of the media platforms such the Times Herald-Record have termed the demolition process of the Orange County Government Center as an indication of the attack to Brutalist style of architecture (Trey 2008). The opponents of the demolition steps argue that bringing down the building amounts to reckless demolition of nation’s heritage pegged upon the Rudolph’s Brutalist architecture. The editors of the Times Herald-Record newspaper observed that the urge of taking steps on the matter has surfaced many times but in most cases, there has not been the willingness of doing something (Contreras 2014). In all these times, the county officials have resisted to act, leading to the continued delay. Therefore, the current debate is not different from the previous debates. In April 2015, The Times Herald-Record pleaded with the legislators to support the selling of the building to the architect, Mr. Kaufman. The editorial team of the newspaper, which is the most relied source of information in the region, argued that the legislators owed it to the Orange County people if they did not listen to the Mr. Kaufman’s proposal (Dectry 2015). The newspaper observed that compared to the plan that the county legislators were hurrying to implement, Mr. Kaufman’s proposal was much cheaper. Clark Patterson, a design firm that had been given the valuation task of the demotion process estimated the cost to be around $3.9 million (Orange County 2015). However, the bids that were put forward a week later showed that the cost would double the estimated amount up to $7.7 million (Dectry 2015). Therefore, based on these figures, The Times Herald-Record requested the legislators to have the second thought over demolition issue of the building. Participants in the demolition of Orange County Government Center Debate Many stakeholders have are involved in the debate about the demolition of Orange County Government Center. However, the most vocal category is the lawmakers. As noted above, the controversy surrounding the demotion of the building has attracted various players. However, at the center of this debate are the lawmakers who have dragged the issue based on various interests. In the late 2014, the county government legislators brought a bill in the chambers requiring the selling of the disputed building to Gene Kaufman, a Manhattan architect, interested in preserving the center (Dectry 2015). The architect intended to turn the building into artists’ residence as well as an exhibition space. Further, he was also planning to build a new government center near the old building, which would cost fewer amounts compared to the cost of the plan advocated by the county government. According to the plan, the expected building would include all details and facilities needed by the legislators, including turning the center to county tax rolls. The step would however not be heard by many members of the county assembly (Orange County 2015). Additionally, it must be remembered that the building had been closed since 2011, after the Hurricane Irene that lead to the leakage. Consequently, the closing of the building has led to the deterioration of the building for years. In January 2015, Mr. Steven Neuhaus, who is an executive in the Orange County Government, vetoed the bill that was proposing the selling of the building to the Manhattan architect (Contreras 2014). Steven Neuhaus, who seemed hell-bent over the demolition proposal, argued that by selling the building to an individual, the county government would lack the jurisdiction over the control of the center’s matters. He observed that the government expansive plans and future projects would fail if the bill went through. On the other hand, legislators and other officials that were backing demolition were of the view that the government center’s debate had been dragged for too long (Contreras 2014). Therefore, entertaining another alternative would lead to more delays. According to The Times Herald-Record, the delay argument was a curious view since the legislators were responsible for the delay as well as having the power to expedite or consider the proposal by Mr. Kaufman. Finally, after hearing the debate from the residents and the lawyers representing the county legislators, Judge Christopher Cahill, the State Supreme Court judge in Goshen, ruled that no demolition would take place until he heard the views on a preliminary injunction. Therefore, he ordered that the two sides submit their documents before May 2015 (Dectry 2015). In its part, the county submitted that it did not intend to start demolition before July. Currently, the matter is still at trial stages and no decision has been made to allow demolition or restoration. Architects have not been left behind on the debate. The historical value of the building has made some architects support its preservation. The architects have pointed out the Rudolph’s stature and his application of imaginative space within the building as enough reasons to save the structure (Liu 2013). The legislative chamber was designed in such a way that the lawmaker could sit in rows while facing each other as is the case with the Britain’s House of Commons. Mr. Baum, one of the lawmakers viewed the design as remarkable since as a leader of a disempowered minority, it gave him opportunity to effect change by forcing his colleagues face arguments against their actions. According to Mr. Baum, the design of the chamber ensured that the space was maximized to bring comfort and avoid awkwardness during strong arguments. The design also fostered debates as well as reminding leaders of democratic ideals. Baum also argued that Rudolph’s design was meant to bring about transparency, accountability, and openness. Therefore, according to Baum, Rudolph’s architectural design make concrete certain values that go against many lawmakers’ wishes, leading to desperate hurry of demolishing the building. Despite Rudolph’s efforts in bringing Brutalist style to his level best, his intentions were not always appreciated. According to Mildred F. Schmertz, who wrote in the Architectural Record, Rudolph style looked random, improvised, and capricious. However, Mildred observed that just like many other Rudolph’s buildings, The Orange County Government Center building was superbly organized in a complex spatial order .Mildred compared the building better than the later architectural works of Le Corbuiser since The Orange C ounty Government Center revealed the understanding of the Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings that exceeded more “literal-minded disciples of Wright”. The effort of preserving The Orange County Government Center and the Chorley School in nearby Middletown, which has been slated for demolition, is highly supported as well by The Paul Rudolph Foundation. The opponents of the building’s demolition also term it as beautiful architectural work by Rudolph. Other institutions are also supporting the preservation of the building such as The New York State Historic Preservation Office, which has listed the building in the National Registers of Historic Places after it found the building eligible. Meanwhile, due to the historical value and economic importance of the building, online campaign has been started to save it from demolition. The Genealogy of the Orange County Government Center Controversy The Orange County Government Center is located on the Main Street in Goshen, New York (Liu 2006). The building houses the main offices of the Orange County government. Besides having many official offices and spaces of meetings for the county legislature, all the records of the orange county court, mortgages and deeds are filed at the Orange County Government Center. On the first floor, is the office of the department of the New York State Motor Vehicles. The building was designed by the dean of Yale School of Architecture, Paul Rudolph in 1963 and later built in 1967. The Orange County Government Center has now been put on the World Monuments Fund’s global watch list, together with Machu Picchu as well as the Great Wall of China (Liu 2013). The legislative and the executive branches are dived by the courtyard form county court. However, in early 2000, the Review Board on State Court Facilities deemed that the old court was unfit for use, leading to the extension on the northern side of the building. The extension was established after long delays and at considerable cost. As is noted, the architectural aspect of the building has been under criticism for many years. During the construction stage of the Orange County Government Center, critics named it a "monstrosity" (Porter et al. 2009). However, the pressure for the building’s demolition increased in 2010 when Edward Diana, a former county executive suggested that a poll be taken to pave way for action. During that year, Edward Diana proposed the replacement of the building, though the county legislators pointed economic difficulties (Smith 2009). The building has had a couple of problems including leaking after heavy storms in Goshen. The Orange County Government Center has become more expensive to heat and eighty-seven roofs of the building are leaking. The problem had however been mentioned by Edward early 2004, where the cost of demolishing the building was cited as the only prohibitive aspect. Over the years, debate over The Orange County Government Center demolition has grown extensively. The legislators are currently supporting the possibility of demolition of the building while the local residents are opposing the proposal citing it as wasteful compared to the repair. In early 2011, the Hurricane Irene damaged the building, leading to its closure (Epting 2014). In some rooms, such as the grand jury room, molds have grown, which raised concerns over its usage by those people with respiratory problems. After a week, the building was reopened but the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee further deluged the area, leading to its closure until further notice. The closure of the building necessitated Edward Diana to press the county legislators on making a decision on whether it was appropriate to renovate or restore the building. In late 2011, the World Monuments Fund included the Orange County Government Center in the biennial list of the global heritage sites that are at risk (Connor 2012). The organization cited its historic architectural value and the risk of demolition as the main reasons for its inclusion. Emergency plans under the Office of Court Administration would be organized to provide rooms for judges and other officials. The controversy would later reach the public domain and legislators did not have any alternative but to debate the issue in the chambers. Since then, debate over restoration and demolition of Orange County Government Center has been going on. Conclusion Despite the negative criticism of the Rudolph’s architectural style, the Orange County Government Center should not be demolished. The building plays an instrumental role as a classical style of architecture, spearheaded by the late Paul Rudolph. Further, the dilapidation and the leakages reported had been due to poor maintenance. Therefore, it is important that the building be preserved as an architectural monument since it has already been listed in the World Monuments Fund watch list due to its historic architectural value. References Contreras, K. M. (2014). Revisting brutalism: the past and future of an architectural movement. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Connor, E. P. (2012). Goshen revisited. Charleston, S.C., Arcadia Pub. Dectry, H. N. (2015). The Architects' journal. London, the Architectural Press Ltd. Dodd, R. H. (2009). Architectural styles: Orange County. Newport Beach, CA, Richard H. Dodd & Associate. Liu, T. T. (2006). Creating form from structure in the adaptive reuse and addition to Paul Rudolph's Orange County Government Center. Porter, T. M., Fyotek, C., Antequino, S. G., Meléndez, C. C., Kremer-Wright, G., & Knowles, B. (2009). Historic Orange County: the story of Orlando and Orange County. San Antonio, Tex, Historical Pub. Network. Epting, C. (2014). The New Deal in Orange County, California. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Orange County (N.Y.). (2015). Proceedings of the County Legislature, County of Orange, in regular session. Goshen, N.Y., County Legislature. Regry, N. (2013). The Design of Orange County Center. London, The Architectural Press Ltd. Smith, G. E. K. (2009). Source book of American architecture: 500 notable buildings from the 10th century to the present. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Trey, G. (2008). Orange County Center. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Wagnall, T. (2012). Revisiting the orange county center building. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Read More