{"id":157912,"date":"2026-03-09T14:23:09","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T14:23:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/157912\/"},"modified":"2026-03-09T14:23:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T14:23:09","slug":"behind-the-curtain-wall-w-nyc-architect-richard-roth-jr-345-park-ave","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/157912\/","title":{"rendered":"Behind the Curtain Wall w\/ NYC Architect Richard Roth Jr.: 345 Park Ave"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Become a paid member to listen to this article
\n <\/a> <\/p>\n

Every month, Untapped New York will release\u00a0a new essay<\/a>\u00a0from Jo Holmes about the life and work of the late architect Richard Roth, Jr. of Emery Roth & Sons. Each essay explores a different building or developer from Richard\u2019s career, intertwined with stories of his personal life and snippets of exclusive interviews conducted by Holmes and Untapped New York’s Justin Rivers (which can be viewed in our\u00a0on-demand video archive<\/a>). Check out the whole series\u00a0here<\/a>!<\/p>\n

A Blockbuster on Park Avenue<\/p>\n

Taking up an entire block, 345 Park Avenue is large enough to have its own zip code. The building’s site is bordered by Park and Lexington Avenues and 51st and 52nd Streets. Richard Roth Jr. designed the blockbuster building, which was completed in 1969, for one of New York\u2019s most prolific real estate dynasties, the Rudins. <\/p>\n

Richard saw this project as a significant challenge, and perhaps something of a poisoned chalice, not just because of the size of the site but also because of the location. It sits between two of the city\u2019s most distinctive\u2014but contrasting\u2014structures: Mies Van der Rohe\u2019s International Style Seagram Building<\/a>, and the Byzantine Revival St. Bartholomew\u2019s Episcopal Church (St. Bart\u2019s).<\/p>\n

This was an era when Emery Roth & Sons’ designs<\/a> were in great demand\u2014in fact, the term \u2018Rothscraper\u2019 was coined to describe the many tall office buildings the firm worked on. While the style may have changed from Emery\u2019s day, the firm\u2019s \u2018modus operandi\u2019 stayed the same for nearly 100 years of its existence. Its structure and processes were a little different from rival architectural firms, and Richard believed those differences often gave the firm an edge.<\/p>\n

A Tricky Project<\/p>\n

In the late 1960s, developer Rudin Management acquired the Park Avenue site of the Ambassador\u2019s Hotel (demolished in 1966) and the surrounding parcels of land. They commissioned Richard to design the largest office building permissible at the site.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"TheThe Seagram Building, 345 Park Ave, and St. Bart’s<\/p>\n

The site had two high-profile neighbors that couldn\u2019t be more different from each other. To the north is the Seagram Building<\/a>, completed in 1958. Designed by starchitects of the day, Mies Van Der Rohe and Philip Johnson<\/a>, the 157-meter skyscraper won many awards and made history with its use of materials and structure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

To the south is the Episcopal church of St. Bart\u2019s, built between 1916 and 1917. \u201cSt. Bart\u2019s is a copy of a much, much older building in the south of France, outside of Avignon. I visited it some years later because I wanted to see it. And it had the same fa\u00e7ade. There it sat in this little town. And St. Bart\u2019s is a beautiful building,\u201d Richard observed. He was anxious to make sure his new building wouldn\u2019t cramp the style of either landmark.<\/p>\n

\u201cI said to the Rudins, you know this is a site that deserves something that is not going to look like an elephant between two magnificent buildings. And to tell you the truth, it’s the roughest design problem I\u2019ve ever had,\u201d Richard admitted.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\" St. Bartholomew\u2019s Episcopal Church (St. Bart\u2019s)<\/p>\n

To an extent, Richard and the Rudins were on the same page. \u201cThey wanted a building \u2018as of right.\u2019\u201d In other words, the plans should comply strictly with all zoning rules and not need special permits or \u2018variances.\u2019 \u201cThey didn\u2019t want to build a building that would mean going to the Planning Commission, Landmarks, and local Community Boards. They wanted to stay as far away from that as possible. I agreed because I knew it would get negative. No matter what I did there, it would have gotten a negative response,\u201d Richard explained.<\/p>\n

But there were also disagreements, some of which Richard won, others he lost. \u201cThe color kind of got me, and I said we don’t want to put another black building on Park Avenue. I said the building should be light in color, which will make it disappear a little bit more. Though it’s difficult to make a 50-story building disappear\u2026\u201d The Rudins agreed to a taller version of an existing design Richard had done for the New Britain Bank & Trust. (That building was seven stories high. This one ended up 193 meters tall with 44 floors.)<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a background color that doesn’t hit you in the face. It\u2019s different from the church, and it should be, because it could overwhelm the church if it was the same. It\u2019s lighter and therefore kind of blends in and is less noticeable\u2014and I had done enough black buildings!\u201d Richard said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

A Dubious Decision<\/p>\n

Richard wanted to try and \u2018co-ordinate\u2019 with the Seagram Building but lost that battle. \u201cI said the lobby should be the same height as the Seagram\u2019s lobby. I said you got a huge building here, and what you’re asking me to do is a 15-foot lobby.\u201d <\/p>\n

Richard was arguing for a double-height lobby. \u201cIt would relate to the Seagram\u2019s building very well, but Jack Rudin absolutely put his foot down and said no.\u201d To Richard, that made no sense, as having a two-story lobby wouldn\u2019t lose them rentable space\u2014they could simply add another floor. \u201cThat lobby is much too low for the size of the building.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"345<\/p>\n

This was a project where Richard took the lead on the design. That was always his favorite part of the job. But he would say that some of the firm\u2019s biggest projects and most notable buildings were where they were \u2018associate architects.\u2019 Emery Roth & Sons had a reputation for bringing things in on, or under, budget and on time, or early. So that side of the business was attractive to clients.<\/p>\n

An Alternative Approach<\/p>\n

Richard explained that many architecture firms were organised into teams that were comprised of people with a range of skills and expertise usually required on a building project. Those teams would be dedicated to specific projects. \u201cOther offices did teamwork\u2014and they\u2019d form a team of all these people, and the team would carry the project from start to finish with the partner in charge,\u201d explained Richard.<\/p>\n

Emery Roth & Sons had a different approach. They had various distinct departments, including design, design development, production, and construction. Each department was usually involved in every project. (They would use external structural and mechanical engineering firms.) Among other benefits, Richard felt this allowed them to work well when other firms were collaborating on a project. \u201cThis way of doing a job allowed us to be the construction document architect for a design architect…we would just slide them in and \u2018eliminate\u2019 the design development part of our office. They\u2019d know nothing about the project. It also worked the other way \u2013 where we were the design architect, and we would produce the drawings in the design and design development departments, and it would never get to our production department.\u201d<\/p>\n

For example, when Walter Gropius took on the Pan Am Building<\/a>, his firm slotted in as the design department. And Minoru Yamasaki led the design for the World Trade Center, while Emery Roth & Sons were appointed \u2018associate architects,\u2019 picking up the design and taking it through to construction. <\/p>\n

\"TheMetLife (formerly PanAm) Building above Grand Central Terminal<\/p>\n

When Richard was interviewed by architectural historian Annice Alt in 2018, he explained how the firm was asked to do the construction documents for the World Trade Center because they\u2019d done more office buildings in New York than any other architects. What\u2019s more, the firm had recently completed the very complex and complicated Pan Am Building. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt started with Yamasaki designing a series of buildings\u2026probably 100 different designs, as it was a huge site. The team from New York\u2014my uncle, my father, Irving Gershon, who was Head of Design, and myself, who was Director of Architecture\u2014went out to Detroit to look at the models. After a couple of hours of looking, talking, and discussing, it was very obvious that the twin tower scheme was the best scheme\u2026The minute the design was approved by the Port Authority, it transferred to our office, where we probably had at one time almost 100 people working on the project.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Mysterious Miscalculation<\/p>\n

Emery Roth & Sons were associate architects on another significant Manhattan skyscraper, the Citicorp Center (now the Citigroup Center). With a distinctive sloping roof, it is 915 feet tall and has 1.3 million square feet of office space across 59 floors, at 601 Lexington Avenue. Renowned Harvard-trained architect Hugh Stubbins designed the building (which now has a food court on the ground floor called \u2018The Hugh\u2019). The building is notable, not just for its striking appearance, but also because of drama that unfolded behind the scenes as it was nearing completion. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe structural engineer, Bill Le Messurier, came to see me in distress as he\u2019d come to realize the building might collapse if there were winds of a certain speed hitting the corners,\u201d said Richard. It transpired later that two architecture students, unbeknownst to each other, had been studying the plans and queried some calculations. One of them had contacted Le Messurier. To remedy the situation, extra cross-bracing was installed and a mass damper was constructed at the top of the building. \u201cIt was one of those rare things where an engineer made mistakes that nobody ever thought of\u2026\u201d Richard said. The story came to light in an article in The New Yorker in 1995, and historian Michael M. Greenberg explores the controversy in his 2025 book, \u2018The Great Miscalculation<\/a>.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"CiticorpCiticorp Center<\/p>\n

Despite the problems involved, Richard looked back fondly at the building. \u201cI think the Citicorp building is a marvellous building. Stubbins did a superb job. It was the first building that used double-decker elevators in order to make the core smaller so that we would have more rentable space. I also thought the design of the shopping area was terrific. It was a very pleasant place to be, and we spent a lot of time there because it was very close to our office.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

As Richard explained, there were other projects where they only did the design. \u201cFor example, we did two buildings in Detroit, where we were the design architects. One was the Detroit Edison building\u2026and the other was the Detroit Bank & Trust Building…I designed both buildings.\u201d (Both these buildings have been renamed: DTE Plaza and 211 West Fort Street, respectively.)<\/p>\n

A Satisfactory Outcome\"\"<\/p>\n

Now almost 60 years old, Richard\u2019s design of 345 Park Avenue stands the test of time. To this day, Rudin Management has offices there. Richard enjoyed going to free outdoor jazz concerts offered in the plaza during the summer at lunchtime. He did have reservations about the building. \u201cI would have rather had a smaller building,\u201d he explained. But in trying to complement the buildings on either side while giving the clients what they wanted, he wasn\u2019t unhappy with the result.\u00a0 \u201cWith the restrictions that were put on me, I don’t think I could have created anything better.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

This post contains affiliate links, which means Untapped New York earns a commission. There is no extra cost to you and the commissions earned help support our mission of independent journalism!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Become a paid member to listen to this article Every month, Untapped New York will release\u00a0a new essay\u00a0from…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":157913,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[9,56,63,65,64],"class_list":{"0":"post-157912","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york-city","8":"tag-new-york","9":"tag-ny","10":"tag-nyc","11":"tag-nyc-headlines","12":"tag-nyc-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157912\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157913"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}