>> Sean Khorsandi:
It's my great pleasure
to introduce my colleague
and fellow Paul Rudolph
Foundation Board member
Dan Weber.
Dan and I first met during
our undergraduate studies
at Cooper Union.
Two years his senior, we first
collaborated on a scaled model
of Renzo Piano's Kansai
International Airport.
It was a drainage detail.
Since then, we collaborated
on a series of projects
for the Paul Rudolph Foundation,
including fabricating models
for the World's Monument Fund.
Hosting tours making pilgrimages
to extant Rudolph Sites.
Even the abandoned juvenile
detention center in Bridgeport.
We've been writing
articles and assisting
in research requests as well.
And giving presentations
in various states.
Dan has worked on numerous
projects as a project architect
at Fransua d'aminial Architect,
at Anik Pearson architect
and is currently a
project architect
at the d'Queen of Monaco.
I'm very excited for him
to join me in sharing some
of our latest research
so if we can welcome Dan
Weber [applause].
But first a note
about why we do this.
While the power of Rudolph's
work is an intense draw,
we continue to find many
mysteries behind his projects.
Never having had Rudolph
taught to us as students,
this has been a self-study.
Over time we've noticed
several inconsistencies.
Take the lower Manhattan
Expressway project, for example.
Framed as a study for
the Ford Foundation,
it was never intended
for construction.
Yet these iconic drawings begin
to take on a life of their own.
Especially when presented
without proper background,
in the intent, they can be
viewed as representative
of the worst evils
of urban renewal.
And this became the story
that self-perpetuates.
I found this copy over
the summer at a bookshop
in the Boulevard [inaudible].
And the interior explanation
addresses the follies
of carving highways
through cities.
But making the project the
poster child for all errors
in architecture, it sets
an irreparable tone.
This may be part of
Rudolph's own demise
for having left his drawings
to the public domain.
But it's our job to make sure
these images are understood
and to become one
of our priorities
to excite new architects and new
researchers to understand more
about this with advanced
scholarship.
Within a week after
finding this book,
I found this at the AA Bookshop.
Any number of Corbusier projects
might have been more fitting,
yet Lomax seems to
strike a chord.
Corbusier does not
speak about Lomax in any
of this book [laughter].
Partly because he drowned along
the French Riviera two years
before Rudolph even
began the project.
Likewise, this LP by night
lands appropriate Lomax
for both the cover
and inside sleeve art,
yet there's no explanation.
While these instances
promote exposure,
they do not engage nor elevate
the discourse about Rudolph.
What he sought, what
he intended,
nor what he believed in.
However, the Rudolph Foundation
is working to change that.
There was a slide show that
debuted on Arch Daily on Tuesday
for Rudolph's 100 birthday
by two architects
who are here today.
And we've used some
of this content
to provide using a whole new
technology to provide a new look
at some of this work and we're
hoping to pursue that further
with our discussion today.
Dan.
>> Dan Webre: So, the title
of our talk today is
the new space concept.
Which his also the title of
the book we prepared for.
But before we get into exactly
what the new space concept is,
I wanted to give a quote,
which is I think my
favorite Rudolph quote,
"The universal space concept
is a denial of the richness
and complexity of life that
architecture must celebrate.
I want to accentuate
the differences
in our life, not nullify them."
So, for Rudolph, this idea
of space is really this central
theme of his architecture,
though he wrote throughout
his career.
His writings never really
tell you the whole story.
So, you have to piece
together from quotes
and interviews really
what he was getting at.
But one of the first essays
he wrote was in Perspecta 1,
which he'd identified the
three influences in his work.
One being the Harvard education
with Walter Gropius,
European travel.
Which he received a Will Right
fellowship traveled Europe 1948
to '49.
And experienced naval
construction.
He was in charge of boat
repair and construction
at the Brooklyn Naval
Yard during World War 2.
And it's really about
the Harvard education
that we want to focus on today.
And in this essay, Rudolph talks
about Gropius outlining what
the new space concept is.
Which is really not a Gropius
term but comes from the book
from Sigfried Gideon, "Space
Time and Architecture,
The Growth of a New Tradition,
which is based on a series
of lectures Gideon gave
at Harvard shortly before
Rudolph arrived there
and was published in his
first semester there.
And for Gideon to speak
that there's a definition
of the new space concept it is
the continuous interpenetration
of inner and outer space.
But in order to have
a new space concept,
there must be an
old space concept.
Which was once a
new space concept.
And that is the idea
of Renaissance one-point
perspective.
The idea of a single
viewpoint in measurable space.
But this, Gideon portrays
next to cubism, which attempts
to portray an object or an
image from multiple angles
within one painting or collage.
So you see other diagonals
and curves are fragments
of constructing this
object, which is a portrait
from multiple different
angels with one image.
He follows this by presenting
two artists among others,
but these were illustrated
where the represented object
is eliminated entirely.
So, the focus becomes on
pure interrelationships
and formal relationships
in painting and sculpture.
And in terms of architecture,
if we think about
the Renaissance idea
of one-point perspective,
one also thinks of the idea
of the architecture being
about clearly expressed
geometric volume.
So you can see the
concentric circles inscribed
within square in this plan.
But for Gideon, the new
space concept really begins
with Borromini, and he
describes the oval figure
of the church's interior
pressing
against the street facade,
which his then counter acted
on opposite sides to a concave
surfaces from the exterior.
So, the resulting
undulating surface is resulted
in a penetrating
inner and outer space.
Though there is no glazing.
This is all done with masonry.
And the concept of
space penetration came
out of Gideon study of bridge
engineer Robert Maillart.
These were images
included in Gideon's book,
and if we compared this to
say a solid masonry bridge,
in concrete he's able to
achieve a much lighter structure
where you can see
through the structure
and that's the inner
penetration of space.
And this is probably the most
famous spread in the book,
which is Picasso on the left
and Gropius on the right.
Which attempts to
establish a connection
between cubism and architecture.
So, Picasso shows profile and
frontal view of the portrait.
And similarly, he suggests that
because of this glazed corner,
one can see through the
building to see sides
of the building one normally
wouldn't in a solid structure.
Now, there's some issues
with this comparison,
Rudolph indicates this when
he talks about the book,
which we'll discuss later,
but it does establish
for him the idea of cubism
relating to architecture.
And for Rudolph, cubism, and
architecture he describes
as the invisible plane of cubism
which transforms visible images
as they project across space.
And he also talks about the
first time he understood space,
three dimensionally, when
he drew as an undergraduate
in Alabama Polytechnic
a shadow cast
from one object onto another.
So the image on the left you
see a volume of space created
by projection of a shadow.
Which is very close tied
to the idea of projecting?
And he uses these ideas
interchangeably in drawings.
So, on the left is
an early version
of the deep perspective
drawing that Tim mentioned.
Which is not new for Rudolph,
but also not typical
in the 1950s.
And it allows him to show
a great deal of information
about the interior of a space.
And his terms that, when
he's not talking about cubism
or the invisible plane,
he also uses the thrust
and counter thrust of space.
So, in these two
projects by La Corbusier
and Frank Lloyd Wright,
which were really central
to Rudolph's understanding
of the two architects,
he's showing how the two
essentially relate to each other
by interlocking thrusts within
and outside of the structure.
And it's not really an
idea comes from a reading
about Corbusier or Wright,
but Rudolph's understanding
about space.
But the simplest way to
conceptualize this idea
of a spatial thrust
is as a room.
So, on the left you
see, Botticelli is able
to convey an allegorical
relationship
between these two figures
in adjacent spaces in a view
that one normally
would never see.
And if one takes a
photograph of an interior.
But through perspective
projection,
can create this relationship.
And similarly on the right in
Orange County Government Center.
All of these are
individual volumes projecting
and receding indicate
either a separate room,
or space within a room.
And the idea being that all
of these different types
of space juxtaposed against
each other have particular
relationships which
he's trying to present
or express on the outside.
Another version of this idea
of projected space is
the Milam Residence,
which his very related to the
Shidon [assumed spelling] house
of La Corbusier in
its concrete screen.
And here you can see the
perspective section shows kind
of interlocking cubic volumes
which are then projected
onto the façade.
But the concrete screen has
its own nature which exists
in a tension with
anterior space.
And a variation of this
is at Colgate University
which the concrete screen has
an entirely different purpose
which is to be read from a
great distance across a valley.
This is on a hillside and the
interior space is projected
through that screen.
But this thrust of
space or volume
of space is not always
a rectilinear volume.
Here, this faceted prism
is extruded back and forth
across the site, different
dimensions, and scales,
and inside these
collide and carve
out very complex
interior spaces.
So, you can see the balcony on
the right shows the same module
at three different scales.
And here is the graphic arts
center in which we have each,
which is not the right, okay.
Actually this is the [inaudible]
tower which is from 1954
in which these are all different
apartments that are expressed
as single spatial volumes.
And before you know
we want to get
into three particular
projects in which we discuss
in detail more of these
ideas and how they play out.
>> Sean Khorsandi: So,
the Finney Guest Cottage is
probably the closest Rudolph
would come to a didactic
Harvard project.
Looking at this one drawing,
it's a guest cottage mind you.
Can everybody see the mouse?
You enter in through a carport,
you park and face a blank wall.
You carry forth through
a boardwalk that leads
to a bridge to a separate house.
So, although this
is the main event,
there's a house to
the guest cottage.
Almost a guest cottage sub.
Here, this is the
main house itself.
We see worked landscape that's
cut at strong geometric angles.
And a bar that's
continuing from one side
of the site to the other.
Presented to Walter
Gropius and Leonard Curie
for his 1947 Master's thesis,
the weekend house
project of Harvard.
Rudolph developed a
wood skeleton dressed
within fill panels and
vertical sliding and plate glass
for varying degrees
of enclosure.
Both actual and perceptual.
This may be traced to
lessons in prefabrication
that he experienced
with visiting Professor
Conrad Weitzman.
At first blush, it
features the elements
of the Bauhaus principles
that Rudolph would soon adapt
to the particular
landscape of Florida.
The five points, as
Rudolph understood them
for the Harvard box were clarity
of construction, simple volumes,
clear geometry, always
floating above the landscape,
everything reduced
to rectilinear shapes
and of course a flat roof.
The youngest in his
class at Harvard,
Rudolph would internalize
these points post-graduation
into a buildable proposal
for Roberta Finney's
parents while working
with Ralph Twitchell
in Sarasota.
Roberta Finney was part
of the office at the time,
so it was a local client.
Situation on a barrier
island and separated
from the Gulf Coast
by bayou, this post
and beam structure
seems to float entirely
above the composed landscape.
The bar of the house stretches
the full width of the site
with the fences and
paving defining,
but never quite enclosing
its limits.
This is quite similar to Mies
van der Rohe's Exhibition House,
which Rudolph would've
seen in that fall's museum
of modern art exhibition
Mies van der Rohe.
Here the central spine
orients the interior
and the views are limited
only by the placement
of freestanding walls.
Rudolph would use
this lesson again
to reinforce the omnipresent
grid, allowing diagonal views
at the points where
the planes diffused.
This technique would be
Rudolph's interpretation
of Mies' implied space.
But whereas Mies' wall plane
generate irregular spaces;
Rudolph's would come to
define rectilinear figures.
His wood skeleton of
Finney is a departure
from the typical
reading of articulation
of a wood frame structure
as a skin volume.
Whereas professors Gropius
and Breuer conceal their frame
in the Chamberlain
guest cottage,
Finney celebrates the autonomy
of structure and enclosure
by expressing the two
independently in an effort
to almost evoke steel
in a steel frame.
The single bar yields an
ambiguous reading of solid
and void depending
on the viewers vantage
point of the exterior.
Upon approach, the axial thrust
of the boardwalk is counteracted
by the lateral counter
thrust of the interior.
It's only broken by the
barrier at the parking court
as if it was placed there
solely to absorb the shock.
And that's this bar right here.
This masonry wall connects
the thrust of the automobile
to the rotated column grid
of the carport negotiating
the scale and form.
So if you notice,
these four dots,
they're almost in portrait.
But they're the same module
as the rotation of this module
within the bar itself.
So this is not only a change in
scale, but a change from machine
to man as you translate
through this point.
By this rotation, beyond
this rotation is the bar
of the house itself.
This chopped up element.
Here, the skin peels back at
the roof in multiple locations.
It starts to frame an
exterior room at the entry
and allows the chimney flue
to penetrate the roof
plane without obstruction.
At the chimney, the roof plane
slides toward the boardwalk
and a sliding roof plane reveals
the static skeleton underneath.
So, by further cutting
and offsetting the roof,
Rudolph implies that no
element is entirely subservient
to another.
Indicating the autonomy of parts
beyond their mere assembly.
When viewed sectionally, excuse
me, when viewed sectionally,
this exposes the tightly
spaced organization within.
Parallel bands start
to run laterally
across the site anchoring each
end of programed living spaces.
Separate pavilions for living
at one end, that are public,
and private and bedroom
at the other.
Bridge together by a spine
of kitchen and services.
This is, I'll put this
through, this is the part T
where you have a saddlebag.
There's the bedroom and
in the private zones.
This is the living room center.
This is one of the entrances,
this is the secondary entrance.
And this whole thrust continues
into this one blank wall.
An opaque wall at the service
bridge terminates the thrust
carving the exterior room.
Outside, framing the
northern edge of the inlet,
the barrier fence interrupts
the lateral thrust of the bar.
Underlining the boardwalk which
continues across the bayou
on its own, outside
of this picture,
this one line will
continue across in
that aerial view you saw, as
a bridge to a separate house.
In this way, Finney the
house itself begins to acts
as a filter or a gate house.
And this new expansion
begins to grow in section
where the fence allows the rise
of the boardwalk to continue
and rise its head with this
outward expansion of the roof
from the scale of
the individual,
now which is translated
from the car, to the scale
of the ocean beyond
the barrier island.
Translating again
through the house itself.
Due to his southern roots,
Rudolph immediately conceived
of the landscape as
something to be worked.
Almost a malleable entity.
His action upon sculpting
the landscape here is part
of the architecture
of the house itself.
Finney is lifted
but never removed.
The lifting demands
its own reply.
Ultimately, there is no single
element or method of operation
that dominates another.
Each relationship is a moment
to expand and elaborate
under its own independent
set of rules.
Here, Rudolph begins to assemble
that vocabulary of his language
which will carry
forth in projects
such as the Deering residence.
>> Dan Webre: So, before we
get to the Deering residence,
in between the Finney residence
and Deering, Rudolph spent '48
to '49 as I mentioned
traveling Europe,
in which he prepared the ink
drawings that were presented
of Finney, and he
also did a drawing
for Revere Development
Corporation.
This housing group which
was also sent to the editors
of Architectural forum in which
he said tired of cathedrals
and even le Corbusier.
I'm sending you this
housing project.
So, you can see it's
similar to this Mies project
and it's probably the closest
he would ever come to something
of Mies, but you
can notice already
that Rudolph is much more
interested in carving out spaces
in between the houses
of irregular shapes.
Carving out of the roof plane.
But, the early '50s was marked
predominantly the most exciting,
interesting projects Rudolph
did were small guest houses.
In which he used some
technologies he learned
from the Navy, but also
experimented with various ways
to enclose and open space.
So, the Walker Guest House
has a series of solid panels
that can either fully
close or fully open space,
which grew out of Finney.
And on the right the Healy
Guest House, mostly famous
for its catenary roof, which
is wrapped in fiberglass,
but also for the use of blinds
which can adjust the
quality of interior space.
But this idea of working mostly
in small houses presented
certain limitations
to his ideas about space.
And Hugh Stebbins visited
one of these early houses
and his response was there
are no surprises inside.
And Rudolph we saw in the
quote in the beginning,
very interested in juxtaposing
different types of space.
So, looking for opportunities
to explore that.
But his first large scale
project, the Jewett Art Center
at Wellesley shows it was mostly
important for its relationship
to the campus and detail which
is neogothic architecture
and uses this structural
bay to connect everything.
So, form that sense
he was pleased
with how the project turned out.
But as an interior
he was not pleased.
He called this a disaster.
He doesn't say exactly why,
but there are a few
reasons, one can guess.
But really the idea of
space penetration there.
We have the passage
under the bridge
which connects a visual
arts wing, but a music wing.
But inside there's little
interconnection beyond what you
see on the exterior.
But what Rudolph describes
as his first mature project is
a Sarasota High School addition,
1958 to 1960.
And he calls this the first
time that structure used
to sever spatial idea,
not the other way around.
So, form a distance these
concrete screens appear
to be a solid volume
projecting above the building
with a recessed lower story.
But as you approach
this begins to dissolve.
And he calls this the
dissolution of space.
Now just before this project
is the Deering Residence
which despite having a
very kind of abstract
and severe presentation of piers
and bearing walls does show this
idea of framing different types
of space and showing that
they interact together.
And like Finney, a single
block of space facing the ocean
in which there's a
central thrust at one end
which connects the
street to the ocean.
And inside he organized the
space into roughly three zones.
The lower left, you can see
a kitchen and dining area.
You know kind of Miesian plan.
And in front of that is a double
height front screened porch.
And to the right is a series of
floating platforms which connect
from the porch up to a
bedroom wing upstairs.
Which is then connected to the
exterior by a floating bridge.
And the idea of the round
plan came up earlier
and I think this is kind
of a close approximation
of what Rudolph's interpretation
of a round plan would be.
Which if it doesn't
come from Lose,
it might have come indirectly
from Schindler or something.
But it really, I think
there is a connection there.
And of course the idea of a
round plan is not using plants,
or sections or elevations
to conceive of space
but studying the
three-dimensional volumes
of separate rooms
and adjacencies
and views between them.
And here's a view from
inside this screen porched.
Which is sort of a part,
inside part outside.
But is not conditioned space.
And these are the stairs on
the right you can see coming
up to the living platform.
And from the other view,
these two sliding planes frame
a staircase to the exterior
and follow on the left to a
reading zone and another set
of stairs to a bridge which
connects the bedrooms.
And here's a view
from the bridge
where you see the varying
vantages of intersection
of these two different types of
space which Rudolph really wants
to show how they interact.
Especially on the outside where
this bridge and stair project
through this concrete
set of concrete piers.
He frames the garage underneath
cantilever reading room.
And the idea here, I want
to convey is I think
there's also a connection
with Greek revival
architecture, which he studied
with Walter Brookheart
a professor
at Alabama Polytechnic,
who was working
with Historical American
Building Survey to document
on historical architecture
of Alabama.
Now we don't know if Rudolph
ever saw this particular
plantation in Louisiana, but I
think it has a lot of qualities
that you can see
in Rudolph's work,
which especially this
thin balcony sandwiched
between the kind of
massive square pillars
and this secondary
volume inside of the,
which is actually the
interior of the building.
Another, I don't know that
Rudolph ever made a connection,
I don't think he did or anyone
else between these two projects.
Le Corbusier's Villa
Stein-de-Monzje outside
of Paris, but the two do
share a bit in common.
There are kind of two-story,
well there's more stories
in Corbusier's project,
but a sandwich
of horizontal floor plates
on the right and a terrace
on the left which has
varying floor levels
that convey some juxtaposition
of shallow and deep space.
And this relationship
becomes a little clearer
when you look at the plan.
Now le Corbusier has a
garage under the kitchen,
which is to your left, but
Rudolph moves his to be
under the reading room
so that it interlocks
with the projecting
reading room.
And also moves the entrance
and le Corbusier's bridge,
all into one moment
of spatial drama.
And I think the relationship
becomes a little clearer
upstairs where somehow one
can image this oval pavilion
transforming itself into the
balcony in Rudolph's project.
Now, this is not a copy
paste but a total reimaging
of something Rudolph
internalized.
And here you can see the
in section le Corbusier
on the right shows
on the terrace view,
one never really gets a
view through the building.
We think of Gropius'
idea of cubism in space.
It's transparency,
and le Corbusier never
presents the view through.
But Rudolph organizes his space
so that there's this interesting
scene between the front thrust
from the ocean and the trust
from the car on the left.
And getting back also
to Gideon's comparison
with Picasso, le
Corbusier's idea
of spatial organization is
closely tied to his paintings
which grew out of cubism,
in which depth is conveyed
by the relative placement
planes.
And similarly he organizes
the façade that way
so that one can never really see
into or through the building.
And depth is conveyed by these
elements at different distance
from the primary façade.
But you can still see a
clear indication of a route
up the terrace and into the
house, though inside none
of these planes relate directly
to the organization
of space inside.
But Rudolph's frame,
though initially might seem
as I said kind of an
austere simple house.
It really, he makes an
effort to with express all
of these internal
relationships on the outside
and project them through.
And I think especially
on the left you see
at dusk you can see
the silhouette
of the service corps inside.
And it's really, it's almost as
if he's presenting a CAT scan
or an x-ray of, le Corbusier's
organization of space.
And from the rear
façade, he doesn't show
from a distance the
clear route inside.
One only simply arrives there.
And on the right, you can see
the secondary internal façade.
So, there's this interesting
idea of never knowing quite
when one is outside or
inside, but one simply appears
in Rudolph language
of volumes in planes.
>> Sean Khorsandi: So,
for a quick review.
At Finney the bar is defining
the cage from which elements
and external forces subtract.
At Dearing we have a box where
thrusts become materialized.
At Christian Science the bar is
the least legible of all three.
And this is where Rudolph's
voice becomes clearest.
And outlier and is
of its organization is the most
obscure of all his projects.
Though Rudolph's Yale art
and architecture building
from 1963 is an obvious
precedent and material and form.
The cubic spatiality here is
of a far different nature.
Directly following
the completion
of ANA the student center shares
with it several similarities.
Both are academic buildings.
Both are cited on
prominent urban corners.
Both are organized as towers,
framing a large central space.
And both make a point
of relating
to the neighboring structures
and their surrounding while
simultaneously closing
themselves off in
[inaudible] like forms.
In some ways the ANA could
have served as a macaque
for Christian Science,
which was organized itself
like an after-the-fact
distillation
of those same spatial concepts.
Rudolph's design
foil in New Haven
for the ANA was Lou Kahn's,
Yale University Art Gallery
and Design Center from 1953
which informs much
of the design.
The volume of the gallery
defines an external room
between these two buildings.
So, we're looking on the left
from the loading dock in fact.
But there is a tension of
space between the façade
of Kahn's building and
Rudolph's building.
And you see the same
on the far slide.
The volume of the
gallery defines this room
and it's held intention .
Shown in context, Rudolph
answers his own question
of the lines of Kahn's
building leading,
leading, leading to what?
This volume leaves
a visible imprint
of the invisible room created
at the gateway to the campus.
It establishes a central
thrust of the atrium
and delineates Rudolph's
floor levels.
Back at Christian Science,
Rudolph is relating
in general terms to its
context in scale and in profile.
Mediating between the
pitched roof houses
that you can see just out
of view in this image.
As well as an expansive
gym and armory
that are across the street.
To complement these disparate
scales, Rudolph begins
to abstract the entire exterior
from conventional
scale giving elements.
All the windows you
see have no mullions.
The doors are recessed,
as are in full frame,
steps are nonexistent.
So just as with the
Milavage [assumed spelling],
Rudolph's reducing form to
pure interrelationships.
This project was initially
granted as a commission
to Frank Lloyd Wright.
Frank Lloyd Wright passed before
he was able to begin work on it.
So, Wright was clearly
on Rudolph's mind.
We saw the [inaudible]
kitchen table at Finney,
we saw the entry
cantilever at Dearing.
But we think it's Rudolph's
textile block houses
from the '20s that come
with increasing role
in Rudolph's work,
especially at Christian Science
that inform his design
and detailing.
Their cubic agglomeration
of space appears
on the end walls
expressing ceiling joists.
Christian Science was
intended to be a fluted block.
So it was going to be of
a similar scaled unit.
And even that was the case once
the foundations were poured.
They were changed
at a late date.
They were supposed
to look something
like Crawford Manor
in New Haven.
The similar smokestack
like building
on Oak Street connector.
These blocks were actually from
a company called Plastic Crete
in the Hamden New Haven border.
And because we got here early,
Marry had pulled some
materials for us.
And we even saw the
correspondence
between Plastic Crete in
the archive and Rudolph.
And it just became too expensive
to fabricate the blocks
in Connecticut ad have
them shipped to Illinois.
So, it was literally once
the foundations were poured
that they went to
pouted in place concrete.
Plastic Crete offered to
send the molds to Illinois,
but it just didn't work.
These were conceived
in various footprints
to express the verticality
of the building
and repeated vertical cords.
Perhaps it was a
simple one size finish,
needed to counterbalance
the complex program
that Rudolph was
asked to complete.
He had a set of defined uses
while simultaneously creating a
flexible latitude of
space on the interior.
This is was prime
[inaudible] for his critique
of Mies' universal space.
His early scheme
organized the program
across seven interior
floor levels
in what was essentially
a three-story building.
As with the ANA, shifting
floor levels were used
to define 10 distinct
zones of use,
8 of which were ultimate public.
As the scheme would evolve, 4
rough quadrants would emerge,
each one punctuated by a
service and lantern tower,
which would reorient
the assembly and pin it
in place relieving
the vertical thrust
of confluence coming together.
This series of diagrams are
prepared by Clara Pugsley
of the Rudolph Foundation.
They were not chronological
sequence but they're here
to exhibit certain actions upon
the central block of the space.
Forces from the exterior
are exerting pressure in.
Forces from above
are compressing
down upon the entrances.
Forces from inside
are pushing out
and expanding the
assembly space.
As these vertical forces are
pinning down four service towers
and light wells, the
volume becomes sculpted.
This is similar to how
Gideon describes Borromini.
In its later resolved form,
the plan suggests a pinwheel.
A rotation inferred by the three
walls framing the reception area
right here on the lower level.
The last lantern tower
appearing in the corner
of the assembly hall,
it's hard to see in plan,
but it's this double
height space open
to below, creates the fourth.
The downward thrust on the
lounge and washroom block
in the upper, displaces the
tower laterally toward the
pinwheel reception hall serving
as the centripetal
center of the building.
The lanterns themselves
are further subject
to manipulation via opposing
vertical thrusts staging a
piston like movement
throughout the building.
In contrast to Latourette
which has its come
as you are appearance.
This is what the concrete looks
like when you remove
the form work.
Christian Science
is as deviation
from the machine aesthetic.
Rudolph is now embracing the
physicality of the concrete,
a machine cast stone which
somehow becomes humanized
through the action of the
hand driven three-pound Bush
hammering process.
Within its abstractor
just steel environment,
the aggressive physicality of
the volumes recall a moment
of Brock and Picasso
when they started
to begin incorporating sand
and corrugated cardboard
into their paintings.
Engaging a sensory memory
and constructing the totality
of the architectural organism.
As with the ANA, it continues
inside and out, and is eased
by the presence of greenery
and vines you see some hanging,
this is an upper
view on the right.
This now creates a new layering
of elements and materials
which collapse upon one
another in space much
like the collage on the left.
The vines come from
the drying process;
another hatching
technique made physical now
in three dimensions.
When seen in color, this tower
with its color blocking
is a clear derivative
of the just steel
precedent of Mondrian.
Now, on the right in
Rudolph's own verse,
these primary colors give
way to earthbound variance
of Wrights Cherokee red.
Rudolph introduces brick
dust, orange, and magenta.
These new extensions of the
Mondrian -like pattern carry
through in its surface
articulation, where it begins
to accentuate the
piston ceilings
with the pinwheel window
towers and even the underside
of the ceiling joists where
the colors become implemented
for their own physical
properties.
At Christian Science, color
is used for optical properties
to exaggerate three-dimensional
forms.
In place of shadow,
Rudolph uses magenta
as a cooler color
underneath the beams much
like the pulsing
colors of Albers.
As a total work of architecture,
these colors permeate
the built work
from the expandable
assembly hall shown here
in its minimum state.
I just want to draw
your attention
to these vines on the floor.
This is where there's
traps of sliding panels.
You'll see one well
this is a door.
They all recess back
here as well.
With its moveable
panels delineated
with scripture retracted
up here on the left.
You see them pulled apart in the
first floor, but they're closed
at the mezzanine above.
But also shutting off
and creating privacy.
All onto the balcony.
And here you see, they couldn't
decide what they were doing.
So with a retractable
floor to boot.
So on the upstairs section we
had panels that slid enclosed.
But in section the
floor actually split
and slid towards
the assembly space.
So, the whole building
could shift and expand
into one large diaphragm
action creating a second tier
of balcony seating.
And there's unfortunately no
view published that we're aware
of showing that space.
So, this is the meeting
space on the left
where the floors
would terrace out
and this would all
become activity space
and additional seating
for below.
So, this allows the space on
a holiday occasion to expand
to a large room, while still
creating the domestic feel noted
on the left.
This balance of openness and
closure permeates the building.
As with the bridge upstairs it's
now allowing the space to unfold
into a series of receding trays,
creating an itinerant
telescoping deep space.
Much like the living reading
zone we saw at Dearing.
These manipulations of course
do not just recall just steal
painting in form, but also
in architectural function.
Allowing Rudolph to
simultaneously address the need
for a flexible yet
specific space.
The mezzanine may be
read as a fragment
of Wrights own Unity Temple.
This is when you enter in and
you're just peering through,
under the balcony to
see the assembly space.
There's a new terracing of
space reflecting upon itself,
on what is an otherwise
stoic exterior.
Which suggest volumes, but
never gives anything away.
By contrast, you hear on the
primary façade from the street,
the far left you have a garden
wall followed by a chimney
and the big swath to the
right is the assembly space.
It's all treated
in the same fashion
and it's not giving away
any clues to what's beyond.
Despite its many specific
spaces few would ever be read
from the exterior detailing.
It's building that needs to
be understood via uncovering,
discovering, unfolding,
and studying
to be fully appreciated.
Of course, this is
only if you can enter.
And yes, even the
entry was noncommittal.
True appreciation is only
possible once the visitor makes
the effort to become engaged.
This is just like Rudolph's
early Florida works,
which required the user to
manipulate jalousie louvers,
substantiate and panels
in his buildings throughout
the course of the day.
That needed to be unfolded,
embraced, and acted upon.
Each task, echoing the
architectural moves.
Such features demand
the user interface
and the building machine begins
to disguise itself within.
It's post construction latent
energy of the movable panels
and floor offer a kinetic
energy to activate the building
in the new fourth dimension.
Hiding its potential,
this is the one version
of the plan with a 350 seats.
This is the earlier scheme.
As an arena for 350
faithful members on holidays,
the three-dimensional complexity
of this building
cannot be accounted
for by simply studying
the plans and sections.
Rudolph, much like
Borromini, uses his façades
to enclose a molded surface
something Gideon would describe
as continuous chains
of interrelations.
Through this study, more is
revealed about Rudolph than any
of his individual influences.
Be that of his teacher,
Walter Gropius
for the master's le
Corbusier, Wright or Mies.
To Rudolph the spatial concepts
are essentially interchangeable
with one another.
This lack of preference suggests
that all were worthy the
influences waiting for him
to re-appropriate their
respective lessons
into his own language.
While as Gideon demonstrated,
these artists
and architects all spring
from the same source.
By the time of the Christian
Science Student Center
at Urbana-Champaign this
thread begins to disappear
and something wholly new
emerges as Rudolph finally comes
into his own definition
of the new space concept.
So this preparation is
a little sample of some
of the work we're doing to date.
We chose these three
projects in particular
because they carry the threat
of Rudolph's DNA in terms
of space making, but
they're also to educate.
Many people may not know
Finney, it was never built.
And it never can be built
because Rudolph built another
house on that site later.
Dearing is a private house,
so it's hard to get in.
And Christian Science was
unfortunately demolished
in 1986.
So, as we continue to
unlock some of the secrets
of Paul Rudolph, we've remained
active in the digitizing efforts
and agrees with everyone
who's spoken before us
that making more of these
holdings available will
hopefully excite new research
and carry the story further.
So we're happy to
take any questions.
Chris?
And you'll let us know
your contact, hopefully.
Just to give a quick
shout out, Chris Wilson is
with the Sarasota
Architectural Foundation
and they're doing their
own program on Rudolph
for Sarasota Mod weekend,
week, I apologize.
So, please look them up.
>> Dan Webre: Well,
it's funny when we came
down to research the project,
we found in the slides
for Dearing there was a slide
with your name on it [laughter].
>> Sean Khorsandi: Anyone else?
Well, thank you.