But Steven M. Neuhaus, Orange County executive, seems determined to pursue the teardown plan. MidHudsonNews.com quoted him the other day as saying that “construction and deconstruction work” will begin “by spring of this year.” He recently vetoed a proposal that would have allowed the county to sell the center to Mr. Kaufman.
County legislators meet on Feb. 5. [...]
But many people who spoke at a public hearing last month in Goshen endorsed Mr. Kaufman’s proposal. It would save the center, potentially save the county a fortune, bring in tourist dollars and even put the Rudolph building on the tax rolls.1
…
[Michael Kimmelman] describes why he’s been outspoken in supporting this building, which doesn’t have the profile of other fights he has taken up.
A. Buildings don’t exist in a vacuum. They may be remarkable looking and innovative, but they’re not sculptures. They have to work. They exist on streets, in communities and cities, in the landscape and our daily lives. They’re inseparable from issues like urbanism and economic development, from politics, infrastructure and questions about social equity, the environment and technology.
Q. How did this building get on your radar?
A. There have been calls for years to tear down the Government Center in Goshen just as there were preservationists, architectural historians, local fans and Paul Rudolph aficionados loudly pleading that it needed to be saved. One or two champions of the building in particular pressed me on the issue. Timing mattered.
Q. At what point did you decide to become its champion?
A. I first wrote about the building in January, when the fight was coming to a head, legislatively; around the same time an alternative to demolition had coalesced, a plan put forth by a Manhattan architect, who said he would buy, conserve and transform the building into an artists’ residence and exhibition space. I think it’s useful to offer alternatives when possible, so that you’re not just complaining — everybody has opinions, opinions are cheap. It’s important to acknowledge the concerns of your opponents and to try to suggest another constructive way forward.
But I also think it’s necessary to chose subjects that speak to issues larger than themselves because, since we’re talking about preservation in this case, there are many buildings facing the wrecking ball that ought to be spared and it’s simply impossible to write about more than the smallest fraction of them. Rudolph’s building seemed to me worth championing because the architecture, which I admire and think is beautiful and idealistic, is clearly anathema to many people and therefore is especially vulnerable and demanding of an argument. It’s a tough case. But I also chose it because, as a public building, it’s a good illustration of how architecture isn’t just about aesthetics. A building like the center represents certain values and ideas. It was designed to express in concrete and glass notions about open, energetic, democratic government — which may explain some of the opposition to it, but in any case underscores how architecture is, at heart, about how we live, who we are, and what we value.2