Turning the Corner

When the current Duke Law School building was constructed in the mid-1960's at the intersection of Science Drive and Towerview Parkway, that corner was nothing special. Neither of the intersecting streets were major thoroughfares. Since we were building on side streets, the University felt that the new building did not require a strong architectural presence; it could be more utilitarian in design. There was no need for Duke stone, simple brick would do. The building need not have the customary Duke Gothic tower.

Over time, however, our part of the campus has grown and become an important University center of activity. With the addition of the ever-growing Fuqua School of Business and the addition in the early 1990's of the Sanford Institute of Public Policy, our corner has become an important focal point for Duke's graduate and professional schools at Duke. The corner will become even more prominent when the Nicholas School for the Environment moves in across Towerview into a renovated and expanded Gross Chemistry Building. The simple fact is that the Law School now has a prime location on an important crossroads of the campus.

Architecturally, however, the Law School building has never engaged the corner. As designed, the Law School did not even present a clearly defined main entrance. The strong pediment of limestone columns on Science Drive seemed to be the main architectural feature. Yet, the building had its main entrance on Towerview that was oddly tucked away. While the entrance could be seen on architectural drawings, in reality, the entrance was practically invisible from the street. In an early photo, one can barely see the small array of columns that marked the entrance. As the trees grew over time, the entrance became even more hidden.

Not surprisingly, as various efforts were made to improve the law school building, architects looked to strengthen the building's expression on the corner. In the 1980's, the Law School retained Gunner Birkerts to develop a completely new look for the law school as well as plan for a major expansion. His plan - which was never fully implemented - would have created a major new entrance in the key corner location that included a domed rotunda. University officials questioned whether the dome was consistent with Duke's overall architectural vocabulary. This presented an important question: would the Law School have its own architectural style or would we work to be integrated with the larger campus.

The Law School did build the addition designed by Birkerts that used a new material - polished granite - on the facade. But we elected not to complete the renovation of the old building according to his plans. There was a sense that simply building an expensive new entrance - that would add no usable program space - was ill-advised. Birkerts' plans for the corner were put on the shelf.

In 2001, the Law School engaged Peter Saylor of Dagit & Saylor, a prominent Philadelphia architectural firm, to conduct a new concept study of how to expand the Law School. His subsequent study was the basis for our decision to add a new wing - made of what has become known as "Duke Brick" - along Science Drive. This handsome new wing included a Tower that was defined the new main entrance to the Law School. Saylor also developed a detailed plan for enclosing our interior courtyard to provide much needed public space.

Saylor also studied how to animate the corner. His initial idea was to create a raised plaza area that could serve as an outdoor venue for events. As the concept was developed by a prominent landscape architect, the plaza was embellished with benches and a water feature. The sentiment was the same as with past plans - this space was exceedingly important to the future of the Law School.

In 2002,at the University's urging, another architect - Bill Rawn from Boston - was engaged to look at alternatives for enclosing the interior courtyard as well as how to expand the Law School. Focusing once again on the corner, Rawn's preliminary sketches suggested that the corner could be the location for a new office tower. This scheme was never fully developed as it did not match our sense of how best to add needed space. But it did provide yet another vision of what this space could become.

In 2005, it became clear that the plans for the creation of an interior Atrium space was going to be prohibitively expensive. We began to search for an alternative approach for creating the community space that was so clearly needed. Our attention was drawn to the possibility of building on the corner. This highly visible - yet architecturally illusive - location seemed to us to be very well suited. It was, for example, about the right size. The covered courtyard plan would have totaled about 7,000 square feet in program space which would have included a large monumental stair bringing people up from the back parking lot. In pacing off the dimensions of our corner, the area measured about 50 feet by 100 feet - providing a core area of about 5,000 square feet which closely fit our needs.

We also knew we wanted a light-filled space with a sense of openness. Again, this space seemed perfect. A new building on the corner would face northward. This would be an ideal orientation - there would be no blinding sun in the morning or afternoon, but excellent reflected natural light throughout the day. There was also a great potential here to create an architecturally-significant statement that would be highly visible to all passing by this part of campus. The Law School has never had a stunning architectural feature that captured people's attention. It seemed to us that by building on the corner, we had the potential to accomplish just that.

The rest, as they say, is history. We presented our concept to University officials who immediately saw the same potential as we did for creating a special space on the corner. The architectural firm of Shepley Bullfinch from Boston was engaged to study the concept. It was an easy study to do - the scale and size of what wanted fit perfectly in the available space. The same vocabulary of materials that we had used on the new addition - the Duke brick and modern curtain wall system - was the obvious choice for the facade.

There was a strong sense among all those involved in the design of the new Star Commons - named after Stanley Star whose generous gift made its construction possible - that this was clearly the highest and best use for this prime piece of real estate. After years of discussion and new idea, ranging the gamut from office tower to rotunda to tree-lined plaza - that we had found "what this space wants to be." As the new space is now under construction, there is no doubt that it is remaking our image and creating something very special.

 

Notes 5: Our New Facade: Duke Brick

March 2005

One of the most important questions we faced in designing the new building was what material and color to make the facade. We knew that we wanted to change the the midwestern high school look. Our primary goal was to transform the Law School to integrate it into Duke's overall campus. of the Duke campus. We also wanted a material that would blend with the granite facade used in the 1990's addition.

When the current building was constructed in the mid-1960's, Duke was justifiably proud of its West Campus buildings. But the Law School was being built away from the center. It was thought that the set of new buildings on Science Drive - many of them made of red brick like the Law School - did not have to be built to the same high level of finish as those in the middle. As stated by John Bryan in his book "Duke University: An Architectural Tour," the 1960's red brick buildings on Science Drive were "financially prudent, essentially functional buildings."

Soon thereafter, the brief experiment with red brick was abandoned. As Tallman Trask, Duke's Executive Vice-President, has noted, Duke is a grey and brown campus, and the red brick buildings simply did not work on West Campus.

Since the Law School addition was completed in 1994 with its polished granite facade, many have longed for reconciling the two very different materials. The building was odd-looking; as noted by John Bryan: "The [Law School] addition is functional, but makes no bones about contrasting with the older building, so the visual effect is like an architectural prosthesis." Few were interested in adding more granite; it is expensive and it simply didn't blend well with the rest of Duke. We needed to develop a new facade.

The material chosen was "Duke" brick. Most people on campus are familiar with Duke Stone that adorns the Chapel and the rest of the buildings on the Quad. But few are familiar with Duke brick.

In the late 1990's, Trask took the lead in developing a brick alternative to Duke stone. The first Duke brick building was the Schwartz-Butters Tower adjoining venerable Cameron Indoor Stadium. Cesar Pelli, one of the world's leading architects, designed the Tower and personally supervised the selection of the brick and brick colors that would become Duke brick.

The brick that Pelli selected is manufactured by Cloud Ceramics from Kansas (see http://www.cloudceramics.com). Cloud Ceramics was selected in part because the clay in the Kansas area is grey and the resulting colors were well-suited to the task of blending with Duke stone. Local North Carolina brick makers have tried to replicate the color, but the local red clays make it impossible.

Another advantage is that Cloud Ceramics ships its brick with the different brick types already mixed together - kind of like M&M's. A customer can specify the exact types of percentages of bricks desired and Cloud Ceramics will put the bricks together as desired. The brick masons laying the brick on the job do not have to consciously follow any pattern.

The brick that we selected for the Law School is identical to the brick mix recently used in other notable Duke buildings including the new Keohane Dorms on Towerview Road as well as the new Engineering Building (known as CIEMAS) on Science Drive. It is comprised of three Cloud Ceramic bricks in the following blend: (1) 45% Cimmeron; (2) 30% Brown Tweed; and (3) 25% Black Dimond. The Schwartz-Butters Building actually used a four-color brick mix that included a lighter color ("Driftwood") that has since faded from the scene.

In the new addition, there will be a "watermark" of darker brick at the base of the new addition which will be a mixture of 75% Black Dimond and 25% of a different brick called Brown Irontone. This will produce a similar look to the Keohane Dorms which also has a dark "watermark." The new entry Tower will be sheathed in that same darker mixture. (Hopefully, the Lord of the Rings fad will have faded and no one will refer to it as the Dark Tower.)

The new brick has already replaced the red brick in the front of the building and the transformation is incredible. The Law School now looks like it truly belongs on the Duke campus. Moreover, the new brick is a perfect complement to the granite exterior of the 1990's addition.

 

Notes 4: Removing an Eyesore

January 2005

Phase I achieved a notable milestone with the demolition of the “temporary” staircase in the front of the Law School that has obscured our front entrance for over a decade. Its removal was an important step for recreating our building. While we didn’t have anyone declare “Take Down That Wall” like President Reagan did when referring to the Berlin Wall, we were certainly happy to see it go.

This ugly appendage was erected during the 1994 addition as a temporary measure to facilitate evacuation in the event of a fire. Once the addition was completed, it remained perhaps by virtue of inertia and perhaps because of the vague hope that it would serve some useful purpose during future construction. Nonetheless, ten years later, this large box of battleship gray two-by-fours encasing a steel lattice structure continued to block our main entrance. Given its proximity to the busy Towerview Road/Science Drive intersection, this structure – not the new addition itself – was perhaps the most visible feature of the 1994 expansion. Many a visitor to the Law School has asked “what the heck is that?”

Back during the 1990's expansion, Duke Magazine decided to run an article on the Law School expansion describing the project focusing on its bold new facade. The main picture selected by the editors to lead off the article was none other than a close-up of the temporary staircase! Fortunately, someone at the Law School caught the error and suggested that an actual picture of the new wing might be preferable.

The fix that permitted the staircase finally to become obsolete was fairly simple. We needed a fire exit in that general vicinity because safety rules require two exit paths from any location. For those on the fourth floor, the temporary staircase served as one of the required exits. There is another fire stair located just inside the library near that same wall. By punching a new door into that library staircase, we could have the library emergency staircase serve double duty.

The actual demolition took just a couple of days. After stripping off the wood siding, a three-person crew armed with an acetylene torch and truck with a hoist set about burning through the metal, carving off small enough pieces that were gently lifted to the ground.

The future of this entrance is bright. This summer, new windows and doors will be installed. It will provide much needed light in the entry foyer directly outside the entrance to the library. The limestone will be thoroughly cleaned. We are currently designing a bold landscaping plan for the area that is likely to feature an expanded plaza. This plaza will provide a wonderful venue for students to study in small groups or as a place to host small gatherings.

 

Notes 3: Inside The Construction Zone: A Special Day On The Job

November 2004

So what really goes on behind those “Construction – Do Not Enter” signs? Some might think it’s like a factory assembly line with everyone doing a pre-assigned job almost by rote. Be assured, a construction job – especially a renovation of an old building – bears little resemblance to turning out Model-T Fords. While there are plenty of folks going about drilling, sawing, stapling, nailing, welding, etc., there are just as many talking with each other, studying plans, getting on the phone to get consult with others to make sure that what is done is done right. Plans aren’t always perfect and there are lots of judgment calls that have to be made “in the field.”

This edition of Construction Notes is a diary of the questions, quirks, and queries that arose during a single day, and how the construction team responded. Fortunately, I can’t say that this was a typical day. A typical day usually brings only minor issues which are often resolved without much input or involvement by anyone from the Law School. June 17 was different.

It began with discussions about the location of the main sewage line for the six new bathrooms being built. A new route was needed, but it would delay the completion of the bathrooms probably until late September. A proposed interim fix was expensive. It had been assumed that the Law School would insist upon having the bathrooms ready for August. Upon reflection, it seemed worth exploring whether we could simply move forward with the new permanent line and briefly delay the opening of the bathrooms to avoid paying for the temporary fix. This would only be possible if the City of Durham would permit us to occupy the new classrooms without bathrooms being completed. It was left that the general contractor would set up a meeting with the City officials, while others developed the revised site plan and assessed whether this new scenario was possible. This illustrates one of the main challenges for the construction team: what trade-offs is the client (the Law School) willing to make? Getting good information on the costs and timetables is often tricky especially in the middle of construction when delay itself is often expensive.

The second issue turned out to be pretty easy. The general contractor for the classroom phase of the project called to let us know that one of the subcontractors had been preparing the ceiling panels in advance and had used an earlier drawing of the plans for adding a design feature. The result was that some ornamental stripping was an inch or two different than what had been shown; it didn’t impact functionality but it wasn’t what the final plans detailed. Changing all the panels would be expensive and might cause delay. After a quick trip to the construction zone to see the panels, I agreed to keep the panels as they were. In fact, after looking it over, I actually liked the panels better this way. Quick responses are essential to keeping the project on track.

Next up was a major confab drawing together one of the lead architects for the classroom, the Law School’s technology consultant, the general contractors, the lead electricians, and a structural engineer to discuss locations for floor boxes for the extensive technological hook-ups required to support the classroomstructural supports in the floor which made the necessary drilling impossible. My input on the issue related to sharing with the team how the rooms were likely to be used by faculty and for other types of programs. At the end of the discussion, the group reached a consensus on what were minor but critically important adjustments. The changes were documented by the electrician (who supervises the drilling of the holes) taking a marker and putting an arrow in the desired direction with a number indicating how many inches to move it. It reminded me of the doctor before an operation putting a large red mark on the proper knee on which to do surgery. Interestingly, the discussions resulted in a new idea about changing a few of the seats in the very front of the classroom to provide more teaching space for faculty. It’s good to keep an eye open for how one change might suggest another.

Right after the floor box meeting ended, the general contractors for the exterior joined the party and we considered the day’s most challenging issue. Demolition is a bit like archaeology – you never quite know what you are going to find when you start digging (or in this case removing walls). They had removed some of the brick in between the columns earlier in the week and found an unexpected jumble of bricks and cinder blocks. As one of the contractors said: “I just love demolition.” While this was said with a good bit of sarcasm, I think there is a good measure of truth in it. The supervisors are literally looking for trouble – and when they find it, looking at how to get out of trouble.

More extensive demolition was clearly called for than what was designated in the plans which would require a new interior design as well. The structural engineer was concerned about how the existing exterior columns were being supported. The decision was made to do more exploratory demolition to see exactly how the columns were tied in to the masonry wall with the expectation that a quick new design for a supporting structure may well be required. Within an hour, after some serious jack hammer work, a previously hidden section of the columns had been revealed and was under active study.

At the end of the day, I found myself touring around with one of the general contractors looking at some condensation issues we are having in various parts of the building. We ended this particular tour on the roof to look at the partial demolition of the top piece of brick. The contractors were again concerned that the major limestone pediment over the front of the building also may not have been properly anchored. I had mentioned earlier in the day that maybe this brick did not need to be removed, as the plans called for it to be covered by a new limestone panel. Of course, this really isn’t any of my business making such a suggestion and I probably should minimize my role as what we lawyers might call an “officious intermeddler.” But sometimes, these ideas – whatever their origins – might make sense. Here, the contractor thought it might save the Law School several thousand dollars if this particular section didn’t have to be totally removed. He’d check with the architect.

At the end of the day, in reflecting over this unusual and odd array of issues, what was most notable to me is that we have a great team working for the Law School. They are in constant communication. They listen carefully to each other and they trust each other. Their focus is on finding workable solutions, getting more information, and keeping the project on track. That’s why I’m confident that the classrooms (but maybe not the bathrooms) will be ready on schedule.

 

Notes 2

September 2004

To say that Duke Law is renovating its two large classrooms is a misnomer. Renovation suggests that you are keeping something of the original. We aren’t – every countertop, cinder block part of the wall, light fixture, ceiling tile, and blackboard has been ripped out, leaving a bare concrete floor.

Demolition – one of the noisiest but fastest parts of any construction project – began in earnest the day after graduation. The tight construction schedule provided the wrecking crew only a week. Work crews toiled from 8:00 a.m. until well into the evening. They had hoped to finish on Saturday, May 15. But due to a few glitches – the discovery of some unanticipated asbestos and breaking a water pipe – the crew needed to spend a few hours sweeping up on Sunday morning.

The demolition subcontractor was the DH Griffin Wrecking Company from Greensboro, North Carolina. DH Griffin is one of the largest demolition companies in the United States, often handling complex and challenging demolition jobs. Compared to some of the more exotic endeavors, the Duke Law project was small potatoes. It didn’t have nearly the excitement of the timed dynamite charges used to demolish Atlanta Fulton County Stadium (former home of the Atlanta Bravers) or Cincinnati’s Cinergy field (for a list of project with some video, visit DH Griffin’s web site at http://www.dhgriffin.com/).

Rather than dynamite, the Duke demolition relied primarily on manpower – lots of it. At one point last week, there were over 55 workmen jackhammering concrete slabs, sledge hammering cinderblocks, crow barring old paneling, or wheel barrowing debris. The walls literally came tumbling down.

Recycling is critical to Duke’s efforts to obtain LEEDS certification that are construction methods are environmentally sound. DH Griffin operates a recycling facility in Raleigh. The debris is shipped there and hand sorted. Under the certification process, our project is awarded 1 LEEDS point if 50% of the materials are recycled and an additional point if we reach the 75% level. The preliminary analysis indicates that our demolition resulted in a total of over 311,000 pounds of debris. DH Griffin recycled over 262,000 pounds – almost 85% of the total.

On Monday morning, with the dust still settling, the next group of subcontractors arrived. Drywall installers began framing the new walls. Electricians worked in tandem putting in the new power lines and outlets while mechanical engineers started installing new air vents.

 

Notes 1

July 2004

The launch of any construction project is a time of excitement and anticipation. When you have you have only 3½ months to complete a $3.5 million project, there is also a sense of anxiety. Everything needs to go right – no delays on delivery of material, perfect coordination between construction teams, and no unanticipated design problems. That’s what’s involved with Phase I of the dramatic reconstruction of the Law School now underway.

On April 30, literally within hours of the last scheduled exam, interior demolition began in the two “old” large classrooms – Room 3037 and Room 3041. Gone within a day were the metal posts and wooden countertops where thousands of Duke Law students had sat and learned the law. By the end of weekend, the lights, the side walls, electrical systems had been ripped out and the debris mostly cleared, getting ready for the removal of the asbestos floor tiles.

I think it fair to say that only a few tears were shed. Room 3041 especially had become an uncomfortable eyesore where it was hard to teach and hard to learn.

After taking a break for graduation weekend, the exterior walls themselves come tumbling down starting May 10. Soon thereafter, new walls with a dramatically new configuration will arise.

Phase I is the opening act in what will be a three-part project to transform most of the old portion of the Law School. It has two critical elements.

First is rebuilding of the two large classrooms. When completed, the middle room will be both smaller and larger. For classes, it will now hold 120 students (down from 137) behind new counters with power, network access, and comfortable seating. But for special events – such as the Life in the Law Series that has recently featured Justices O’Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist – the room will hold over 165 people. This flexibility is accomplished by adding about 45 theater-style seats in the back of the room. Some of the exiting new features of the room will be described in future editions of Construction Notes.

The second aspect of the project is a complete refacading of the front of the Law School. The existing windows will be removed along with the small bands of red bricks between the large limestone columns. While the columns will remain (and be cleaned), the old windows will be replaced by a larger glass window wall. The two current red doors will be removed, and new recessed entrances will be added at each end of the window walls. All of the current red brick will be stripped off and replaced by “Duke Brick” – using the same color palate that has been used so successfully elsewhere on campus. The result will be a totally refreshed front look to the law school.