Boston Government Service Center, 19 and 25 Staniford Street, Boston

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS MA-1356. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The Boston Government Service Center is comprised of the Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings, located at 19 and 25 Staniford St, Boston, MA respectively, and connected by a parking garage and central plaza. The complex is positioned between the east side of Staniford Street, the south side of Merrimac Street, the west side of New Chardon Street, and the north side of Cambridge Street. The is located at latitude: longitude: The coordinate was taken at the main entrance of the Lindemann Building and was obtained on June 14, using Google Earth There is no restriction on its release to the public.

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS MA-1356. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The Lindemann Building is occupied by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and is used as a mental health center with in-patient and out-patient clinical facilities, a transitional housing center, and a homeless shelter. The Hurley Building houses the offices of various state social services agencies, including the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, the Department of Labor Standards, and the Department of Unemployment Assistance.

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS MA-1356. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The Boston Government Service Center is a Brutalist concrete, low-rise complex made of two buildings designed in unison and joined by a large central plaza. It was commissioned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) in to consolidate expanding state welfare facilities that were spread throughout the city. The complex was intended to address systemic inequalities in the welfare system, and it became an early example of the nation s deinstitutionalized, community-based approach to mental healthcare.1 The project was conceived as a component of the sixty-acre redevelopment for Boston Government Center, designed by I.M.

Pei & Associates in which resulted in the demolition of a dense, mixed-use area that was home to nearly 500 working class families and their businesses, known as Scollay Square.2 In an effort to promote 1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Space Requirements Report: Office Facilities in the City of Boston, in Massachusetts State Archive, Government Center Commission, Project Files TC4.02/series (hereafter MSA/GCCPF). 2 For more on the design of Boston s Government Center and demolition of Scollay Square, see Boston Redevelopment Authority, Preliminary Staging Plan: Government Center Project, Mass. in Boston Public Library, BRA/1258. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 2) architectural diversity commensurate with the site s past and the adjacent historic buildings, the BRA originally stipulated that the be comprised of three buildings designed by separate architects.3 The Hurley Building for Employment and Social Security was designed by Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott (SBRA); an unbuilt twenty-three-story tower intended to house offices for Health, Education, and Welfare was designed by M. A. Dyer with Pedersen and Tilney Company; and the Lindemann Mental Health Building was designed Desmond and Lord, who hired the well-known modernist architect and educator, Paul Rudolph, as a design consultant to attract attention to the firm and the project.

After proposing a plan that would help unify the three separate structures, the BRA made Rudolph the coordinating architect of the with the authority to supervise the exterior design of the entire complex.4 The majority of the project a remarkable feat of cooperation between architects and city planners would be completed according to Rudolph s design. However, financial problems plagued its construction. At the start of the project s development, it was lauded as one of the most progressive public programs in the country, facilitating an economic use of equipment, facilities, and staff time.

5 But as the price tag increased from an estimated $34 million in to over $50 million in those involved started looking for places to cut costs, and Rudolph s design came under attack.6 Specific programmatic elements, such as the swimming pool and gymnasium used in the therapy for residents of the Lindemann Building, were condemned as lavish, and politicians accused Rudolph of a reckless desire for novelty. 7 Construction of the concluded in but criticism meant that the tower the sculptural centerpiece of the design, which was essential to architectural logic behind the terraced buildings surrounding the plaza was never built.8 Nevertheless, the complex is an urban landmark, and it continues to operate as part of Boston s welfare apparatus.

It also represents a turning point in the design of institutional architecture, as well as the treatment of mental illness in Massachusetts, even in its unfinished state. The complex s expressive design progressed the ephemeral, ahistorical modernism of contemporary government buildings toward something 3 Timothy M. Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph (New Haven: Yale University Press, 4 Ibid., 5 Ada Louise Huxtable, Boston is Going Radical in Building Design: State Center Project Striking Departure in Urban Planning, The New York Times, 7 November 25. 6 Board Asks $7 Million More: Government Center Price Tag Goes Up, The Boston Herald, 6 January 7 Peter Lucas, Buczko Blasts Swim Pool, Gym at Govt.

Center Buildings, Herald Traveler, February 5, William S Workman, Legislator Attacks Mental Health Center, The Boston Globe, March 22, 8 William Grindereng to Government Service Commission, M. A. Dyer Company, Desmond and Lord, Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbot, and Pedersen and Tilney, 29 August in Library of Congress, Paul Marvin Rudolph Collection (hereafter (F size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 3) monumental and imbued with allusions to history.

Indeed, Rudolph intended the massive processional staircases to reference the great staircases of Baroque Rome, and he said that the scale and shape of his design for the buildings were designed as a response to Boston s historic streets.9 Perhaps most importantly, unlike the rectilinear and strictly standardized mental health facilities of old, the s dynamic interplay of protrusions and voids were designed to appear clearly legible and accommodating a gesture intended to activate subjective psychological responses and recognize the diverse needs of those it serves.10 However, it is these idiosyncrasies that have led many Bostonians to hold the in contempt.

Before it was completed, concerns were raised regarding the safety of the Lindemann Building s sculptural stairways, internal bridges, and open terraces.11 Shortly after it opened, visitors began to comment on their inability to navigate through the labyrinth hallways, and the incomplete state of the complex has made many of Rudolph s original design intentions illegible.12 To many, it appears as an unfinished monument to an outdated approach to social services, and the struggle to adapt the buildings to current accessibility codes and changing office needs has led to recent proposals for partial demolition. As Rudolph s involvement in the design of Hurley Building was limited, this building is most at risk of being lost.

A report for the Commonwealth s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance called for its partial removal in order to eliminate the current superblock and sell the land for the construction of a more pedestrian friendly development.13 Even amid calls for its preservation among architecture enthusiasts, the future of the like many of Rudolph s large public buildings and housing complexes, remains uncertain.14

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS MA-1356. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Carter Jackson, Boston University, Heritage Documentation Program, HABS Summer Intern 9 Another Major Project for Boston, Progressive Architecture, February Paul Rudolph and Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph (New York: Praeger, 10 Government Center News Release, 6 November 2 5, in (F size), folder 8. For more on Rudolph s thoughts on psychology and architectural form, see Carl John Black, A Vision of Human Space, Architectural Record 154 (July For a thorough analysis of subjectivity at the see Daniel M. Abramson, Representing the American Welfare State, Grey Room 78 11 Gerald L.

Klerman to Milton Greenblatt, Safety at Lindemann Center, 25 September in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series 12 Black, A Vision of Human Space, 13 Boston Government Services Center: Lindemann-Hurley Preservation Report (Boston, MA: Bruner and Cott and Associates, 14 Since numerous Rudolph buildings have been demolished or partially destroyed, including the Burroughs Wellcome headquarters in North Carolina, the Shoreline Apartments in Buffalo, NY, and the Orange County Government Center in Goshen, NY. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 4) PART I. HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Physical History: 1. Date of erection: Hurley Building was built from Lindemann Building was built from 2.

Architects: Architect of Hurley Building: Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott (SBRA) 16 Though the is best known as a product of Paul Rudolph, other distinguished architects with extensive experience designing large-scale complexes were also involved in the project. SBRA, now known as Shepley Bulfinch, is one of the oldest continuously operating architecture firms in America. It began in the with Henry Hobson Richardson s winning design competition for Trinity Church in Boston, which helped launched his short career. Upon his death in Richardson s apprentices, George Foster Shepley, Charles Hercules Rutan, and Charles Allerton Coolidge, became his successors.

They expanded the firm with commissions from some of the period s most wealthy industrialists, often in the Romanesque Revival style, including the campus of Stanford University and Boston s first skyscraper, the Ames Building After Rutan s death in the firm continued as Coolidge and Shattuck and then as Coolidge, Shepley, Bulfinch, and Abbott (CSBA). The firm made a name for themselves as specialists in the design of hospital complexes and educational buildings.

They designed facilities for the medical schools at Harvard and Vanderbilt University, as well as the massive New York Hospital-Cornell Medical School complex which accommodated patients as well as dormitories and recreation facilities for students and staff, making it the largest single commission in the firm s history.17 Following a brief downturn during the depression, CSBA experienced a revival after WWII, as investments in science, technology, and infrastructure brought more large-scale commissions, including Boston s Logan Airport This project was led by Joseph Richardson, grandson of the H. H. Richardson, and it earned him the promotion that 15 Planning of the began in with clearing of the site beginning shortly thereafter.

However, numerous design changes meant that construction of the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings did not start until February and March of respectively. For more, see Edward H. Roemer to Donald R. Dwight, 19 May in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Auditor s Criticism Re: Health, Welfare, and Education Service Center; and Simon W. Danforth to Donald J. Madden, Hurley Employment Security Building, in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder DES-General, Contract 16 The Government Center Commission entered contracts with all of its architects for the on December 29, For more, see Excerpts from Government Center Yearly Reports, 30 November in (F size), folder 14. 17 Julia Heskel, Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott: Past to Present (Boston: Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott, 57.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 5) made the firm Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott in By most of the firm s partners were either on the verge of retirement or in poor health, and Richardson assumed leadership through the In the family-run firm was incorporated. It retains a strong reputation for the design of hospitals and educational facilities to this day.

Coordinating architect of the entire and primary architect of Lindemann Building: Paul Rudolph in conjunction with Desmond and Lord19 The Boston-based architecture firm, Desmond and Lord, was founded by George Desmond and Israel Lord in They were known for designing various commercial and institutional buildings in the Boston area, including the New Parker House Hotel and the Suffolk County Courthouse When the firm was contracted to design the Mental Health Building at the in its chairman, Richard R. Thissen, hired Paul Rudolph as their consulting architect to help boost their notoriety.21 After impressing the Boston Redevelopment Authority with his design, Rudolph was made the supervising architect of the entire complex in The bulk of the project is the result of his influence.

Paul Rudolph rose from a humble beginning to become one of the most significant architects, and architectural educators, of post-World War II America. He was born in Elkton, Kentucky in the son of a Methodist minister and amateur artist.23 His formative years were spent in Depression-era Alabama, where the values of discipline, commitment, and restraint were instilled in him by his father, and his artistic impulses were encouraged by his mother.24 Rudolph showed an interest in architecture from an early age, often noting the regional differences in the buildings around him as his family relocated for his father s job.25 In he enrolled in Athens College in Athens, Alabama, but transferred to the Alabama Polytechnical Institute (API) after one year to study architecture.

The API architecture program fostered his interest in design by teaching him the basics of draftsmanship and instruction in the Beaux-Arts tradition, including how to render compelling design drawings.26 During this time Rudolph was also exposed to the work of Frank Lloyd Wright at the Rosenbaum House in Florence, Alabama. He would later call Wright the greatest American architect and said his work was formative to own interest in an expressive, regionally inflected approach to 18 Ibid., 81. 19 Herbert Muschamp, Paul Rudolph Is Dead at 78; Modernist Architect of the New York Times, August 9, 20 Desmond, G. Henri (George Henri), Social Networks and Archival Context, accessed July 21, 21 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 22 Memorandum Report, 1st Draft, 16 November p.

3, in (F size), folder 10. 23 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 8. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Moholy-Nagy, Schwab, and Rudolph, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 10. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 6) International Modernism.27 Having excelled as a student at API, he continued his education at the Harvard Graduate School of Design where he became part of the second generation of American modernists, including Philip Johnson and I.M.

Pei, to study under Walter Gropius.28 At Harvard, Rudolph was exposed to the doctrine of Bauhaus functionalism an approach to design that assumed the most pragmatic solution was the most economical, and therefore the most beautiful.29 Gropius s concern for the connections between society, architecture, and technology resonated with Rudolph, but he found his interest in machine-produced buildings and preoccupation with functionalism as the prime or only determinant of form to be wanting.30 He would later describe Gropius s methodology as a base on which one could build, not merely a formula, as so many others have. 31 In Rudolph left Harvard to join the Navy, and he was assigned to work in shipbuilding.

When discussing what he learned from the experience, he said that he especially appreciated the understanding that comes from seeing how workers were organized, and the importance of respective every man s role. I discovered red tape and learnt how to circumvent it. 32 His stint as a serviceman made him more familiar with new methods of engineering and helped him develop the skills necessary to oversee large construction projects.33 Rudolph returned to Harvard to finish his degree in and from he toured Europe as a Wheelwright scholar.34 Like many Americans of his generation traveling in postwar Europe, Rudolph was able to overlook the wartime devastation and appreciate the beauty of his surroundings.

He once recalled, With notable exceptions, I was impressed much more by the great architecture of the past than by the contemporary efforts. 35 He was drawn to the ways historic buildings related to each other and their natural environment, and he began to realize, unlike many of his modernist predecessors, that the techniques by which Baroque and Renaissance spaces were composed to delight and comfort people could be of use to contemporary architects.36 Over the next decade Rudolph explored these ideas on a small scale as an architect in Sarasota, Florida, where he became known for his regionally adapted houses. The tropical, and often harsh, climate allowed him to explore new technologies, like counterbalanced shutters and ventilated masonry walls, that he felt 27 Paul Rudolph.

Excerpts from a Conversation. Perspecta 22 102 7. 28 John Morris Dixon and Eugenia Bell, Paul Rudolph Inspiration and Process in Architecture (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 6. 29 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 14. 30 Paul Rudolph. Six Determinants of Architectural Form. Architectural Record 120 (October 183 90. 31 Paul Rudolph. Paul Rudolph. Perspecta 1 18 25. 32 Moholy-Nagy, Schwab, and Rudolph, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 9. 33 De Roberto Alba and Robert Bruegmann, Paul Rudolph: The Late Work (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 13. 34 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 18. 35 Paul Rudolph. Perspecta 1 18 22. 36 Paul Rudolph. To Enrich Our Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education 13, no. 1 9 12.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 7) would facilitate a more peaceable relationship between man and nature.37 During this time he also began to experiment with what he called the form sense a term he used to describe the three dimensional, geometric forms that had been used by architects throughout history until the advent of modernism, such as the vault or arch.38 In he was given the opportunity to apply these ideas to his largest and most important commission yet, the United States Embassy in Amman, Jordan. His design was based on a series of free-standing barrel vaults, made of local materials, positioned over stone piers that shaded the building, referencing the ancient architecture nearby.

It was also a massive masonry structure, reviving the heavy monumentality of earlier public buildings, marking a significant departure from ephemeral glass and steel architecture of most institutional buildings at the time. Political unrest in the late caused the project to be cancelled, but Rudolph would develop his concern for historical context and traditional building forms elsewhere. In he was asked to design the Jewett Arts Center at Wellesley College in the Boston suburb of Wellesley, Massachusetts.39 This was his first commission for an academic building, which would become a mainstay of his practice.

Perhaps most significantly for his development as an architect, the Jewett project challenged Rudolph with the need to produce a design sympathetic with the Collegiate Gothic style of the existing campus. He wrestled with ways to make the building s structure both functional and decorative, ultimately covering its facade with lace-like aluminum screens to help control sun glare, while also referencing the window tracery of the adjacent Gothic buildings. The project helped establish Rudolph s presence in New England, and it caught the attention of nearby architecture schools. In he was appointed chairman of the Yale Department of Architecture, where he worked for seven years and settled into the prime of his career. The university s president, Whitney A.

Griswold, granted Rudolph considerable latitude in the development of the department s curriculum, and he responded by inviting a steady stream of high-profile visitors, such as Mies van der Rohe, Jane Jacobs, and James Sterling, to help transform Yale into one of the most innovative and exciting places to study architecture in the country.40 However, his most notable contribution to the university s architecture department was his design for the Yale Art and Architecture Building It was made from massive expanses of corrugated concrete, with provocative projections and recessions that compelled students to ponder new approaches to monumentality and decoration.

The project received substantial attention in the press and became a reference point for Brutalist buildings throughout the remainder of the decade. Indeed, it became his magnum opus. 37 Moholy-Nagy, Schwab, and Rudolph, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, p. 10. 38 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 25. 39 Ibid., 45. 40 Timothy M. Rohan and Paul Rudolph, Reassessing Rudolph (New Haven: Yale School of Architecture, 8.; Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 56. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 8) Rudolph s output during the was substantial.

In addition to his work as coordinating architect of the Boston Government Service Center he designed the campus for the Southeastern Massachusetts Technical Institute the Charles A.

Dana Creative Arts Center at Colgate University and tested new approaches to mass-produced housing with his mobile-home-like units in Oriental Masonic Gardens in New Haven A edition of Progressive Architecture recognized his influence, lauding him as one of the architectural masters of the twentieth century, along Louis Kahn, Eero Saarinen, and Philip Johnson, but toward the end of the decade his fortunes changed.41 After leaving his post at Yale in his masterpiece, the university s Art and Architecture Building, burned in allegedly at the hand of students who were frustrated by its complex layout and harsh character.42 It was repaired, but the event cast a shadow over Rudolph s influence and earlier successes.

Perhaps more importantly, his status as an architect of monumental buildings fell out of fashion as the expansive government programs of the and the grand buildings associated with them, began to be viewed with resentment amid changing politics and a nationwide recession in the For the remainder of his career, Rudolph refused to bend to the ideals underpinning postmodernism, unlike many of his peers. Instead, he stuck to his expressive and heavily abstracted architectural vocabulary.

Not finding much interest in his approach, Rudolph s attention turned to designing distinctive residential buildings in the late and He also was responsible for three notable skyscrapers in Southeast Asia, which have only recently been called early examples of high tech architecture, but the press paid little attention.43 The lack of interest in his work in the final decades of his life is due in part to Rudolph s own dislike of self-promotion and his decision to withdraw from architecture circles following the fire at Yale.44 Having removed himself from his position as an educator and avoiding major design competitions, he no longer had the platform from which to explain the ideas that governed his designs.

His oeuvre became misunderstood and unappreciated, and in the and many of his buildings fell into disrepair. Amid pressing concerns for the preservation of Rudolph s work, and the demolition of some of his most important buildings, including the Burroughs Wellcome Headquarters (demolished in an interest in his architecture has reemerged. 3. Original and subsequent occupants, uses: Hurley Building: Until recently, this building has accommodated the state s employment services. It was originally designed to house the Massachusetts Division of Employment Security (DES) and the four branches of its employment support offices, which were divided according to the type of occupation that citizens sought.

These included the 41 The Opposites: Expressionism and Formalism at Yale, Progressive Architecture, February 42 Rohan and Rudolph, Reassessing Rudolph, 9. 43 Alba and Bruegmann, Paul Rudolph: The Late Work, 14. 44 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 9) support offices for people interested in clerical and sales occupations, professional and managerial occupations, industrial occupations, as well as service occupations and the Hurley Building had separate spaces for each.45 The building also housed the DES administrative offices, including its finance, training, research, and statistics departments.

Most recently, its primary occupant was the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, including the Re-Employment Center, the Department of Unemployment Assistance, MassHire, and the Department of Labor Standards. Underneath the plaza abutting the building was a capital police office, which also was part of the original design for the building. In the state began seeking private-sector proposals to redevelop the site, and these agencies gradually vacated.46 Today the building is nearly empty. Lindemann Building: This building has always been a state-run mental health facility for the Boston community.

It was originally designed to accommodate a broad spectrum of users, including separate in-patient and out-patient facilities for adults and children, a nursery, child guidance clinic, research laboratories, a basketball court, swimming pool, outdoor playground, multi-faith chapel, a school for young patients, and physical therapy rooms.47 Today, most of these facilities remain. It currently operates as a Joint Commission Accredited Hospital under the direction of the Department of Psychiatry at Tufts-New England Medical Center.48 The building also serves as a homeless shelter and houses facilities for forensic evaluations for the Massachusetts judicial system.49 4.

Builders, contractors, suppliers: Hurley Building: Architect: Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott Builder: Vappi and Company Structural engineer: Souza and True Mechanical and electrical engineer: Buerkal and Company Inc. Planning engineer: Becker and Becker Associates Lindemann Building: Architect: Desmond and Lord with Paul Rudolph and Associates Builder: Vappi and Company Structural engineer: Souza and True 45 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 11, in (F size), folder 8. 46 Jon Chesto, The State Wants to Redo the Hurley Building. But How?, The Boston Globe, January 9, 47 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 12, in (F size), folder 8.

48 For more, see Appendix B in Bruner and Cott, Boston Government Services Center. 49 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 10) Mechanical and electrical engineer: Greenleaf Associates Planning engineer: Becker and Becker Associates 5. Original plans and construction: When the design for the was revealed in it was celebrated nationally as a cutting-edge component of Boston s Government Center and a striking departure in urban planning. 50 It was originally intended to be three separate buildings designed by three different architects, but early in the design process it became clear that these buildings were relating poorly to each other.

Eventually, Paul Rudolph was made responsible for the overall design of the complex s exterior. He fashioned it into three monumental and integrated structures within a boomerang-shaped envelope abutting existing streets and positioned a plaza and administrative tower at the center.51 Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott designed the Hurley Building, M. A. Dyer with Pedersen and Tilney Company designed the Health, Welfare, and Education Tower, and in addition to his role as supervising architect, Rudolph designed the Lindemann Building. The plaza was intended to be an inviting public space leading to the social services offices on the first floor of the adjacent buildings, with higher floors holding administrative offices.

The was made entirely of corrugated concrete, all of which remains. Early renderings, such as Figure 1, capture its scale and unified character, while making it look like a lively point of exchange between the state and its citizens. As it was built, the low structures the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings look almost identical to these early designs. However, the administrative tower was never constructed, which substantially truncated the dynamic character that Rudolph envisioned. 6. Alterations and additions: The most substantial alterations to the complex and its site have primarily emerged from the decision not to complete the Health, Welfare, and Education (HWE) Tower.

For nearly thirty years, this created a semicircular gap in the central plaza and its parking garage, while also leaving an undeveloped expanse of space on the eastern side of the site (Figure 2). In the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse was built on square feet of this open land, facing the intersection of Merrimac Street and New Chardon Street (Figure The and the courthouse are related in scale, but the white stone and postmodern style of the courthouse clash with Rudolph s expressive corrugated concrete. To help soften the area between them, the gap in the central plaza, which had previously been used as a parking lot, was made into a circular green space with trees, grass, and benches (Figure 4).

Also at this time, four staircases and an elevator were added to connect the lower levels of the parking garage and the plaza 50 Huxtable, Boston Is Going Radical in Building Design, C 25. 51 Jeanne M Davern, Conversations with Paul Rudolph, Architectural Record, March 94. 52 The Edward W. Brooke Courthouse has eighteen courtrooms and includes underground parking for 100 cars. For more, see Bruner and Cott, Boston Government Services Center, Appendix B. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 11) above.53 These elements were clad in a concrete finish that attempted mimic the complex s original corduroy concrete, but the aggregate is a noticeably lighter color.

Other alterations include the asphalt parking lot that was paved over the Merrimac Street plaza an area originally designed to be a public gathering place and entrance to the complex (Figure 5). Now, the Paul Rudolph-designed pattern in the pavement is obscured, and a chain link fence surrounds the plaza. Also, many of the original entrances that were devised to funnel people into the complex have been closed off with concrete bollards or fences for safety and security reasons. The most notable example is the closure of the stairway leading from Merrimac Street, under the main portico of the Lindemann Building, up to the central plaza, making this an often-desolate environment largely void of people. The main plaza level entrance to the Lindemann Building has been closed as well.

Moreover, to help prevent people from falling into the moat, or lightwell, that skirts the Hurley Building, a brown metal barrier with a simple motif echoing the lines of the corrugated concrete has been added to the backs of benches and planters that surround this area. Inside, the two buildings are largely unchanged. Much of the open office space in the Hurley Building has been filled with demountable office partitions, as its designers intended.54 In the pool in the Lindemann Building closed.55 B.

Historical Context: In March of the architect Joseph Richardson, of the firm Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbot, wrote a candid letter to Paul Rudolph regarding the decision to publish the near decade-long story of their joint work designing the Boston Government Service Center Richardson s letter is full of telling contradictions.56 He opens by asserting that the publication would amount to nothing less than a recounting of the first, and still unique, example of true collaboration, as opposed to mere cooperation, between several architectural firms all working on one concept. 57 But by the end, his claim of the project s status as an organizational feat turns into an airing of grievances about the fits and starts that defined its development.

He concludes by saying, After ten years of suffering I look forward to a top- notch presentation and not a half-baked story. 58 Indeed, Richardson s mixed feelings are understandable. The was intended to be an ambitious architectural solution to the disorder that beset the Massachusetts welfare system in the mid twentieth century, and by the time Richardson wrote his letter, the project had weathered the revisions brought by changing 53 Ibid. 54 For more on the Hurley Building design intent, see Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 9, in (F size), folder 8. 55 Bruner and Cott, Boston Government Services Center, Appendix B.

56 In his letter, Richardson indicates that Architectural Record will likely be the one to publish the story of the It is possible that he is referring to the feature that was published in Architectural Record in July of See Black, A Vision of Human Space, 57 Joseph P. Richardson to Paul Rudolph, 11 March in Library of Congress, Paul Marvin Rudolph Collection (F size), folder 1. 58 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 12) architects, programmatic modifications, and budget cuts. Moreover, he realized that after all of their work, it was likely going to be left unfinished.

A close look at the architecture of the will reveal the fissures and tensions within the welfare state that it was intended to respond to a design process that Richardson called a saga worth telling. 59 Boston s Urban Renewal and Government Center The was constructed as part of Boston s Government Center, a sixty-acre urban renewal project conceived during the term of Mayor John Hynes, who was elected in Hynes won the mayoralty largely on the promise that he would help resolve Boston s stagnant economy and declining population.

He felt that a monumental government district would be the ideal catalyst to physically and psychologically rejuvenate the city, and he was able to harness the federal initiatives introduced by the Housing Act of to give his ideas traction.60 The objective of this legislation was the realization of the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family amid the postwar housing shortage and concerns about poor urban living conditions.61 It gave local public authorities the power of eminent domain to enact slum clearance, sell land to a private developer below market price, and produce new taxable housing as a means to revitalize cities.62 Many well-known housing projects, such as New York s Manhattantown, Pittsburgh s Lower Hill District, and Baltimore s Charles Center an extensive mixed development including a theater, plazas, parks, and offices, with contributions from noted architects including Mies van der Rohe benefited from this legislation.63 The area chosen for Boston s government district was the dense and dilapidated entertainment neighborhood, known as Scollay Square.

For years it had been frequented by sailors and university students who flocked to its burlesque theaters, tattoo parlors, and bars. But by the the city s declining fishing industry, combined with the population drain resulting from tax policies that favored homebuying in the suburbs, quickened the pace of its deterioration and brought it to a level of dilapidation that met the federal requirements of a slum. The architecture firm Adams, Howard and Greeley (AHG) drafted proposals that would clear the area in order to build facilities for city, state, and federal government thereby consolidating the various agencies whose buildings were overfilled and spread throughout the city.

Unfortunately for Mayor Hynes, enthusiasm for the project was stifled by distrust toward government and memories of earlier botched urban renewal efforts. Years of severe tax policies toward the city s wealthy under his predecessor, Mayor James Michael Curley, coupled with mismanaged attempts at urban renewal, made constituents wary and limited support during his term.64 One of the most egregious of these redevelopment blunders took place in a bustling, 59 Ibid. 60 David Kruh, Always Something Doing: Boston's Infamous Scollay Square (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 61 42 U.S.C. see also S. REP. No. 84, Cong., 1st Sess. 62 Lawrence W.

Kennedy, Planning the City upon a Hill: Boston since (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 63 John Dorsey, A Guide to Baltimore Architecture (Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 50. 64 Lizabeth Cohen, Saving America's Cities: Ed Logue and the Struggle to Renew Urban America in the Suburban Age (New York: Picador, BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 13) forty-acre area in Boston s West End.

In this neighborhood was home to nearly people, most of which were working class immigrants, but by it had been taken by eminent domain, and its affordable housing was demolished with high-rise apartments, unattainable for the neighborhood s previous residents, built in its place.65 The project was widely recognized as a failure, even as it was being completed. It would take a new mayor to rebuild the sort of trust necessary to get the vast Government Center project off the ground. The tide began to turn with the mayoral election, when John Collins, a Roxbury native and determined underdog, defeated John Powers, President of the Massachusetts Senate and one of the most powerful politicians in the state.

Collins deftly leveraged his background as a blue-collar son of a mechanic to cement his status as an outsider, with the campaign slogan, Stop Power Politics. 66 This antiestablishment approach appealed to the surviving Boston Brahmins and working-class voters both of which had been burned by the policies of his predecessors. Shortly after taking office, Collins turned his attention to realizing the unfinished plans for Government Center. He recognized that no progress could be made without investment from major businesses and civic organizations and began to heal political divisions and restore confidence in urban renewal. This was done in part by hiring Ed Logue, an urban renewal expert who made a name for himself by successfully overseeing the revitalization of New Haven, Connecticut.

Logue knew how to consolidate authority and negotiate, and his work resulted in a substantial influx of federal money into his projects. Per the Housing Act of the federal government agreed to cover two-thirds of the cost of Government Center, but Collins and Logue negotiated even more. In the end they procured over million in federal funding for Government Center, while committing only of the city s money.67 During their negotiations, Logue and Collins hired I. M. Pei to refine the designs produced under Mayor Hynes into a more cohesive and practical plan for the site. By funding for the entire project had been procured, and demolition was well underway.68 The city s municipal planning and development agency, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), in conjunction with I. M.

Pei, divided the cleared area into thirteen parcels of land according to their intended use. The final plans amounted to a total transformation of the area, reducing the twenty-two existing streets into six superblocks and, once again, displacing thousands of residents in the process. Indeed, the most ironic component of the project was the portion intended for use by the state of Massachusetts: the Boston Government Service Center, also known as the Massachusetts State Service Center. The complex was designed to administer state benefits to the very people it displaced those who relied upon the welfare state. 65 Kruh, Always Something Doing, 66 Corckery, Paul J. Collins Wars Against Power Politics; Convention Speech Kicks Off Primary. Harvard Crimson.

June 13, 67 Kruh, Always Something Doing, 68 Cohen, Saving America's Cities, BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 14) Generating a Design for the In the early the state of Massachusetts owned and rented over ten separate facilities throughout Boston for the administration of social services, and it was thought that consolidating its Mental Health, Employment Security, and Health, Welfare and Education services into a single location would help its welfare apparatus operate more efficiently.69 Plans for a centralized facility began in when the research and design firm, Becker and Becker, was commissioned to provide an office space study.

Their report recommended the construction of a massive complex providing a total of square feet. To give adequate space, the BRA granted the parcel number eight of the Government Center redevelopment, a pie- shaped piece of land located on the western edge of the site that contained five streets lined with irregular brick buildings (Figure 6).

The BRA stipulated that the parcel must be developed as separate buildings by multiple architects a move in line with other American city planning projects at the time that was intended to spread the work to multiple groups and create a sense of urban diversity commensurate with the past.70 The architectural firm Pedersen and Tilney was tasked with establishing an overall site plan that would provide harmony between these buildings and was named coordinating architect of the project in December of Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott were appointed the architects of the Employment Security Buildings; M. A.

Dyer and Pedersen and Tilney were assigned the Health, Welfare, and Education Building; and Desmond and Lord, in conjunction with Paul Rudolph, were responsible the Mental Health Center. Over the following months, the architects wrestled with how to best integrate their separate buildings. The earliest design proposals resemble a campus made of three structures interspersed with green space, but the BRA took issue with this plan.

Their primary concern was that these isolated buildings seemed poorly related to each other, so, in early they asked the architects to make the buildings more fully cover the site and to provide a variation of heights and scales (Figure This, according to a BRA report from April 9, then pushed the architects too far in the opposite direction of arbitrarily fragmenting the elements. 73 Frustrated by the apparent lack of communication between those involved, the BRA made numerous recommendations to the architects in their report.

First, they advised that the plan be corrected, not through additional Pedersen and Tilney site planning work just at this time, but through the contributions of the individual building architects followed by a serious effort on all their parts to meet and work together. 74 They went on to suggest that as soon as each individual building design has progressed to early schematics (two or three weeks work), all designers be called together to meet with [the BRA] in a meeting that should be treated as a 69 Health, Welfare, and Education Building: 1 st Draft, p. 3, in (F size), folder 10. 70 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 71 Health, Welfare, and Education Building: 1 st Draft, p. 3, in (F size), folder 10.

72 Report of the Boston Design Advisory Committee on the State Government Center Complex at Offices of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, 9 April p. 2, in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Administrative Boston Redevelopment Authority General. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 15) working session of architects rather than as a formal review. 75 The BRA also made more specific design recommendations.

These included bringing building lines on the whole closer to the street, thus defining the street more modestly and continuously and providing more clearly marked entrances.76 Having pondered ways to resolve the disjointed character of the buildings, Rudolph invited all of the architecture firms involved in the project to meet in New Haven in June of He listened to each firm discuss their design. Then, with great dramatic effect, he captured their attention and sketched his solution.78 His drawing, shown in Figure 8, was elegantly simple. It introduced an uninterrupted exterior envelope that united each of the buildings around a triangular plaza, with a tower positioned at the center, giving the appearance of a single structure.

Rudolph called this his reduced fragmentation concept.79 After impressing his fellow architects with the logic of his plan, Rudolph and his team refined this idea in time for their next meeting in Boston with BRA. When the day came, he showed up twenty minutes late, and then asked if he could have additional wall space to present his ideas. After an entire wall was cleared, Rudolph s employees unrolled an eighteen-and-one-half foot-long drawing of the complex s main New Chardon Street elevation.80 Won over by his take-charge attitude and cohesive proposal, the BRA made Rudolph the new Coordinating Architect of the replacing Pedersen and Tilney. He then outlined five criteria for each architect to adhere to in order to create an integrated design.

The guidelines he proposed are not only worth noting for their role as the compositional links that unified the complex. They also provide insight into Rudolph s design philosophy as he approached the most powerful stage of his career and are emblematic of the planning principles underpinning the architecture of many large-scale institutional projects at the time more broadly. First, Rudolph recommended that all of the buildings be constructed from the same material, instead of the blend of brick and different types of concrete that was originally planned.81 He felt that an excess of materials was a sign of a weak design, later remarking, Houses that have twenty-five different materials on the inside and another thirty-five on the outside are just repulsive.

Usually, [the architects of these buildings] are using materials as a substitute for ideas, which never works. 82 When asked what is the best building material during a interview with House and Garden, Rudolph ironically cited Boston, saying Beacon Hill is built all out of brick, and it remains one of the most humane places. 83 He spent years 75 Ibid., 3. 76 Ibid., 4. 77 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 118 78 Ibid. 79 Health, Welfare, and Education Building, 1st Draft, p. 3, in (F size), folder 10. 80 Evolution of Boston's Government Center, Architectural Digest, January 15.

81 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, For more on the pre-Rudolph designs for the including earlier building materials, see Report of the Boston Design Advisory Committee on the State Government Center Complex at Offices of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, 9 April p. 2, in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Administrative Boston Redevelopment Authority General. 82 Paul M Rudolph, The Essence of Architecture Is Space, House and Garden, 83 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 16) experimenting with simple and durable materials, and he was especially interested in ones capable of creating a sense of depth and texture.

He initially tried to achieve these effects with the shadows produced by metal latticework, which can be seen at his Jewett Arts Center at Wellesley College. However, it was the expressive purity of the cast-in-place concrete that Rudolph was most drawn to. He used this material for the first time at the Yale Art and Architecture Building, completed in where he honed his signature corrugated concrete technique, which creates a rugged texture of ridges. Rudolph felt that this finish was well suited to the scale and purpose of the and recommended that it be used on all exterior surfaces of the buildings, but it was very labor intensive to produce. The diagram in Figure 9 explains the process.

First, each pour of concrete had to be wrapped in plywood forms with trapezoidal fins that created a pattern of parallel ridges. These forms had to be precisely placed to ensure that the ridges aligned. Once it had been poured and cured, the edges of concrete were chipped away with a three-pound bush hammer to reveal the material s organic qualities specifically the shimmering stones and seashells of the aggregate.84 Though Rudolph s brutalists buildings often appear machine produced, this process imbued every surface with a subtle mark of human craftsmanship. It also meant that no additional finishing of the surface was necessary, and it tends to require little maintenance.

Rudolph s second recommendation was for all of the buildings to be bound by regularly spaced piers on their street-facing facades.85 Given the many turns and changes in the site s elevation, this was intended to impart a sense of logic and compositional The piers that Rudolph proposed varied in size, with the largest ones on the corners of the complex s projections, and smaller ones in between. Their design is closely related to his third recommendation: the inclusion of a deep cornice to unite the complex s varying rooflines. This cornice was to be made of an unbroken, windowless face of corrugated concrete, and it ranged from one to two stories in height. Together, the piers and cornice are perhaps most responsible for the building s top-heavy, monumental character.

Rudolph s fourth recommendation advised that all service elements, including bathrooms, stairways, and elevators, be pushed to the exterior walls of the buildings and announce their presence as rounded protrusions from the fa ade.86 It was felt that this would generate a consistent dispensation of intriguing cantilevered and tower-like projections, thereby enlivening the building s impervious appearance. His fifth and final recommendation related to the courtyard-facing facades of the complex. To make this portion of the building feel more pedestrian scaled, Rudolph advised that the two low-rise buildings be designed with a series of terraces set back from the courtyard.

This would also make the area surrounding the courtyard feel brighter and less dense.87 After being accepted by the BRA, Rudolph s overall design and five recommendations were presented to the Government Center Commission and approved by Logue on July 20, 84 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 93. 85 Ibid., 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 17) However, this is not to say that the design was wholly accepted without any reservations. On July David Crane, BRA Director of Comprehensive Planning, wrote Pedersen and Tilney to share his concerns and offer numerous suggestions on Rudolph s new plan.

After praising the design as a bold and very fine terminal statement to the western edge of the Government Center Project, Crane remarked that allowing greater differentiation between the three buildings might give a better scale to some of the very long street facades. 88 He then called the monotony of certain facades intolerable at times and suggested the inclusion of more trees and inverted terracing on the street-facing facades of the building.89 He also explained his skepticism regarding the inclusion of its large corner and central plazas, questioning whether they would ever receive the traffic that Rudolph intended.

Specifically, Crane said the central plaza felt: A bit too much like that of Campo in Siena, where they have horse racing and public festivals that we do not have in Boston. On evenings and weekends this will be a completely vacant space unless it should provide certain pedestrian comforts, possibly some incidental recreational devices, and a few trees. If this space had a secondary basis as a kind of public park for the general public as well as occupants of the buildings it would be more justifiable.90 He concluded with a telling admonishment regarding the overall management of the project, saying he hopes that all parties involved will now begin to see a higher degree of collaboration.

91 Pedersen and Tilney promptly responded to Crane s concerns in a letter from June 11, They assured him that they would consider his points about green space but stood firm on the inclusion of the large plazas, saying that provisions were being made for walk-through pedestrian traffic, which should provide some life and movement during off periods. 92 Moreover, Pedersen and Tilney promised that all architecture firms involved would work harmoniously and constructively to the end of the project. 93 In many ways, this promise to efficiently collaborate with the other architects was upheld.

It is possible that the architects commitment to the overall design is due in part to the presence of Rudolph who was then considered an unquestionable authority in the world of architecture as its coordinator. From here on, challenges presented themselves less through disagreements and poor communication between designers and more through disputes related to changing programmatic requirements that were beyond their control. Assuming that being closer to the project would help him exert the oversight that its complexity demanded, Rudolph opened a branch of his New Haven firm in Boston.

However, as plans continually wavered, the project was placed in a near-constant state 88 David Crane to Pedersen, 6 July in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Pedersen and Tilney, Re: Boston Redevelopment Authority. 89 Ibid., 2. 90 Ibid., 5. 91 Ibid., 6. 92 Ibid., 2. 93 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 18) of revision. We will now shift our attention to the tensions and lack of coordination within the Massachusetts welfare system during the period to help explain The Massachusetts Welfare System in the Massachusetts was one of the country s early leaders in the creation of social services.

The state established its first almshouse in Boston in the and in the Massachusetts General Hospital opened its Asylum for the Insane, also known as McLean Hospital, which was the fourth institution for the treatment of the mentally ill in America. By the mid-nineteenth century, Boston had an extensive charity system that supported its growing, and often poor, immigrant population, and contemporary leaders thought that municipal relief and private charity should supplement each other and act in union. 94 The state s tradition of reliance upon autonomous local groups continued, but by the mid-twentieth century, this meant that the Massachusetts welfare system was highly decentralized.

In the early the state s Department of Public Welfare had a staff of less than fifty people, and its primary job was to ensure that the funds from the state and federal government were sent to the cities and towns that dispensed assistance programs to the public.95 Massachusetts was one of the only states with a locally administered system of social services and, for the most part, had no role in the distributing of welfare at the street level.

In a social welfare research group published a report on the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare and found that it faced substantial organizational challenges, many of which resulted from the lack of statewide guidelines, goals, and supervision.96 Some small towns had only one-person welfare offices, while others were well-staffed; and across the state, cities and towns had different methods of informing citizens of the benefits available to them. One state official who worked in social services at the time summarized the problems this generated. He said, We could not do anything about the spirit in which welfare was administered.

We knew that some towns were patronizing or even downright hostile to clients but there was little or nothing we could do about anything like that The cities and towns considered welfare theirs. 97 This absence of oversight led to people experiencing substantial inconsistencies when seeking state benefits, which meant that a person seeking a disability benefit might be denied in one town but accepted in another.

State officials voiced their dissatisfaction with the system in the report on Massachusetts welfare, noting how difficult it was for ideas to flow upward from local directors to the people responsible for planning and supervision in the state office.98 Frustrated by the uneven dispersal of benefits, in a group of Black women known as the Mothers of Adequate Welfare (MAW) was founded in Boston to help urge local governments 94 Susan Traverso, Welfare Politics in Boston, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 13. 95 Ann Withorn, The Circle Game: Services for the Poor in Massachusetts, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 35. 96 National Study Service, Meeting the Problems of People in Massachusetts: A Study of the Massachusetts Public Welfare System (Boston, 43. 97 Ibid.

98 National Study Service, Meeting the Problems of People in Massachusetts, 47. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 19) to give citizens the benefits to which they were entitled.99 These women had a thorough knowledge of their rights, and using basic organizing strategies, including collective action, they helped those who were denied access to social services, such as disability and old age assistance, aid for dependent children, and general relief, receive benefits. Their demands were basic and included conditions such as, No denial of aid based on hearsay evidence or malicious gossip, The removal of police from all welfare offices, and that Welfare workers must respect clients and treat them as equal human beings.

100 Many of the concerns raised during their sit-ins at various welfare facilities were not addressed, and in tensions came to a head. A group of MAW members chained themselves to the door of Boston s Blue Hill Avenue welfare office, preventing fifty-eight workers from leaving.101 Police arrived, and the protests turned violent. Forty-four people were arrested, and forty-five were injured.102 Years later, one welfare worker who observed the MAW during this period would later recount their effectiveness. He said, You never knew when twenty women would come in with your client yelling at you and demanding their rights. Even if you weren t sympathetic you quickly learned to provide everything the law allowed, and your supervisors supported you, just to keep the peace.

103 In many ways, the push for equal access to welfare had much in common with the civil rights movement at the time. In addition to the pressure from social justice groups like the MAW, the Massachusetts welfare state was also undergoing systemic changes in its approach to caring for the mentally handicapped living in its institutions. In the early many of citizens who needed state services roughly four percent of the state s population were placed into massive psychiatric complexes. These buildings, including the Massachusetts State Hospital, often dated to the early nineteenth century, and they began to be seen as antiquated and inhumane.

Moreover, research conducted by the World Health Organization, following psychiatric lessons learned during World War II, led to a consensus that psychiatric patients should not be restricted to large facilities made of homogenous spaces with little consideration for social interaction. Instead, it was thought that they should be actively treated and supported in their communities. 104 When the first antipsychotic drug, chlorpromazine, and the first antidepressant drug, imipramine, were discovered in and respectively, these ideas, coupled with the rising cost of institutional care and new therapy for the mentally handicapped, made finding alternatives to large institutional facilities appear necessary and feasible.

In a letter to the Massachusetts Senate Committee on State Administration, Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Dr. Harry Solomon, expressed his strong support for the construction of new facilities that would 99 Withorn, The Circle Game, 43. 100 Ruth Batson, The Black Educational Movement in Boston: A Sequence of Historical Events: A Chronology (Boston: Northeastern University, School of Education, 279a. 101 Jack Tager, Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence (Boston: Northeastern University, 102 Jonathan Fuerbringer and Marvin Milbauer, Roxbury, Quiet in Past, Finally Breaks into Riot; Why Did Violence Occur?, Harvard Crimson, June 15, 103 Withorn, The Circle Game, 44. 104 Enric J.

Novella, Mental Health Care and the Politics of Inclusion: A Social Systems Account of Psychiatric Deinstitutionalization, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31, no. 6 BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 20) help prevent the long-term hospitalization of the mentally ill in the state s large and overcrowded institutions.105 Nationwide policy change arrived in when the Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act was passed by Congress, providing federal funds for the creation of smaller mental health centers located within neighborhoods.

The following year, President Johnson announced an unconditional war on poverty, with a slew of new legislation aimed at providing the poor with quality medical care, education, and vocational training to follow. The creation of Medicaid in gave the state the push it needed to support better oversight of welfare, and in the Massachusetts Comprehensive Mental Health and Retardation Services Act was passed. It restructured the inadequate Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and introduced a more centralized approach with a robust regional structure of community care facilities that would focus on rehabilitation and social integration.

While these advances have been praised by many as the start of a psychiatric revolution, they did not immediately solve the logistical challenges and social inequities troubling the welfare system, specifically in Massachusetts.106 Protest from groups like the MAW continued, and ingrained biases and organizational issues were no doubt to blame. However, part of the problem was also due to the training of the welfare staff. In the people working within the social services system were psychiatrists, researchers, teachers, physicians, and corrections officials, but few would have considered themselves experienced managers.107 Moreover, not many trained social workers could be found.

Such jobs were poorly paid, and people were often hired more for their patience and stamina than professional expertise, receiving on-the-job training after they had been hired.108 The social work profession only began to be standardized in the following the founding of the American Association of State Social Work Boards and the introduction of the social work licensing exam in These professional challenges coupled with the decentralized structure of the Massachusetts welfare system, pressure from advocacy groups, and the adoption of new approaches to housing the mentally ill make it clear that the process of designing a new hub for the administration and dispensation of state benefits would not be straightforward.

The remainder of this report will consider how architects tried to alleviate these issues in their designs for the The Design and Construction of the Hurley Building As the architects of the Employment Security Building, later known as the Hurley Building, Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott (SBRA) were tasked with crafting a 105 Harry C. Solomon to Senator Caples and Members of the Committee on State Administration, 6 April in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Pedersen and Tilney, Re: Desmond and Lord. 106 Novella, Mental Health Care and the Politics of Inclusion, 107 Withorn, The Circle Game, 43. 108 Ibid., 109 History ASWB, Association of Social Work Boards, https://www.aswb.org/wp- BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 21) building that would facilitate the efficient distribution of unemployment benefits. This involved consolidating the nine administrative and job placement offices of the Division of Employment Security (DES) that were scattered throughout the city into one location. The building they designed is six stories tall, including a basement, and its position along the high traffic Cambridge and Staniford Streets makes it a gateway to the entire from Government Center. In a news release from SBRA summarize their design, which can be credited in large part to Rudolph, as a graceful transition from the old Boston of Bulfinch to the dramatic Boston of today while exuding a sense of quiet repose.

110 The exterior of the building conforms to all five of Rudolph s design requirements without calling attention to itself. Aside from the occasional projecting staircase tower or elevator core, its corrugated concrete, massive piers, and heavy cornice are articulated with straightforward regularity (Figure In their design summary, SBRA also note that their goal was to provide the [Division of Employment Security] with modern quarters and cure space shortages and attendant inefficiencies that have been troublesome for sometime. 111 In short, the building was designed to help the DES economically and efficiently deliver aid, and it is likely that a more expressive handling of Rudolph s design elements was considered superfluous.

Indeed, the layout of the interior reflects this functional approach. The building was intended to accommodate approximately employees within gross square feet. 112 Its entrance level (off the plaza) was planned as the place where welfare employees would interact with citizens, and it was expected to process an estimated people per week from the greater Boston area. 113 The level was designed to accommodate the various DES divisions that were previously scattered throughout different city enclaves by dividing them into four self-contained occupational groups: clerical and sales, professional and managerial, industrial, and service. Each group had its own entrance off the sweeping plaza leading to a large, well-lit lobby.

An open space at the center of the floor was supposed to ensure, according to its architects, maximum flexibility as the needs of the divisions evolve.114 This simple, yet carefully constructed sequence of uniform spaces allowed citizens to see each other clearly providing a reassuring sense of transparency while facilitating communication.

Furthermore, the systematized design facilitated a refreshingly consistent visitor experience, with the overriding sense of uniformity and openness in this public-facing portion of the building leaving less up to the moral disposition of bureaucrats whose job it is to determine, within the ambit of the law, who will have access to public serves and how much of those services they will 110 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 8, in (F size), folder 8. Charles Bulfinch designed the historic Massachusetts State House which is a significant Boston landmark. 111 Ibid., 11. 112 Ibid., 10. 113 Ibid., 11. 114 Ibid. In reality, the Hurley Building has proven inflexible to programmatic changes and new accessibility requirements.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 22) be entitled to. 115 Thus, architecture helped both citizens and bureaucrats understand their roles and responsibilities within the welfare apparatus, while also conveying a sense of impartiality.116 The remaining floors were intended to house administrative offices for employees involved with the operations of the statewide DES program.

The SBRA design summary refers to those working in this portion of the building as being responsible for promoting the welfare of individuals in the state s labor force and participating in the development and full utilization of manpower resources so as to promote maximum employment, maintain purchasing power, bring about more effective functioning of the labor market, and contribute to the state s growth. 117 In effect, SBRA understood the Hurley Building as the engine of an economic machine an attitude made visible through its highly regulated design.

On the building s street-facing facades, the orderly pattern of its identical piers and windows lock into a concrete grid, which sweeps outward into the shell-like design on the paving of the plaza and walkways abutting the adjacent streets, enveloping passersby in need of employment to join as gears in the system. Moreover, the repetitive, vertical, and grid-like pattern of these facades also has much in common with contemporary corporate architecture a deft move at a time when the disorganized and decentralized welfare system aimed to recast itself as an efficient, moneymaking investment in the economy.

Meanwhile, the building s tiered, pedestrian scaled, plaza-facing facades present a softer, more comprehensible side of the innerworkings of the machine to potential clients (Figure The building s functional role in the efficient and fair distribution of employment benefits is perhaps best encapsulated by the two murals by Costantino Nivola in its primary lobby. In a series of scenes spread across three levels, the mural on the southern wall illustrates the state s role in helping citizens progress from economic distress to wellbeing.

Its first scenes portray a family suffering from economic hardships and the unrest in a slum; the next scene shows a hand with money, symbolizing the payment of unemployment benefits; and the following scenes show buyers in a shopping center and a family rejoicing at a dinner table, conveying the purchasing power and financial security that the state has provided.118 The mural on the north wall conveys a similar theme. On the left it depicts a large group of people who then attend an employment workshop, and, on the right, it shows agricultural and industrial production.

Between these scenes are two hands with fingers intertwined, representing the cooperative exchange between the employer and the employed made possible by the Employment Service (Figure 119 Both murals extend from the floor to ceiling of the double-height space, providing an unmissable reminder of the benefits promised to all citizens who qualify. 115 Bernardo Zacka, When the State Meets the Street Public Service and Moral Agency (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 9. 116 Ibid., 11. 117 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 11, in (F size), folder 8. 118 Mural Decoration, Costantino Nivola, in, in (F size), folder 1. 119 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 23) The Hurley Building was the first at the to be completed. However, as the design process for the entire complex progressed through it became clear that the original space estimates for the Division of Employment Security by Becker and Becker were insufficient. Subsequently, office space was expanded, and the design of the building s lobby was reconsidered, leading to a price increase. Its original budget in was in the building s expansion and a rise in labor costs and construction materials rose estimates by over 10% to By the time it was finished in January of the building cost roughly Frustrating though it must have been, the process of designing the Health, Education, and Welfare Tower was significantly more vexing.

Designing the Health, Welfare, and Education Tower The Health, Welfare, and Education (HWE) Tower was first proposed by Rudolph in as the centerpiece of his reduced fragmentation concept for the It was intended to serve as a sort of administrative catch-all, gathering a range of widely dispersed departments of the Commonwealth that provide state benefits to citizens.122 Though the tower was deliberately ahistorical in style, Rudolph intended it to be in dialogue with the existing fabric of the city. He envisioned the bowl-shaped complex as an inverse of Beacon Hill, and the tower as a counterpoint to Bulfinch s gold dome atop the Massachusetts State House that would also announce the presence of state government on the city s skyline.123 It was originally designed by M. A.

Dyer and Company, but Rudolph felt that their proposal did not appropriately relate to the rest of the complex. As evidenced by photographs of architectural models, their design included a square tower with a narrow base growing outward in tiers as it rises complying with few of Rudolph s design parameters. (Figure Given how crucial the tower was to his vision, Rudolph, as Consulting Architect, dismissed M. A. Dyer and made himself its architect.

The scheme he produced complemented the rest of the complex, with concrete piers forming clusters of pivoting shafts spiraling off a pinwheel, each with a rounded corner that invites pedestrians into the plaza (Figure Rudolph s tower was initially designed to accommodate a varied collection of state welfare and education divisions, some of which included: the Department of Education, which encompassed the Division of the Blind, Vocational Education, and Immigration; the Department of Public Health, and its divisions dedicated to health education and communicable diseases; and the Department of Public Welfare, which oversaw Civil Defense, Child Guardianship, and Public Assistance.124 Early usage studies by Becker and Becker called for roughly square feet of space, but ever-changing departmental requirements and the inclusion of new divisions 120 Project Review: Health, Welfare & Education Service Center, 27 January in (F size), folder 1.

121 Simon Danforth to Donald Madden, 15 July in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series 122 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 6, in (F size), folder 8. 123 Jeanne M Davern, Conversations with Paul Rudolph, Architectural Record, March 94. 124 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 7, in (F size), folder 8. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 24) substantially increased its size and caused delays.125 One of the most significant proposed changes to the tower came in June of when the state passed legislation instructing that it should include a closed-circuit television studio and all related mechanical accoutrements to broadcast informational programs to hospitals, schools, and mental institutions throughout the state.126 It was claimed that this would be an instrument of education with far-reaching potential, making it and a wise long-range investment. 127 The strategy behind the inclusion of a television system is explained in a report by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.

It described television as the most important new educational tool since the invention of movable type the most powerful medium of communication yet devised by man. 128 It illustrates how a closed-circuit television system would allow physicians in Boston to share high quality training programs with staff at distant institutions, making rural sites more compelling places for staff to work and learn.129 The report also argued that the system would allow health commissioners to send policy announcements to related institutions that would be difficult to transmit via mail.130 Moreover, it stipulates that each institution should have two-way broadcasting facilities, or at the minimum, voice communication in both directions.

Such a system would ostensibly remedy the communication issues that plagued the far flunged endeavors [of the state s welfare system] consisting of eighteen hospitals and state schools for the mentally retarded, thirty-seven community mental health centers and a large-scale program of services to children. 131 Indeed, the push for a television studio can be understood as a response to critiques over the unequal quality of the state s educational and welfare institutions and its irregular distribution of benefits. It was estimated that all necessary equipment for the studio would add to the price of the HWE Tower.132 However, this was only one of many causes of its price hikes. In the late stages of its design, the tower s list of occupants seemed to grow endlessly.

By fifteen agencies were expected to take up space in the building, including the Board of Regional Community Colleges, the Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Board, and the Commission on Aging.133 Many of these divisions were supplemented by federal programs created by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of Ultimately, it was projected that the tower would require a total of net square feet of space over net square feet more 125 Pedersen and Tilney Architects, memorandum re: Design Review of the State Government Services Center, 10 August in (F size), folder 7. 126 Project Review: Health, Welfare & Education Service Center, 27 January in (F size), folder 1. 127 State Department of Education: Television Committee Report, in (F size), folder 7. 128 Public Health Television, p.

6, in folder 7. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 Public Health Television, p. 1, in (F size), folder 7. 132 Project Review: Health, Welfare & Education Service Center, 27 January p. 3, in (F size), folder 1. 133 Becker and Becker and Associates to Government Center Commission, 22 April in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder To HWE. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 25) than the original estimate. Rudolph s design team scrambled to produce a cost-effective solution.

They expanded the lowest and least expensive portions of the building toward the street and increased the tower from twenty-three to thirty-one stories, which necessitated a structural redesign.134 To lower construction costs, a new cooling system was devised and large precast concrete panels with standardized radii replaced cast-in-place concrete walls, allowing the reuse of concrete forms. But even with these concessions, it was estimated that it would not be possible to complete all three buildings with the appropriated for the project.135 The rising cost estimates led some within the Massachusetts State legislature to suspect wrongdoing.

Senator David Locke called the entire an orgy in concrete, with interior murals of chipped concrete and mosaic [that are] worthy of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. 136 In February of the State Senate approved an investigation into the Government Center Commission s spending on the complex. In multiple newspaper interviews, State Auditor Thaddeus Buczko also condemned the concrete architecture of the completed Hurley and Lindemann Buildings as lavish.

He argued that Buildings erected by the Commonwealth should be purely functional and of the type of construction that can be completed within a reasonable time, and he demanded that construction of the remainder of the project namely the unbuilt HWE Tower be halted.137 In an attempt to find funding for the tower, Joseph Richardson wrote a letter to Charles Hilgenhurst of the BRA, urging that those in authority in the Commonwealth authorize the construction of the Health, Welfare, and Education Building as designed. 138 Richardson glorified the complex through comparisons to Piazza San Marco in Venice, as both are organized as a plaza surrounded by pedestrian scaled buildings with a tower as their focal point.

He also noted the many rulers throughout history, including Napoleon, who recognized the importance of the piazza as a civic space and implored Hilgenhurst to see the value in completing the HWE Tower, which he called the missing link that would unify the design as a single statement unique in this country. 139 He concluded his letter with the assertion that the tower would allow the people of Massachusetts to accomplish in one generation what took Venice centuries in the past. 140 In the end, Richardson s plea was not enough to save the HWE Tower.

The tide of negative press overpowered the will of legislators to see the value of its construction.141 Although rising prices and delays no doubt led to its cancellation, it would be a mistake to 134 Project Review: Health, Welfare & Education Service Center, 27 January p. 2, in (F size), folder 1. 135 Ibid. 136 Ellis, David. State Senate Probes HWE Building Cost. The Boston Globe, February 10, 137 Peter Lucas, Buczko Blasts Swim Pool, Gym at Govt. Center Buildings, Boston Herald Traveler, February 5, 138 Joseph Richardson to Charles G. Hilgenhurust, 16 March p. 3, in (F size). 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid. 141 It seems that most of the agencies that were planning to move into the HWE Tower remained in their separate locations within the city. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F.

Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 26) discount this as a result of poor estimating and reckless spending, as Buczko argued.142 The tower was designed to serve as the operational nerve center for the diverse profusion of well- intentioned initiatives aimed at remedying the inequalities and logistical challenges that plagued the state s education and welfare apparatus, and, ultimately, this burden proved too much for it to handle. Architecturally, the tower was foundational to the scale and displacement of parts throughout the entire complex, and its absence has no doubt rendered much of Rudolph s design intentions illegible.

Fortunately, however, he was able to realize his unrestricted creative vision for the s Mental Health Center, later known as the Lindemann Building, before price hikes and support for centralized welfare benefits waned. A close look at it reveals notable changes to the approach to caring for the mentally ill in the twentieth century. The Lindemann Mental Health Building: A Community Approach to Mental Healthcare In his letter to state senators, Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Dr.

Harry Solomon, explained the reasons why he supported the construction of the Lindemann Mental Health Building within the First and foremost, he saw the need for a facility that would alleviate overcrowding and swiftly facilitate the transition from in- patient status to the out-patient clinic and discharge.144 Such an approach would avoid the congestion that plagued remote facilities like the Boston State Hospital, Metropolitan State Hospital, and Danvers State Hospital.

He also felt that the centrally located Lindemann building would keep the patient as near as possible to his home and community, which would ultimately help patients return to normal life after their stay.145 It was thought that this would encourage users to come and go as they need a concept partly intended to placate concerns that people would become trapped involuntarily.146 In addition, Solomon anticipated that the building s downtown location would respond to the state s need for better physicians and training practices. In his letter he noted that 49% of the physicians in [the Massachusetts mental health system] are graduates of foreign medical schools, many unable to talk fluently in English, many unable to qualify for state board examinations.

147 With its proximity to the Massachusetts General Hospital, Solomon envisioned that the Lindemann Building would become a teaching and research center operated by competent professionals. 148 In many ways, Solomon s interest in improved mental health training and a community-focused component of the Lindemann Building can be seen as a forerunner to the thousands of facilities constructed following President Kennedy s signing of the Community Mental Health Act in which called for a national system of mental health centers located within neighborhoods instead 142 Peter Lucas, Buczko Blasts Swim Pool, Gym at Govt. Center Buildings, Boston Herald Traveler, February 5, 143 See reference to Dr. Harry Solomon s letter on page 19. 144 Harry C.

Solomon to Senator Caples and Members of the Committee on State Administration, 6 April p. 2, in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Pedersen and Tilney, Re: Desmond and Lord. 145 Ibid. 146 Joy Knoblauch, The Architecture of Good Behavior: Psychology and Modern Institutional Design in Postwar America (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 57. 147 Harry C. Solomon to Senator Caples and Members of the Committee on State Administration, 6 April p. 2, in MSA/GCCPF, TC4.02/series folder Pedersen and Tilney, Re: Desmond and Lord. 148 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 27) of remote institutions in rural areas.

This way of integrating nearby professionals and serving the mentally ill near their own homes would necessitate significant building design changes from the institutions of old. Many of the largest mental health facilities in Massachusetts built before this point owe their design to the recommendations of Dr. Thomas Kirkbride the first chief physician of the Pennsylvania Hospital and an authority on American mental healthcare in the nineteenth century.149 Kirkbride is most well-known for his moral approach to the psychiatric care, and he believed that with a regimented life, healthy environment, and the encouragement to perform small tasks, those committed to mental institutions could return to society.150 Fundamental to his curative method was a thoughtfully designed environment.

Upon realizing that American mental facilities followed no set of guidelines, he published a list of building recommendations that he thought would facilitate a more humane treatment of patients, in His plan was based on a series of connected pavilions arranged in a shallow V-shape, consisting of a large center block and smaller flanking wings (Figure These blocks were arranged along a long double-loaded corridor with private rooms and shared bedrooms, each with an unobstructed view outside a layout that was thought to be therapeutic. The symmetry and clarity of the plan was highly functional, but it also enabled administrators to oversee discriminatory regulations.

For example, superintendents and physicians would live and work in the tall, and often luxurious, center block, which typically served as the primary entrance to the facility and housed the chapel.152 However, this point was also used to divide the male and female sides of the building.153 Additionally, to encourage good behavior, the more well- appointed wings closest to the center block were offered to the quietest and most high- functioning residents, while severely disabled people were housed in the progressively more chaotic blocks at the outer edges.154 A desire to keep patients from congregating limited the number of common areas in the plan, leading to long, narrow hallways and stifling the restorative effects of human interaction.

In the end, Kirkbride s standardized plans did not prove therapeutic, and as institutions filled to the brim with incurable people, state and medical experts tried to distance themselves, causing these facilities to fall into disrepair. Fundamental to Kirkbride s approach mental healthcare was the idea that all patients were a homogenous group of passive people at the mercy of external forces beyond their control. To shelter people from the dangers of the city and provide them with identical clothes and living spaces within a highly structured environment was thought to provide comfort, regardless of one s reason for being institutionalized.

This form of social management was anathema to the 149 Some of the largest mental health facilities in Massachusetts built according to Kirkbride s recommendations include the Worcester State Hospital and the Danvers State Hospital 150 Carla Yanni, The Architecture of Madness: Insane Asylums in the United States (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 38. 151 Thomas Story Kirkbride, On the Construction, Organization, and General Arrangements of Hospitals for the Insane. with Some Remarks on Insanity and Its Treatment (Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 152 Ibid., 153 Ibid., 154 Ibid., BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 28) highly personal, community-oriented approach to mental health from which the Lindemann Building emerged. Instead of adhering to a regimented, one-size-fits-all program, it was designed around a complex web of programmatic elements intended to appeal to the unique desires of its users.

The building s plans, stipulated by the Department of Mental Health, include a nursery and children s rooms, a swimming pool and gymnasium, emergency accommodations, separate therapy clinics for children and adults, a chapel, and space for a research staff and their laboratories.155 For Rudolph, the community approach to mental healthcare, combined with the need to accommodate a nuanced network of spaces for such varied users, became an opportunity to explore the intersection of architectural form and psychology, what Joy Knoblauch refers to as psychological functionalism. 156 One of the main ways that Rudolph responded to the call for a community-oriented mental health center was by making the Lindemann Building sympathetic to its urban context.

When discussing factors that should determine architectural form, he once said, A truly successful building must relate to its neighbors in terms of scale, proportions, and the space created between the buildings. Most important of all, it must define and render eloquent its role in the whole city scheme. Buildings such as governmental structures, religious buildings should serve as focal points in our cities while buildings for commerce, housing, finance, and administration should not dominate our environment.157 As a government building constructed to temporarily house citizens, the Lindemann Building occupied a functional middle ground. From a distance, it operates at a monumental scale.

The building s dominant, street-facing fa ade at the intersection of Staniford Street and Merrimac Street is six stories tall with multistory concrete piers. But Rudolph s choice to push the building back from the intersection created a human scaled reprieve from the density of the neighborhood: Merrimac plaza (Figure An array of surviving design sketches show that Rudolph and his team labored over how to make this plaza both a community space and an inviting gateway into the complex (Figure Central to his design was a series of sinusoidal benches that extended the undulating forms of the building into a public area.

Here, any passerby could engage with the by sitting and enjoying the shade provided by the building behind, thus facilitating an interaction between the community and the mental health facility that might help normalize the building and its residents. For those entering the Lindemann Building, Merrimac Plaza also served as a place of transition from the outside community to the one within. At its north corner is a massive scenographic staircase that weaves underneath a series of shaded balconies, between the 155 Government Center Commission, Government Center News Release, 6 November p. 12, in (F size), folder 8. 156 Knoblauch, The Architecture of Good Behavior, 6.

Although Rudolph did not explicitly refer to his approach as psychological functionalism, he felt that architects had a duty to consider the psychological impact of their work. In he remarked, An architect s function is to hep man forget his troubles, and enrich his spirit. We must not lose sight of our task. For more, see Paul Rudolph. Regionalism in Architecture. Perspecta 4 12 19. 157 Karl Kropf, Six Determinants of Architectural Form, Architectural Record, October 183 BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 29) building s piers, and upward to the wide and bright expanse of the central plaza, where the main entrance was originally located.

Rudolph saw this procession as the way to engage one s senses and, perhaps ironically, break up the neighborhood s mind-numbing superblocks. He once said, [People] need sequences of space, which arouse one s curiosity and give a sense of anticipation. 158 Interestingly, Rudolph s idiosyncratic entrance design, which was largely finalized by predates the recommendations of Clyde Dorsett, the lead architectural consultant to the National Institute of Mental Health from 82.

Dorsett thought that architects should stretch out a patient s approach path through changes between light and dark so that they would feel a sense of arrival reminiscent of their home environment.159 Rudolph s belief in the power of space to comfort and compel people to move through the building is further explored inside.

A glance at the floor plan immediately conveys stark differences between the Lindemann Building and the designs of its predecessors that came from the Kirkbride tradition (Figure Instead of a central entrance pavilion housing administrators the main entrance to the Lindemann Building is a nondescript opening off the plaza leading to a series of tiers with no defined purpose, providing flexibility and space for occupants to gather (Figure Moreover, the method of organizing users according to severity of their condition has been exchanged for a plan that, for the most part, interlaces a variety of functional areas into each floor, while providing a separate space for children s bedrooms, playrooms, and dining.

The ground floor has athletic and dining facilities, the mezzanine and plaza level originally had reception areas and administrative offices, the second through fourth floors have varied facilities for in-patient and out-patient users, including rooms for therapy, recreation, and sleeping, and the fifth floor originally contained laboratories for physicians to use for research. Also, unlike previous mental health facilities, there is no direct route through the building; hallways are circuitous, and walls bend and break around volumes.

The old arrangement of straight paths and tight corridors that once thwarted autonomy have been replaced by undulating walls, changes in floor height, and the play of solids and voids all which encourage exploration, provide quiet places for contemplation, and inspire subjective responses to the building s sensory qualities. The plan could appear chaotic, but it is a highly transparent expression of the building s heterogeneous programmatic requirements acknowledging the needs of its distinct users.

Common areas, such as playrooms, elevator cores, and conference rooms, announce their presence as bean-shaped pods, with curved exterior walls that channel people around and into them (Figure The chapel and bathrooms are especially unique, as their rounded walls pierce the fa ade of the building, signaling to the public the diverse and accommodating character of the structure and, by implication, the more equitable and transparent healthcare apparatus of which it is a part. 158 Paul Rudolph, To Enrich Our Architecture, Journal of Architectural Education 13, no. 1 9 12. 159 Knoblauch, The Architecture of Good Behavior, 89. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 30) Rudolph thought it was vital that architects relearn the art of disposing of buildings to create different kinds of space. 160 Doing so, he said, would beckon and impel us to rush forward to find that releasing space, which dominates, which climaxes, and acts as a magnet, and gives direction. 161 Although these ideas were expressed in the Lindemann Building in a way that honors the varied nature of its users, they were also directly in line with contemporary psychology theories on how mental patients could be controlled.

As explained by Knoblauch, community mental healthcare was predicated on the shift from control by punishment, supervision, and rules to a process of coercion that influences the will of people by understanding their thinking.162 Coupled with new psychiatric drugs, the expressive forms that Rudolph understood as humane and emotive magnets also became tools to control the psyches of those who used the building.

Indeed, one resident remarked on the design of the Merrimac Street plaza, calling it a sea of tranquility a space that sort of carries you along without requiring you to exert yourself.163 Thus, architecture was used to treat patients less like uniform victims without agency and more like consumers who could be persuaded to utilize the service of the welfare state, be reformed through more customized therapy, become productive members of society and then, perhaps most crucially, work as contributors to the economy. In this way, the Lindemann Building can be recognized both as a response to calls for more humane attitudes toward the mentally ill and as the producer of the human energy that powers the state s employment apparatus housed within the adjacent Hurley Building.

The Reception of the and Subsequent Plans In the end, all three of the buildings originally planned for the should be understood as an interlocked response to the deficiencies within the state s social services system. The Hurley Building was to operate as an efficient and impartial employment mechanism, the Lindemann Building was intended to fuel it with manpower, and the unbuilt HWE Tower was designed as its administrative fulcrum. However, the optimistic and highly integrated vision that underpinned the project at the start of its design faded before it was completed.

The nationwide approach to solving the state s welfare challenges shifted from Johnson s well-funded and highly centralized initiatives to the neoliberal and privatized approach of the and and the complex s unfinished condition became a metaphor for the outdated vision of a Great Society. Thus, this machine was not only left incomplete, it also quickly became obsolete, making the ideas that underpinned its design largely illegible. This is likely part of the reason why the has not been widely embraced by Bostonians.

While many critics, including Ada Louise Huxtable, initially praised it as bold and inventive, the public has taken issue with its monolithic character and expressive forms.164 Many of these critiques can be summarized by the words of critic Philip Nobel, who in referred 160 Paul Rudolph, The Changing Philosophy of Architecture, Architectural Forum, July 161 Ibid. 162 Knoblauch, The Architecture of Good Behavior, 15. 163 Robert R. Desjarlais, Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood among the Homeless (Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 55. 164 Huxtable, Boston Is Going Radical in Building Design, C 25. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 31) to the Lindemann Building as capable of unhinging the minds of those living inside.165 Rudolph s carefully constructed sequence of spaces has been altered by users who did not understand its logic, and attitudes of indifference have left the building in the lurch, which has contributed to its current state of neglect. In the decades following the decision to end construction on the proposals were made to build on the site of the unrealized tower.

In Governor Michael Dukakis and Mayor Raymond announced a housing initiative that pledged to convert the roughly three acres of unused land into 400 units of affordable housing.166 Following this announcement, the Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Capital Planning and Operations convened the New Chardon Street Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to produce a report that would advise him on how to ensure that the project was sensitive to the needs of the community.

The CAC agreed that the fundamental purpose of redeveloping the New Chardon Street site is to construct the maximum number of affordable new homes for middle, moderate, and low income Boston residents, and to acknowledge the loss of Boston s historic West End as a result of urban renewal and the construction of Government Center.167 To adequately address the lack of affordable housing in downtown Boston, the CAC also recommended that the initiative be expanded to include a minimum of 600 housing units and that low income homeownership be encouraged through equity limitations and appreciation caps.168 Moreover, they suggested that the development be mixed use, with roughly square feet of office space and square feet retail space, to provide access to services and amenities and contribute life and activity to the development and surrounding neighborhoods.

169 By the mid-1980s, the Division of Employment Security and the Department of Mental Health had expressed concerns that their respective facilities in the complex were inefficient and difficult to maintain, and the project s scope was to include improvements to the Hurley and Lindemann Building as well. This allowed architects to submit proposals that would, in the words of the CAC report, subdivide the urban renewal superblock and integrate [the] development with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood districts and to create multiple addresses that promote identity and sense of place. 170 Ultimately, the redesign process became a reunion of the leaders who directed the development.

Ed Logue, who had since gone into private development, was drawn to the financial value of the prime downtown location and spearheaded the project. Concerned that it would be even more complicated than the original design process, he invited Paul Rudolph whose leadership during the bureaucratic quagmire of the he still admired to serve as the architect of the redevelopment.171 From 90, Rudolph grappled with new programmatic requirements through a range of designs. He began by returning to his original 165 Philip Nobel, The Architecture of Madness, Metropolis Magazine, October 128 31. 166 New Chardon Street CAC Development Guidelines, 28 April introduction, in (F size). 167 Ibid, 1. 168 Ibid., 3. 169 Ibid, 170 Ibid., 6.

171 For more on Logue s rationale for why Rudolph should be the architect of the New Chardon Street redevelopment, see The Redesign of Parcel One, 12 October in (F size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 32) pinwheel plan for the tower (Figure which he again situated at the northeast corner of the site, and proposed a web of zagging low rise buildings with terraced facades to fill the central plaza. Then he experimented with new shapes for the tower, transforming it into a series of connected cylinders, as seen in Figure 22, but his designs reveal no real attempt to break up the superblock generated by his design, as the CAC recommended.

His later plans incorporated interlocking curvilinear and rectilinear elements (Figure 23) with a massing that bears clear similarities to the towers he was building in Asia at the time, such as the Lippo Center in Hong Kong and the Concourse Hotel in Singapore seen in Figure 24. By Logue s plans for the project expanded to include a new law school facility for Boston University, in addition to the office tower and affordable housing.172 However, it faced considerable opposition, especially from those who supported a very different proposal for the vacant site that had long been discussed: the construction of a new state courthouse.

By the mid- Logue s plan lost traction, and the architects, Kallmann, McKinnell & Wood were hired to design a new Trial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which opened in as the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse (Figure Although it was also executed on a monumental scale similar to the the courthouse s postmodern architecture is refreshingly inoffensive. Its classically inspired cornice, Greek Revival entrance portico, and exaggerated Richardsonian Romanesque voussoirs at ground level are gently fused and abstracted in way that appears modern yet respectful of adjacent historic buildings. Its white marble exterior also seems bright and welcoming, while massive windows and skylights wash its interior with natural light.

Although the courthouse does not address all the concerns presented by the CAC in the specifically those related to the social history of the West End, its functional role as a government building designed to facilitate the dispensation of justice is fitting for its location within Government Center, and the remained untouched by redevelopment for the following twenty years. Nevertheless, amid continued concerns about the challenges of adapting the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings to changing programmatic and accessibility needs, the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) commissioned a report in to assess the feasibility of redeveloping the complex.174 Four approaches were proposed to finally break up the superblock.

Each called for either partial or complete demolition of the Hurley Building and the construction of a new high rise that could be used by the state or sold to private developers. As the only building designed entirely by Paul Rudolph, the report recommended that the Lindemann Building remain intact. Given the prospect of partial demolition, preservationists raised concern, and in DCAMM announced that they would no longer consider any proposals that included a total demolition of the Hurley Building. Today, the Hurley Building is being emptied, but just what will occupy it in the future remains 172 Joan Vennochi, Bulger's Real Estate Power Play, The Boston Globe, June 19, 23. 173 Keith Morgan, Edward W.

Brooke Courthouse , SAH Archipedia, November 5, https://sah- Figure 3 is a site plan that shows the location of the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse. 174 Bruner and Cott, Boston Government Services Center. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 33) uncertain. Once again, those with a vested interest in the area are voicing their opinions on how the complex should change.

In an interview with The Boston Globe, West End Museum Executive Director, Duane Lucia, said that the DCAMM should pick the project that most benefits the community, not simply the one that is most lucrative.175 He remarked that many residents would like to see stores along Staniford Street, to break up that walled-off stretch 176 Others, including City Councilor Kenzie Bok have argued that the site could become a place for indoor recreational activities, which would return the land to the people it was taken from sixty years before.177 As DCAMM weighs their options, it seems possible that the will finally confront its vexed relationship with urban renewal and become the bustling and hospitable hub of community benefits that it was intended to be. PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION A.

General Statement 1. Architectural character: The brutalist Lindemann and Hurley Buildings comprising the Boston Government Service Center are six and seven stories tall respectively, and they combine to form a boomerang-shaped complex around a central plaza. Both buildings have flat roofs and are made almost entirely out of bush-hammered corrugated concrete.

The highly plastic and irregular form of the complex was a response to Rudolph s frustration with the banality of contemporary institutional buildings, which were often built from glass and steel, and appeared insubstantial and indifferent to their urban context.178 As a result, the was intended to convey a sense of sculptural permanence, and its shape was determined by the location of existing streets, which it was designed to abut.179 The complex s street-facing facades are defined by a of massive, multistory piers and a deep cornice that unites its dizzying protrusions and recessions. The facades facing the central plaza are more pedestrian scaled, forming tiers of balconies. Underneath this plaza lies a two-story parking garage.

A lack of visible entries, which are only subtly indicated by voids in the concrete, contributes to its impenetrable appearance. Despite Rudolph s desire to craft a site-specific complex, the materials, design language, and low, superblock scale of the are in contrast with the nearby residential and institutional buildings. The complex s architecture does, however, resonate with the nearby, and unmistakably brutalist, Boston City Hall, which was completed around the same time. 175 Chesto, The State Wants to Redo the Hurley Building. But How? 176 Ibid. 177 Ibid. 178 Rohan, The Architecture of Paul Rudolph, 178 Ibid., 11. 179 Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott to Charles G. Hilgenhurst, Boston Redevelopment Authority, 16 March in (F size), folder 1.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 34) 2. Condition of Fabric: Good to fair. Both the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings are structurally sound and have new roofs. The Hurley Building is the most well preserved, although some chips mar the corners of its concrete cornice and double-height piers, revealing the metal formwork in isolated spots. The reflective film that has been applied to the building s windows is peeling, making them look foggy. The Lindemann Building has deteriorated more substantially. While there is only minor chipping on the corners of its concrete fa ade, parts of the large concrete staircase rising from Merrimac Street to the central plaza are beginning to crumble, and access to them has been blocked.

The building s landscaping is largely unkept, and the central plaza has cracks with weeds growing on its surface. The interior of both buildings is generally in good condition, though carpets are often discolored, and wear is present on walls and doors. B. Description of Exterior: 1. Overall dimensions: The complex is gross square feet, comprised of the gross square feet Hurley Building and the gross square feet Lindemann Building. The complex is roughly 280 feet long along New Chardon Street, 145 feet long along Cambridge Street, 660 feet long along Staniford Street, and 415 feet long along Merrimac Street (Figure Including a basement, the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings are six and seven stories tall, respectively. Both buildings have an above-grade floor-to- floor height of 12 -6 2.

Foundations: The complex rests on piers and concrete footings that are only visible from the basement level. One can access the foundation from the moat that skirts the southern edge of the Hurley Building along Staniford Street, Cambridge Street, and New Chardon Street (Figures 26 and 3. Walls: The complex s exterior walls are made entirely of matching, light brown concrete, most of which was cast-in-place. There are two concrete finishes: one rough, or corrugated, and one smooth (Figure Rudolph stipulated that the corrugated finish should dominate.181 Its textured surface reveals the stones and shells within the aggregate, making the wall glitter in the sunlight or when wet.

Smooth cast-in-place concrete is reserved for horizontal structural elements, such as floor slabs, beams, spandrels, and exposed soffits. The sun shields that front the tiered levels facing the central plaza are made from smooth precast concrete and can also be seen in Figure 27. 4. Structural system, framing: The complex was constructed using a reinforced concrete frame supplemented by the support of internal concrete walls. Both buildings are built on a grid of structural columns typically spaced 24 -2 apart, which run the height of the 180 Lindemann Building section drawing, Progress Print, 12 August in (P size); Hurley Building section drawing, Progress Print, 1 May in (P size). 181 Government Center Commission, meeting minutes, 14 October in (F size), folder 10.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 35) buildings. The location of these columns is expressed externally by the multistory concrete piers on the street-facing facades. The floors and roofs of both buildings are made from one-way ribbed slabs of reinforced concrete, also known as pan joists (Figure In the Hurley Building, the orientation of the joists changes twice: rotating 100 degrees at the building s southwest corner and rotating another 100 degrees at its southeast corner. The joists rotate similarly at the two angles in the Lindemann Building: pivoting approximately 105 degrees at its northwest corner and 117 degrees at its northeast corner. At each turn, the joists run with the long side of the buildings.

The complex s many cantilevers are supported by reinforced concrete. 5. Parking garage, moat, plazas, porticos: a. Parking garage: A two-story parking garage is positioned at the center of the complex (Figure Access to the garage is obtained through a private entrance on Staniford Street, which has a rolling garage door activated by a keypad. This entrance brings cars to the upper level of the garage, where the only garage level entrances to both the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings are located. To access the lower level of the garage, cars must drive down a ramp on the southern side of the site. Parking spots on both levels are arranged on either side of a semicircular path for cars, which echoes the angles of the buildings.

The north and west portions of the garage abut the complex, and the east portion of the upper level is open to a green space. The ground level of the garage lies on a poured concrete slab, while the upper level and roof of the garage are made from flat slabs of reinforced concrete supported by two rows of structural columns. The columns are rectangular with rounded edges and have a smooth concrete finish. Given its constant use by cars and exposure to salt, the garage is in good condition. The most substantial instance of concrete erosion is located at the base of a column on the east side of the garage, where rebar is visible (Figure b.

Moat: The gap between the fa ade and plazas skirting the southern portion of the Hurley Building is referred to as the moat (Figures 26 and When measured from the surface of the plazas, the moat is roughly fifteen feet deep with varying width. The building s foundation serves as its inner wall, and its outer retaining wall is made from board-formed, cast-in-place concrete. The moat provides access to the building s underground utilities, and it prevents pedestrians from touching windows at plaza level. Entrance to the moat is primarily obtained though doors in the basement, but it can also be accessed via the top level of the parking garage and from a plaza level gate with descending steps at the corner of Staniford Street and Cambridge Street.

Because it collects rainwater and drainage from the building above, the moat s concrete has decayed in some areas. This is especially evident at joints, such as the connection between the corrugated concrete of the multistory piers and the moat s external retaining wall, where BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 36) exposed rebar can be seen. No clearly defined moat exists around the Lindemann Building. c.

Plazas: Three plazas were originally designed by Rudolph for the the central plaza, positioned at the center of the complex facing New Chardon Street; the Merrimac Street plaza, on the north side of the Lindemann Building; and the Cambridge Street plaza, on the south side of the Hurley Building (Figure The surface of the central plaza is formed by the roof of the parking garage (Figure It is a sweeping expanse of concrete containing little greenery, which often makes it windy. The central plaza provides access to the main entrances of the complex, and it is accessible from four staircases rising from an elliptical green space and from a walkway that skirts the New Chardon Street fa ade of the Hurley Building.

Its surface is made from aggregate and strips of grey granite, which have been positioned to form a sunburst pattern that makes it appear to radiate outward from the adjacent buildings. Along the side of the plaza abutting the buildings, and positioned between multistory concrete piers, there are a series of half-moon-shaped concrete benches and planters containing shrubbery, as shown in the design drawing in Figure 34.

A metal barrier, with a simple motif echoing the lines of the corrugated concrete, has been positioned behind the planters to prevent people from falling into the deep moat that skirts the base of the building (Figure Another safety barrier made of concrete is positioned along the semicircular north and eastern edge of the plaza; it became part of the original design once the tower was eliminated. The Merrimac Street plaza was designed to funnel pedestrians from the north side of the Lindemann Building up a monumental winding staircase to the central plaza (Figure Its surface was originally paved with a pattern of rough aggregate and smooth concrete that also appeared to radiate outward from the building toward the city.

By far the most expressive portion of the plaza is the line of sinusoidal benches and planters made of smooth concrete positioned near the Lindemann Building. Their undulating shape echoes the curvilinear forms projecting from the upper registers of the building, with lines that used to extend outward into the plaza to form shallow steps. However, much of this design has been obscured in recent years. The plaza has been paved over with asphalt to form a parking lot, obliterating the steps and the pattern of the concrete. Cars now park only feet from the fa ade of the Lindemann Building, adjacent to the windows of the cafeteria, obscuring the view of the plaza from inside (Figure 5). The entire plaza is now bordered by a chain link fence with one entrance for cars.

182 In the mid-twentieth century, it became popular to try to solve the issue of parking in cities by concealing cars below ground. For example, Pittsburgh s Mellon Square, completed in is a landscaped urban park built above a parking garage, complete with grass, trees, and fountains. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 37) The Cambridge Street plaza is the smallest of the three (Figure It is paved in the same radial pattern of rough aggregate and smooth concrete, and it slopes gently downward on three sides toward the adjacent streets.

Like the central plaza, the Cambridge Street plaza has half-moon-shaped concrete benches positioned between multistory concrete piers, inviting people to rest under the shade of the Hurley Building. These benches are backed by the same metal barriers that have been added to the benches on the central plaza. At the southwestern edge of the plaza, nearest the building, there are stairs leading down to the moat. A brown metal fence was recently added to stop pedestrians from accessing these stairs; its spear-shaped finials clash with the building s otherwise minimalist design language. d. Porticos: The has numerous porticos created by its deep overhangs and cantilevered upper floors.

At the Hurley Building, the largest of these porticos is located under the northeastern projection facing New Chardon Street (Figure Here, hanging from a board-formed concrete ceiling, is a thirty-foot-wide sculpture called Upward Bound, which was made by retired MIT engineering professor Charles Fayette Taylor in It is built from brass cylindrical poles and was intended to symbolize the work of the employees of the Division of Employment Security who help Massachusetts citizens move upward toward work opportunities.184 Elsewhere, the Hurley Building has four additional porticos, each serving as a covered entrance portal. The largest and most notable of these is only for employee use, and it faces Staniford Street.

This portico is double-height, and the rounded corrugated concrete face of an elevator core bulges forward to divide its two doorways. It is capped by a cantilever supported by two corrugated concrete piers. The other three entrance porticoes are for visitors seeking social services, and they are located off the central plaza. Unlike the Hurley Building, the main entrances to the Lindemann Building in use today are at the garage level. Because they are covered by the plaza above, they have no clearly defined portico.

However, on the northern side of the Lindemann Building there is a bridge capping a multistory gap in the building, forming an irregularly shaped portico beneath (Figure This space was originally intended as a private place for recreation bound by the walls of the building; today it is empty. 6. Chimneys: Various mechanical exhaust pipes are located in the flat roofs of the buildings, but they are not visually distinguishable as chimneys. 183 Sculpture: Upward Bound, in (F size), folder 1. 184 Ibid. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 38) 7. Openings: a. Doorways and doors: The main entrances for visitors and employees have commercial grade storefront-style doors made of glass and metal.

There are two types of these doors on both buildings: the original two-leaf glass doors from circa with thin bronze frames and sleek vertical door handles; and newer, two-leaf glass doors with a thicker, dark anodized frame and a metal push bar. Many of the new doors slide with a motion-activated sensor. The most noteworthy example of the original doors and frames is at the main entrance to the Hurley Building, where two sets of double-leaf doors are positioned within a curtain wall (Figure The complex also has single-leaf solid metal doors painted orange with a black metal frame. These doors are primarily used at the exterior entrances to utility spaces, including the fireproof staircases and at the doorways to the moat.

Some of them have the original silver lever handles, while others have been updated to include a horizontal push bar. b. Windows: Both the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings have fixed windows encased in a metal frame with a dark anodized finish. In the largest common areas and offices, the windows are full height; in other places they rest on a knee wall, allowing space for heaters on the interior side of the walls below (Figure Some windows, such as those at the sixth-floor cafeteria in the Hurley Building, are casements that can be opened to allow access to the terraced roofs. To provide privacy and mitigate heat gain, vertical slat Venetian blinds were specified throughout the complex. It appears that the original blinds were brown, but many have been replaced with white horizontal blinds.

The south-facing windows on the Hurley Building have been covered with a reflective film, which is now faded in places. 8. Roof: a. Shape, covering: The complex has flat roofs surrounded by a low parapet. The roofs were originally covered in roofing gravel made from the same aggregate used on the concrete pavement for the plaza.185 The gravel has since been removed and replaced with white thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), and the parapets are capped with grey metal (Figure The TPO roofs have been patched in places but are in good condition overall. The majority of the roofs drain using scuppers that pierce the edge of the parapet. b.

Towers: There are roughly ten clusters of rounded vertical piers positioned at the complex s corners and running the height of the buildings (Figure They serve 185 architects, meeting minutes, 18 March in (F size), folder 11. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 39) as fire exit stairwells or house mechanical equipment. The top level of the staircase towers each have a door that provides access to one of the building s flat roofs. The towers have a light blue standing seam metal roof, instead of the TPO used elsewhere. c. Skylights: Rudolph s stipulation that both the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings be united by a windowless top floor cornice created dark upper-level floors.

Consequently, both buildings have single pitch glass skylights skirting much of the exterior walls of their respective top floors, making windowless interior walls appear to glow (Figure Circular glass skylights are positioned in common spaces, including the Hurley Building s cafeteria and atriums. The Lindemann Building has acrylic dome skylights in residential units and offices. C. Description of Interior: 1. Floor plans: Though they look unified from the exterior, the Hurley and Lindemann Buildings are completely separated by a dividing wall, and they have distinct layouts reflecting the hands of different designers and programmatic requirements. The Hurley Building has seven floors, the majority of which were designed to house offices for the Division of Employment Security.

The lowest level of the building is the basement. It is arranged along a double-loaded corridor running north to south along Staniford Street. Spaces flanking the corridor include a truck loading area, mechanical rooms, offices, and storage rooms. Access to the levels above can be obtained from one of the oval stairwells lining the building s exterior walls. The next floor is the first level where visitors enter the building off the plaza (Figures 44 and The bulk of this level consists of waiting rooms and open office space. It is divided in half by a double-height atrium that contains four elevators.

To help make the building s layout more comprehensible, occupants have used this separation to divide the building into two parts.186 Part one is north of the atrium; part two is south of the atrium. Access between the two halves of the building is possible on the second floor, where a bridge runs through the atrium. Floors two through five house administrative offices not typically accessible to the public, and they feature a similar layout. Here, private offices line much of the exterior walls, leaving the middle space open for cubicles, staircases, and the four bathrooms on each floor. Floors three through six lose space as the tiers facing the central plaza move inward. Floor six originally included a cafeteria, which has recently been converted to an office area with cubicles.

The layout of the Lindemann Building is less straightforward. The building contains many sculptural stairways that were originally intended to funnel visitors into the building. Because changing code and usage requirements have led to the closure of the Merrimac Street stairway and the plaza level entrance, the logic behind Rudolph s nuanced circulation patterns has been muddled. Nevertheless, the interior floorplan 186 Conversation with Anthony L. Brewer, maintenance foreman at the Hurley Building, in June of BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 40) survives almost untouched.

The building is notable for the way it interweaves recreational areas and living quarters for a variety of patients, leaving few areas or users to feel separated from others. The ground floor is set into the natural slope of the site, with its northern side open to Merrimac plaza. This floor has numerous common areas for residents, including a cafeteria, kitchen, gymnasium / auditorium, and pool that has since been filled in. The southern portion of the floor, which is set into the hillside and receives no natural light, contains mechanical rooms and storage space. Above the ground floor is the mezzanine level, which contains a variety of offices, classrooms, and examination rooms.

This floor corresponds with the basement of the Hurley Building and is where the building s primary entrance from the parking garage is located. Above the mezzanine level is the plaza level (Figure which is split in half by a double-height portico. Its west side contains a large mechanical room, and its east side houses offices and examination rooms, as well as private rooms for residents. This building s grand, but now now-disused, entrance space is located off the plaza. Above the plaza level lies the second floor; it contains a variety of outpatient rooms, game rooms, and classrooms for residents. This floor also has a bridge that connects the east and west halves of the building. From here, the layout of subsequent floors becomes more uniform.

The third floor contains in-patient and out-patient spaces for therapy that are adjacent to spaces for rehabilitation, and recreation; the fourth floor contains a chapel and private rooms for residents; and the fifth floor has offices for physicians. Throughout the building bathrooms are placed along exterior walls in rounded concrete pods. 2. Stairways: The Hurley Building has a relatively straightforward arrangement of four staircases, three of which line its exterior walls. These are switchback stairs, running the height of the building from the basement to the roof and are primarily used for fire egress.

They are made of concrete and have open stringers and closed risers with a black steel handrail (Figure Given their utilitarian purpose and inconvenient location, visitors to the building will typically use one of its nine elevators, four of which can be accessed from the building s double-height atrium. The stairways in the Lindemann Building are less uniform. Two of these are especially sculptural, and they were intended to operate as a significant component of one s procession through the building. Perhaps the most notable stairway is positioned off the building s now-closed plaza level entrance (Figure It is made of poured in place concrete with seven short terrazzo risers and deep treads that bow outward and follow an undulating corrugated concrete wall.

Its banister is a low corrugated concrete wall capped by a concrete railing. Nearby skylights and windows made this a welcoming space that gently brought visitors deeper into the building and down toward the mezzanine (or garage) level. The building s second entrance stairway is positioned off the mezzanine entrance (Figure Daylight enters this space through one skylight at a landing, and sconces shine onto the walls to illuminate its dark lower levels, yet it feels comparatively subterranean. The stairway is a cantilevered spiral shaped like a corkscrew, and it is anchored to a corrugated concrete wall.

It also has a corrugated concrete banister with a concrete railing, and its treads are made of terrazzo, bowing inward and then spilling outward near the bottom treads at the basement level. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 41) 3. Flooring: High traffic common areas in the complex have large aggregate terrazzo floors of the same color as the concrete walls and plaza. In the Hurley Building these floors can be found in the double-height atrium between the plaza and Staniford Street, where they are covered with black carpet runners. The rest of the building primarily has black, grey, or white linoleum with black borders, or navy or dark grey wall-to-wall carpet.

The linoleum is typically in the hallways, and the carpet is in office suites. The Lindemann Building has more terrazzo floors than the Hurley Building. Here, terrazzo also appears in hallways and more minor circulation spaces. White linoleum is used in the cafeteria of the Lindemann Building, and the hardwood floor in its gymnasium was recently replaced with a rubberized floor due to water damage. The floors in the bathrooms of both buildings have mosaic tile, and the kitchens have red ceramic tile. 4. Wall and ceiling finish: Both buildings include interior walls made of the same corrugated concrete used on their exterior.

In the Hurley Building, concrete walls are primarily reserved for multistory vertical elements, including elevator cores and stairwells (Figure The majority of the remaining walls are either steel stud walls covered with Portland cement plaster on lath or demountable office partitions. Some of these partitions are original and have a metal surface; others have been added more recently and have a drywall surface. Curtain walls can be found on the exterior walls of the double-height atrium. Due in large part to Rudolph s preference for the material, the Lindemann Building has more interior concrete walls than the Hurley Building. The walls of almost all common areas, including stairwells, elevator cores, and hallways, are corrugated concrete.

Smoother, board-formed concrete walls are in the gymnasium. The Lindemann Building also has steel stud walls covered with Portland cement plaster on lath. These are located in the cafeteria, as well as more private spaces, including classrooms and living quarters. All plaster walls of note are painted an eggshell color in both buildings. Most of the bathrooms have original stall dividers made of metal painted grey and walls covered in mosaic tile from floor to ceiling. The complex has two main ceiling types: a white popcorn ceiling made of plaster, and acoustical tiles. Both buildings use popcorn ceilings in important common areas, including atriums and high-traffic hallways, but they are employed more extensively in the Lindemann Building.

Here, popcorn ceilings can also be found in smaller hallways and lobbies. Acoustical tiles are either square-edged, tongue and groove tiles with a fissure pattern, and are original to the building, or they are modern, white, lay-in rectangular tiles with visible metal supports. Bathrooms have a mixture of ceiling types, often including metal drop ceilings. The ceiling of the Lindemann Building chapel is unique; it is made of smooth concrete. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 42) 5. Openings: a. Doorways and doors: Both buildings primarily have hollow metal doors with a metal frame and no decorative trim.

The doors and frames are typically painted light grey or black, except for those leading to utility spaces, which are painted orange. Some metal doors have a narrow vertical light, and newer doors to office suites are often glass with a black steel frame. b. Windows: The interior side of windows is the same as the exterior a metal frame in a dark anodized finish. 6. Decorative features and trim: The is notable for its absence of traditional decoration.

However, Rudolph considered the complex s corrugated concrete to be a form of ornament, and the texture and curves of the building s concrete walls provide an expressive quality that embellishes interior spaces.187 Also, in certain instances in the Lindemann Building, corrugated and smooth concrete are juxtaposed on the same wall to create a decorative pattern. This effect can be seen in the chapel, where corrugated ridges appear to slide downward into the face of the smooth concrete (Figure The other decorative features of note are the two floor-to-ceiling murals by Costantino Nivola in the atrium of the Hurley Building (Figure They were intended to resonate with the social function of the building as the headquarters of the Division of Employment Security.

The northern wall narrates the process from Employment Service and training to its rewards in plentitude, and the southern wall narrates progress from personal and urban distress to consumption and well-being. 188 7. Hardware: Much of the original hardware remains in both buildings. Many of the steel and glass doors are original, and bathrooms contain original fixtures, including sinks, mirrors, and toilets. 8. Mechanical equipment: a. Heating, air conditioning, ventilation: Components of the HVAC system are located in the basement and on the roof of both buildings. The moat surrounding the southern edges of the Hurley Building s basement allows for easy access to these systems, while also providing space for mechanical equipment to vent.

Air conditioning chillers are on the sixth floor of the Hurley Building but are only partially functioning. They are supplemented by a temporary chiller located on the sidewalk along Staniford Street, which pumps air into the building through the basement. Interior HVAC vents are located underneath windows and within drop ceilings. 187 Desmond & Lord, M. A. Dyer Company, Paul Rudolph, Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott to Government Center Commission, 1 July in (F size), folder 1. 188 Mural Decoration, in (F size), folder 1. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 43) b. Lighting: The Hurley Building has recessed troffer lights in the drop ceilings of most office suites.

More important common areas, including elevator lobbies and hallways, have recessed can lights. In the three lobbies facing the plaza and in the cafeteria, there are black canister lights positioned within circular skylights (Figure These cannisters are the dominant light fixture in the Lindemann Building. Here, they are used as wall sconces or are suspended from the ceiling near concrete walls. In both cases they shine against the walls to illuminate their sculptural qualities and the colors in the aggregate. Most of these fixtures are original. The parking garage is primarily illuminated by fluorescent lights suspended from the ceiling. The bulk of the complex s exterior has indirect lights that shine on the building s multistory concrete piers.

The plaza is primarily lit by black cannisters suspended by horizontal rods connected to the buildings. Freestanding lamps are on the plaza near the steps to the parking garage. c. Elevators: Both buildings have separate visitor and service elevators. The elevators are located within rounded concrete cores that have a corrugated exterior surface. The visitor elevator cars in the Hurley Building have been recently renovated; their interiors have stainless steel panels with light brown granite inserts. D. Site: The site of the was one of fifteen parcels of land that was cleared in the early as part of the sixty-acre Government Center urban renewal district.

The construction of the complex resulted in the demolition of roughly 150 low-rise brick structures within the dilapidated commercial area called Scollay Square.189 Throughout the design process, Rudolph had to contend with the slope of the site, which drops approximately thirty feet from Cambridge Street to the corner of Merrimac and New Chardon Streets.190 He designed the complex s subterranean parking garage as a solution. By digging the Cambridge Street portion of the garage into the hillside, he was able to construct a flat area that could accommodate two levels of parking and a central plaza above.

Rudolph envisioned the plaza as the functional core of the complex both buildings are oriented toward and connected by it, and it originally functioned as the primary means of access to the main entrances to the complex. The plaza also would have served as the base of the HWE Tower, had it been built. After the decision was made not to complete the tower, the plaza was left with an elliptical void at its center, and the northeastern corner of the site was vacant (Figure 2). This area remained empty for over two decades, until the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse was built in A small green space was placed between these buildings when the courthouse was constructed (Figures 3 and 4). 189 Daniel M.

Abramson, Representing the American Welfare State, Grey Room 78 190 William Grindereng to Government Center Commission, 4 February in (F size), folder 4. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 44) PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. Architectural Drawings: The Library of Congress has an extensive collection of sketches, drawings, and photographs in the Paul Rudolph Archive. These materials relate to the design of all three buildings, including the unexecuted HWE Tower, as well as Rudolph s unbuilt plans for the redevelopment on New Chardon Street. The Massachusetts State Archive holds a smaller collection of drawings relating to the project. B.

Early Views: The Paul Rudolph Archive at the Library of Congress has a substantial collection of architectural renderings and photographs from the design and construction of the in the These also include images of architectural models. C. Interviews: This report benefited greatly from interviews and tours with Anthony Brewer, current foreman at the Hurley Building, and Eric McCain, current foreman at the Lindemann Building in June of D. Selected

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS MA-1356. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Archives consulted Boston Public Library, Boston Redevelopment Authority Records Library of Congress, Paul Rudolph Drawings and Manuscripts Massachusetts State Archive, Government Center Commission Project Files Other primary and period sources Another Major Project for Boston. Progressive Architecture 45, February 62 64 Boston Moves to Greatness. The Boston Herald, May 7, Corckery, Paul J. Collins Wars Against Power Politics; Convention Speech Kicks Off Primary. The Harvard Crimson. June 13, Davern, Jeanne M. Conversations with Paul Rudolph. Other. Architectural Record March Ellis, David. State Senate Probes HWE Building Cost. The Boston Globe, February 10, Evolution of Boston's Government Center. Architectural Digest, January BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F.

Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 45) Franzen, Ulrich, Paul Rudolph and Peter M. Wolf. The Evolving City: Urban Design Proposals. New York: Whitney Library of Design, Fuerbringer, Jonathan, and Marvin Milbauer. Roxbury, Quiet in Past, Finally Breaks into Riot; Why Did Violence Occur? The Harvard Crimson, June 15, Holtz Kay, Jane. Lindemann Center: A Review. The Boston Globe, September 22, Huxtable, Ada Louise. Boston Is Going Radical in Building Design. The New York Times, November 7, Kirkbride, Thomas Story. On the Construction, Organization, and General Arrangements of Hospitals for the Insane. with Some Remarks on Insanity and Its Treatment. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, Kropf, Karl. Six Determinants of Architectural Form.

Architectural Record October Lucas, Peter. Buczko Blasts Swim Pool, Gym at Govt. Center Buildings. The Herald Traveler, February 5, National Study Service. Meeting the Problems of People in Massachusetts: A Study of the Massachusetts Public Welfare System. Boston, Rudolph, Paul. Excerpts from a Conversation. Perspecta 22, 102 7. Rudolph, Paul. Six Determinants of Architectural Form. Architectural Record October 183 90. Rudolph, Paul. The Essence of Architecture Is Space. House and Garden 5, Rudolph, Paul, and Sibyl Moholy-Nagy. The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. New York: Praeger, The Opposites: Expressionism and Formalism at Yale. Progressive Architecture, February 128 29. Three New Directions. Perspecta 1 18 22. Vennochi, Joan. Bulger's Real Estate Power Play.

The Boston Globe, June 19, Workman, William S. Legislator Attacks Mental Health Center. The Boston Globe, March 22, Secondary sources BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 46) Abramson, Daniel M. Representing the American Welfare State. Grey Room 78 96 Alba, De Roberto, and Robert Bruegmann. Paul Rudolph: The Late Work. New York : Princeton Architectural Press, Banham, Reyner, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? London: Reinhold, Batson, Ruth. The Black Educational Movement in Boston: A Sequence of Historical Events: A Chronology. Boston: Northeastern University, School of Education, Calder, Barnabas. Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism. London: William Heinemann, Chesto, Jon.

The State Wants to Redo the Hurley Building. But How? Boston Globe, January 9, building-how/. Cohen, Lizabeth. Saving America's Cities: Ed Logue and the Struggle to Renew Urban America in the Suburban Age. New York: Picador, Coleman, Nathaniel. Utopias and Architecture. New York: Routledge, Desjarlais, Robert R. Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood among the Homeless. Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press, Dixon, John Morris, and Eugenia Bell. Paul Rudolph Inspiration and Process in Architecture. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, Dorsey, John. A Guide to Baltimore Architecture. Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, Grimley, Chris, Michael Kubo and Mark Pasnik. Heroic: Concrete Architecture and the New Boston. New York: Monacelli Press, Heskel, Julia.

Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott: Past to Present. Boston: Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott, History - ASWB. Association of Social Work Boards, https://www.aswb.org/wp- Kennedy, Lawrence W. Planning the City upon a Hill: Boston since Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Klemek, Christopher. The Transatlantic Collapse of Urban Renewal: Postwar Urbanism from New York to Berlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 47) Knoblauch, Joy. The Architecture of Good Behavior: Psychology and Modern Institutional Design in Postwar America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, Kruh, David. Always Something Doing: Boston's Infamous Scollay Square.

Boston: Northeastern University Press, Pasnik, Mark, Michael Kubo, and Chris Grimley. Heroic: Concrete Architecture and the New Boston. New York, NY: The Monacelli Press, Moholy-Nagy, Sibyl, Gerhard Schwab, and Paul Rudolph. The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. London: Thames and Hudson, Morgan, Keith. Edward W. Brooke Courthouse (New Chardon Street Courthouse). SAH Archipedia. Society of Architectural Historians. Accessed August 1, https://sah- Muschamp, Herbert. Paul Rudolph Is Dead at 78; Modernist Architect of the New York Times, August 9, Nikolas Rose, Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (New York: Routledge, 1. Nobel, Phillip. The Architecture of Madness: Buildings Can Drive You Crazy, But Can They Help Restore Mental Health? Metropolis 19 128 31. Novella, Enric J.

Mental Health Care and the Politics of Inclusion: A Social Systems Account of Psychiatric Deinstitutionalization. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31, no. 6 411 27. Picon, Antoine. Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity. New York: Wiley and Sons, Rep. Boston Government Services Center: Lindemann-Hurley Preservation Report. Boston, MA: Bruner and Cott and Associates, Rohan, Timothy M. Reassessing Rudolph. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Architecture, Rohan, Timothy M. Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph s Art and Architecture Building at Yale, Grey Room 1 Rohan, Timothy M. The Architecture of Paul Rudolph. New Haven: Yale University Press, Schafter, Debra. The Order of Ornament, the Structure of Style: Theoretical Foundations of Modern Art and Architecture.

New York: Cambridge University Press, BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 48) Tager, Jack. Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence. Boston: Northeastern University, Traverso, Susan. Welfare Politics in Boston, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, Withorn, Ann. The Circle Game: Services for the Poor in Massachusetts, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, Yanni, Carla. The Architecture of Madness: Insane Asylums in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Zacka, Bernardo. When the State Meets the Street Public Service and Moral Agency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, PART IV.

PROJECT INFORMATION The documentation of the Boston Government Service Center was undertaken by Carter C. Jackson (Boston University, Department of History of Art & Architecture), summer intern for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) of the National Park Service with cooperation from the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). HABS is within the Heritage Documentation Programs division of the National Park Service (Catherine Lavoie, Chief, HABS; Scott Keyes, Chief, Assistance from DCAMM was provided by Abi Vladeck, Senior Project Manager, and Senior Operations Manager Parrish Rossi and Facility Manager Bon Chibueze of the Office of Facilities Management and Maintenance.

Project oversight was provided by Catherine Lavoie, and advice and assistance were provided by Daniel Abramson, Professor, Architectural History and Director of Architectural Studies, Boston University. The photography was undertaken by Justin Scalera, HDP Photographer and American Conservation Experience (ACE) Fellow. Thanks also to Anthony Brewer and Eric McCain, who provided tours of the Hurley and Lindemann buildings, respectively. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 49) PART V. ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Office of Paul Rudolph, rendering of Lindemann Building from intersection of Staniford Street and Merrimac Street, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division.

Figure 2: Birdseye view of from southwest (note open area on upper right the site of the unbuilt HWE tower), circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 50) Figure 3: Map of and Edward W. Brooke Courthouse showing green space in middle of central plaza, circa photo: WBUR Boston. Figure 4: Green space in middle of central plaza (added June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 51) Figure 5: Asphalt parking lot covering Merrimac Street plaza and bollards blocking Lindemann Building staircase, June author s photograph. Figure 6: Whitman & Howard Inc.

Engineers, property line plan showing existing and proposed street lines, July Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 52) Figure 7: Attributed to Peterson and Tilney, Scheme Three, ca. Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (P size). Figure 8: Paul Rudolph, reduced fragmentation sketch of June Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (F size), folder 10. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 53) Figure 9: Office of Paul Rudolph, corrugated concrete finish procedure, ca.

Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (F size). Figure 10: Hurley Building from intersection of Cambridge Street and New Chardon Street, August author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 54) Figure 11: Hurley Building from central plaza, August author s photograph. Figure 12: Costantino Nivola mural in atrium of Hurley Building, showing northern wall which narrates the process from Employment Service and training to its rewards in plentitude, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 55) Figure 13: Attributed to M. A.

Dyer with Pedersen and Tilney Company, architectural model including original design for HEW Tower, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size). Figure 14: Office of Paul Rudolph, new design for HWE Tower, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 56) Figure 15: Sloan, hospital on the linear plan, illustrated in Kirkbride, On the Construction, Organization, and General Arrangement of Hospital for the Insane. Plan of cellar (above) and basement (below).

Figure 16: Merrimac Street plaza facing the northern fa ade of the Lindemann Building, showing sinusoidal benches and steps to central plaza, photograph circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 57) Figure 17: Office of Paul Rudolph, conceptual sketch of Merrimac plaza, showing sinusoidal benches and steps up to central plaza, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size). Figure 18: Office of Paul Rudolph, floor plan of the Lindemann Building, showing the plaza level, Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size).

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 58) Figure 19: Staircase off the closed plaza level entrance to Lindemann Building, June author s photograph. Figure 20: Office of Paul Rudolph, perspective sketch and plan of staircase at Lindemann Building, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 59) Figure 21: Office of Paul Rudolph, New Chardon Street, floor plan conceptual sketch, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size).

Figure 22: Office of Paul Rudolph, New Chardon Street, elevation conceptual sketch, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 60) Figure 23: Office of Paul Rudolph, New Chardon Street, conceptual building model, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. Figure 24: Office of Paul Rudolph, conceptual rendering of The Concourse Hotel, Singapore, circa Paul Rudolph Foundation, photo: BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 61) Figure 25: Kallmann, McKinnell & Wood, Edward W. Brooke Courthouse, August author s photograph.

Figure 26: Office of Paul Rudolph, site plan of circa (note: text and blue line indicating location of moat, and orange line dividing buildings added by author), Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 62) Figure 27: Plaza fa ade of Lindemann Building showing corrugated concrete on vertical elements and board-formed concrete on horizontal sun shades, June author s photograph. Figure 28: Office of Paul Rudolph, section of Lindemann Building, showing one-way ribbed slabs of reinforced concrete, circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F.

Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 63) Figure 29: Top level of parking structure, photograph circa Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. Figure 30: Concrete column in parking garage, showing erosion, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 64) Figure 31: Moat surrounding Hurley Building, June author s photograph. Figure 32: Plan of showing plazas (1: central plaza, 2: Merrimac Street plaza, 3: Cambridge Street plaza), with numbers added by author, Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 65) Figure 33: Central plaza facing the southern fa ade of the Lindemann Building, showing surface made of aggregate and granite strips, June author s photograph. Figure 34: Office of Paul Rudolph, design drawing for sinusoidal benches and planters along Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, (P size). BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 66) Figure 35: Back of benches and planters at showing new metal safety barriers, August author s photograph. Figure 36: Cambridge Street plaza, showing southern fa ade of Hurley Building, including half-moon-shaped benches between piers and new brown metal fence on the left, June author s photograph.

BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 67) Figure 37: New Chardon Street portico at the Hurley Building, showing Upward Bound by Charles Fayette Taylor, June author s photograph. Figure 38: Lindemann Building portico, showing enclosed recreation area below, August author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 68) Figure 39: Entrance to Hurley Building, showing original double-leaf doors within curtain wall, June author s photograph. Figure 40: Original windows on second level of Hurley Building, showing knee wall with heaters below, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F.

Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 69) Figure 41: Thermoplastic polyolefin roof of Hurley Building, showing skylights near parapet, June author s photograph. Figure 42: Top of staircase tower at the Lindemann Building, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 70) Figure 43: Skylights skirting exterior walls on top level of Hurley Building, August author s photograph. Figure 44: Office of Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbot, floor plan of northern portion (part 1) of Hurley Building, May Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 71) Figure 45: Office of Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbot, floor plan of southern portion (part 2) of Hurley Building, May Paul Rudolph Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, PMR Figure 46: Typical staircase in the Hurley Building, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No. MA-1356 (Page 72) Figure 47: Staircase off mezzanine entrance at the Lindemann Building, June author s photograph. Figure 48: Elevator cores in lobby of Hurley Building, June author s photograph. BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) HABS No.

MA-1356 (Page 73) Figure 49: Chapel on fourth level of Lindemann Building, showing walls with corrugated and smooth concrete, June author s photograph. Figure 50: Skylights in plaza level ceiling of a Hurley Building atrium, showing black canister lights within skylights, June author s photograph. ADDENDUM TO: HABS MA-1356 BOSTON GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER HABS MA-1356 (Charles F. Hurley and Erich Lindemann Buildings) 19 and 25 Staniford Street Boston Suffolk County Massachusetts

Digital Photographs Historic American Buildings Survey

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior C Street NW Washington, DC