arts

Article A New Orthodox in : Decision-Making and Design

Carol Herselle Krinsky Department of Art History, University, New York, NY 10012, USA; [email protected]

 Received: 27 July 2019; Accepted: 28 August 2019; Published: 4 September 2019 

Abstract: The Lincoln Square Synagogue, the largest Orthodox synagogue built in Manhattan during the last half century, was established in 1964 but moved in 2013 to a new building nearby, designed after the firm of CetraRuddy Architects, won a design competition. The present article is based on interviews with building committee members, the , and the architects as well as on press accounts and a book about the congregation’s history. The article recounts the process of designing the building, assesses the successful results, and provides future building committee members with ideas, caveats, and evaluations of design procedures.

Keywords: synagogue; orthodox; sanctuary; building committee; CetraRuddy Architects; Rabbi Shaul Robinson

The new Lincoln Square Synagogue, one of the only two large Orthodox built in Manhattan in over a half century, stands on Avenue on the Upper West Side, north of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and close to apartment buildings housing a good many Orthodox residents, A group of neighbors led by Daniel and Emma Margolis, who needed a house of within walking distance of their homes, organized a temporary congregation for the High Holy Days in 1964 and engaged a young rabbinical graduate Steven (later Shlomo) Riskin, to lead the congregation.1 Even if not all fully committed to , the members agreed to follow the rules that the pious young man specified. The congregation is Modern Orthodox, which is close to the practices of the in Great Britain; the present rabbi, Shaul Robinson, formerly led its Barnet congregation in suburban London. Rabbi Riskin was not hired simply because he was available and affordable, although those were the initial considerations. He was so engaging in his devotion, deep scholarship, and oratory that the group canvassed the neighborhood, enticing others to theologically exciting services that some had earlier forsworn or neglected in Manhattan’s religiously permissive environment. The congregation met at first in donated apartments at Lincoln Towers, a housing development on West End Avenue. Its owner, the Alcoa Corporation, hoped to entice congregation members to rent apartments in buildings that were hard to rent at the time, being near the western edge of Manhattan and just north of a district known as Hell’s Kitchen. The Corporation confirmed its commitment by backing a mortgage for the construction of a synagogue on a parcel of land at 200 Amsterdam Avenue that the corporation owned. Rabbi Riskin continued to insist on certain rules and practices which even reluctant worshippers respected and often followed. As word spread about his charismatic oratory, the congregation grew rapidly. The members left their rented premises in 1970 for a synagogue designed in 1966 by Hausman & Rosenberg with 475 seats. Made of reinforced concrete in a circular shape articulated outside by

1 The history of the first Lincoln Square Synagogue is told in (Abramson 2008). See also publications in notes 2 and 4 below. Information about the architects can be found in the Guide to the Stanley R. Rosenberg Architectural Records 1952–1985 at the New-York Historical Society.

Arts 2019, 8, 113; doi:10.3390/arts8030113 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 113 2 of 12 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 13

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 13 broadoutside curving by broad travertine-clad curving travertine walls- andclad vertical walls and fins vertica that providedl fins that some provided security some against security vandalism, against the synagogue presented a modern and stylish appearance, suggesting that Orthodoxy could be vandalism,outside by the broad synagogue curving travertinepresented-clad a modern walls and and vertica stylishl fins appearance, that provided suggesting some security that Orthodoxy against forward-thinking (Figure1). couldvandalism, be forward the synagogue-thinking (Figure presented 1). a modern and stylish appearance, suggesting that Orthodoxy could be forward-thinking (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Lincoln Square Synagogue, 1966–70, Hausman & Rosenberg, photo Wikimedia Commons, FigureFigure 1. 1.Lincoln Lincoln Square Square Synagogue,Synagogue, 1966–70,1966–70, Hausman & & Rosenberg, Rosenberg, photo photo Wikimedia Wikimedia Commons, Commons, accessed 22 July 2019. Used by permission. accessedaccessed 22 22 July July 2019. 2019. Used Used byby permission.permission. The wood-lined circular interior sanctuary was divided by a , a barrier separating men TheThe wood wood-lined-lined circular circular interior interior sanctuarysanctuary was divideddivided by by a a mechitza mechitza, a, abarrier barrier separating separating men men from women. The seats were arranged in banked pews. It was nevertheless possible for men and fromfrom women. women. The The seats seats were were arrangedarranged inin banked pews.pews. ItIt waswas neverthelessnevertheless possible possible for for men men and and womenwomen to to see see each each other. other. Congregants Congregants facedfaced the bima bima at at the the south; south; a a hexagonal hexagonal skylight skylight rose rose above above it.it. Twelve Twelve long, long, narrow narrow windows windows containedcontained stained glass glass that that represented represented the the twelve twelve tribes tribes of of Israel (Figure(Figure(Figure2 2).). 2).

FigureFigure 2. Lincoln 2. Lincoln Square Square Synagogue, Synagogue, 1966–70. 1966 Interior.–70. Inte Photo:rior. Photo: jewishparentingguide.com jewishparentingguide.com No copyright No Figure 2. Lincoln Square Synagogue, 1966–70. Interior. Photo: jewishparentingguide.com No infringementcopyright infringement is intended. is intended. copyright infringement is intended. AsAs the the congregation congregation soon soon swelled, swelled, the the sanctuary sanctuary became became too too small small for for a singlea single Sabbath service. service. The cantorialTheAs cantorial the talent congregation oftalent Sherwood of Sherwood soon Go swelled,ffin Goffin was anthe was additional sanctuary an additional attraction. became attraction. too The small solution The for solution a was single to arrangewSabbathas to arrange auxiliary service. Theauxiliary cantorial services talent for of women Sherwood and Goffinspecial -wasinterest an additionalgroups. These attraction. measures The could solution not compensate was to arrange for auxiliary services for women and special-interest groups. These measures could not compensate for

Arts 2019, 8, 113 3 of 12 services for women and special-interest groups. These measures could not compensate for the small lobby that forced people to gather outdoors even in winter, lack of accommodation for the disabled, inadequate exits and, by the new millennium, a decaying physical structure. After Rabbi Riskin emigrated in 1983 to Israel’s West Bank, several successors continued his mission (Landowne 2013). Nevertheless, competition from other synagogues and the movement of young families to larger apartments or suburban houses caused the congregation to decline from about 1000 in the 1970s and ‘80s to under five hundred in 2013 (Rosenblatt 2013), with aging members. In about 2005, American Continental Properties (ACP) offered to trade the site of the synagogue and an adjacent former bank for a 12,000 square foot plot of land about one hundred feet south ... . The address, 180 Amsterdam Avenue, was selected to include the number 18 within it, because of its connection to the word chai, or life, in Jewish numerology. The generous access granted to me by the current rabbi, Shaul Robinson, members of the governing board, and CetraRuddy Architects, designers of the new synagogue, have made possible an account of building a modern Orthodox synagogue that includes the motivations and the decision-making by the building committee and the architects, advice for future synagogue building, and the congregation’s response to the new home.2 When ACP made its tempting offer with an infusion of $30 million (Dunlap 2013) for the new construction, Rabbi Robinson and the congregation’s leaders prepared a list of requirements. The building committee then interviewed architects experienced in synagogue design, including major firms such as Perkins-Eastman, and respected architects including Alexander Gorlin, and the Gund Partnership. Applicants were known to responsible individuals in the congregation. A person with whom CetraRuddy had business relations made the firm aware of the project, assuring the building committee that the firm was capable of creative solutions that followed a client’s mission, even if these architects had not previously designed a synagogue. The architects plunged into a program of research, since most of the firm’s participants in the project were Christian. They traveled widely to visit synagogues in several countries and read books about historic and modern architecture for Jewish worship and for spiritual expression.3 Their research revealed certain constants but not a specific form or style. Those matters would have to wait until the congregation produced a full program. When the congregation’s active and deeply-engaged building committee reduced the number of competitors from sixteen to four, its members invited the final group to present ideas for the building. CetraRuddy was told to go first, usually not the position of choice, as later presentations may benefit from contrast with what has preceded them. The firm’s principals were dismayed to see that the other three competitors had prepared models of the future building, albeit concealed under wraps. CetraRuddy provided hand-drawn sketches that expressed elemental qualities such as light, form, community, and connectivity. John Cetra could not imagine designing a building without knowing what the congregation itself hoped for, so he forthrightly explained the absence of a specific shape, promising sincerely to design the building “from the heart” after serious consultation with the governing board. Nancy Ruddy helped to persuade the congregation’s representatives that the firm wanted to design a synagogue, not for the money but for the sake of a vision. She saw the design of a new synagogue as an opportunity for the congregation to redefine its mission, and assured them that the architects would undertake a kind of journey with the members to create a meaningful building.

2 Principal informants in the congregation were Scott Liebman and Shelley Richman Cohen, interviewed in March, 2019. 3 The architects found the following books most helpful, among the many that they consulted: H. Meek(1995), The Synagogue; M. Levin and J. E. Young(2004), Jewish Indentity in Contemporary Architecture; S. Gruber(2004), American Synagogues: A Century of Architecture and Jewish Community; H. Stolzman and D. Stolzman(2004), in America;E. Torres(2005), Zenithal Light; M.S. (1996), Light Revealing Architecture. They visited the following synagogues in the United States and abroad: Newport, Rhode Island; synagogues in Venice, Amsterdam, the in Kochi, Kerala; others in . They looked at modern synagogues and places of worship designed by Louis Kahn and LeCorbusier, as well as the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas. They derived information from internet references to the , especially from Exodus, concerning the making of the . The Torah also supplied suggestions for material such as the cedars of Lebanon, bronze, and stone. Appreciative comments about the synagogue have been made by James Gardner(2012), Morton Landowne(2013), and Marco Rinaldi(2013). ArtsArts 20192019,, 88,, 113x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 ofof 1213

that the architects would undertake a kind of journey with the members to create a meaningful Thebuilding. congregation’s The congregation’s well educated well and educated sophisticated and sophisticated leaders approved leaders of approved this approach; of this they approach; did not wantthey did the kindnot want of synagogue the kind thatof synagogue looked like that a reinforced looked like concrete a reinforced tent in concrete the wilderness tent in or the a six-pointedwilderness star.or a six A board-pointed member star. A later board told member Mr. Cetra later that told after Mr. his Cetra open-minded that after his and open forthright-minded presentation, and forthright his colleaguespresentation, were his distracted colleagues from were the distracted more specific from presentationsthe more specific that presentations followed. that followed. MembersMembers ofof thethe building building committee committee say say that that their their choice choice of o thef the CetraRuddy CetraRuddy firm firm was was based based onthe on architects’the architects’ understanding understanding of the of proposed the proposed project project and their andability their ability to express to express the congregation’s the congregation’s Jewish valuesJewishthrough values through their designs. their Theydesigns. preferred They preferred the subtle the and subtle extensive and referencesextensive oreferencesffered by Ms. offered Ruddy, by byMs her. Ruddy, husband by and her partner, husband Mr. and Cetra, partner, who was Mr. the Cetra, principal who was architect, the principal by his co-designer, architect, Theresa by his co M.- Genovese,designer, Theresa the managing M. Genovese, architect the and managing fellow principal, architect andand laterfellow by principal, Branko Potocnik, and later an by associate Branko principalPotocnik, active an associate in the interior principal design. active The in architects’the interior concepts design. wereThe architects’ based on research concept intos were Jewish based texts, on actionsresearch during into Jewish , texts, and actions symbols during interpreted prayer, literally and symbols but subtly. interpreted The building literally committee but subtly. found The theirbuilding concepts committee to be thefound most their creative—related concepts to be the to themost architects’ creative— searchrelated for to the the essentials architects’ of search , for 4 notthe foressentials a style of(Figure Judaism,3). not for a style4 (Figure 3).

FigureFigure 3.3. Lincoln Square Synagogue, 2005 2005–2013,–2013, Cetra/Ruddy. Cetra/Ruddy. Photo David SundbergSundberg/ESTO./ESTO. Exterior atat dusk.dusk.

WhileWhile thethe five-levelfive-level façade façade of of waving waving glass glass bounded bounded by by firm firm verticals verticals alludes alludes to to the the five five books books of Mosesof and and evokes evokes the the idea idea of unrolledof unrolled Torah Torah scrolls, scrolls, one one has has to discover to discover these these analogies. analogies. The The idea idea for motionfor motion in the in façade the façade came came to Mr. to Cetra Mr. afterCetra his after first his visit first to thevisit former to the synagogue former synagogue when the when members the putmembers on their put shawls on their and shawls prayed and in prayed the davening in the davening motion, back motion, and back forth, and after forth, “greeting after “gree oneting another one fondlyanother and fondly respectfully” and respectfully” (Dunlap 2013(Dunlap). While 2013). inspiration While inspiration came from came actual from Torah actual scrolls, Torah the ideascrolls, of constantthe idea movementof constant duringmovement prayer, during including prayer, the including motion of the the motion shawls, of influenced the shawls, the influenced entire design. the Thisentire is design. the result This of attentiveis the result observation of attentive of the observ activityation within of the the activity building. within For thethe casualbuilding. viewer, For thethe façadecasual mightviewer, simply the façade provide might gentle simply relief provide from an gentle aggressive relief concrete from an façadeaggressive on the concrete apartment façade house on atthe 170 apartment Amsterdam house Avenue at 170 to Amsterdam the south, orAvenue the rectilinear to the south, simplicity or the of rectilinear a lower,smaller simplicity former of a publiclower, librarysmaller immediately former public to the library north, immediately now the Reconstructionist to the north, West now End the synagogue. Reconstructionist It takes West longer End to discernsynagogue. that theIt takes thin bronze-coloredlonger to discern fabric that laminated the thin bronze into glass-colored panes fabric suggests laminated the texture into of glass parchment panes suggests the texture of parchment used for the scrolls. The architects worked hard to find a pattern for the stone panels flanking the glass façade, hoping to refer to prayer shawl design there as one 4 Interviews with Mr. Liebman, Ms. Cohen, Rabbi Robinson. 4 Interviews with Mr. Liebman, Ms. Cohen, Rabbi Robinson.

Arts 2019, 8, 113 5 of 12 used for the scrolls. The architects worked hard to find a pattern for the stone panels flanking the glass façade, hoping to refer to prayer shawl design there as one enters the building. These analogies can Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13 be ignoredArts 2019 or, 8, x can FOR elicitPEER REVIEW thoughts about the primacy of sacred texts and practices. If the rusticated5 of 13 northenters façade the and building. terminations These analogies of the eastcan be façade ignored do or not can immediately elicit thoughts evoke about the primacy “protective of sacred covering for thetextsenters Torah and the and building. practices. the tabernacle These If the analogies rusticated within,” can thenorthbe ignored architects’ façade or andcan suggestion elicit terminations thoughts of that about of form the the east can primacy façade be imparted of do sacred not to the congregation.immediatelytexts and These practices. evoke references the If “protective the rusticated are subtle covering north enough for façade the to Torah allow and and terminationsthe the synagogue tabernacle of to the within,” fit east into façade the the architects’ cityscape do not and yet suggestsuggestionimmediately aspects of evoke that of form tradition. the “protectivecan be Congregation imparted covering to the for members congregation.the Torah are and more These the tabernacle likely references to understandwithin,” are subtle the enougharchitects’ the rusticated to suggestion of that form can be imparted to the congregation. These references are subtle enough to mainallow lobby the wall’s synagogue beautiful to fit (but into economical) the cityscape Chinese-quarried and yet suggest aspects stone in of the tradition. lobby Congregation as an echo of the membersallow the are synagogue more likely to fitto understand into the cityscape the rusticated and yet main suggest lobby aspects wall’s ofbeautiful tradition. (but Congregation economical) in ; evocation of the wall is now common in modern American synagogue Chinesemembers-quarried are more stone likely in to the understand lobby as anthe ec rusticatedho of the mainWestern lobby Wall wall’s in Jerusalem; beautiful (butevocation economical) of the design. (Figure4) The suppliers of the stone, Walker Zanger, found a stone with the suitable visual wallChinese is now-quarried common stone in modernin the lobby American as an ecsynagogueho of the design.Western (Figure Wall in 4) Jerusalem;The suppliers evocation of the stone,of the effect,Walkerwall and is its nowZanger, installation common found in latera stonemodern won with American an the award. suitable synagogue visual effect, design. and (Figure its installation 4) The suppliers later won of anthe award. stone, Walker Zanger, found a stone with the suitable visual effect, and its installation later won an award.

FigureFigure 4. Lobby, 4. Lobby, Stone Stone wall wall on on south south side side ofof lobby, looking west. west. Photo Photo David David Sundberg/ESTO. Sundberg/ESTO. Figure 4. Lobby, Stone wall on south side of lobby, looking west. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO. CedarCedar of Lebanon—albeit of Lebanon—albeit obtained obtained inin Italy—veneersItaly—veneers the the main main entrance entrance doors doors and andthe lobby the lobby Cedar of Lebanon—albeit obtained in Italy—veneers the main entrance doors and the lobby (Figure(Figure5). 5). (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Lobby, cedar wall on north side of lobby, looking east. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO; on the FigureleftFigure 5. sideLobby, 5. is Lobby, a view cedar cedar from wall wallthe on lobby on north north recess side side into of oflobby, lobby,the sanctuary. looking eas east.t. Photo Photo David David Sundberg/ESTO; Sundberg/ESTO; on the on the left sideleft isside a viewis a view from from the the lobby lobby recess recess into into the the sanctuary.sanctuary.

Arts 2019, 8, 113 6 of 12

Antiqued bronze at the entrance, on handrails, and elsewhere in the synagogue refers to bronze appurtenances mentioned in the . The building committee members were favorably impressed by the architects’ research, analogies, and solutions to material and economic problems. They expected and received what they called a forward-looking synagogue, able to satisfy the older members and also the younger members who were embracing more Orthodox practice. The architects had also to fulfill practical aspects of the program on a site measuring 120.42 feet north-south on Amsterdam Avenue, and 100 feet east-west. In order to satisfy both functional and spiritual requirements, they conducted well over two dozen interviews including those with the building superintendent, the head of education, the people who installed the books in the beit , the oldest member of the congregation, and board members. From these interviews, the architects determined spatial needs, the desire for wooden bookshelves, the requirements for seating, and other practical matters. During the six-month process of determining the final program, the architects became acquainted with the entire operation of the building, ranging from small things such as an extra burner for producing cookies quickly for receptions to providing a place for parents to retreat with crying infants, a cloakroom large enough to accommodate many baby strollers, and discreet provisions for aging or disabled members. The building committee, formed by the congregation’s president, included practical thinkers, people experienced in real estate, and others who had little experience of building. They met primarily during evenings but also committed other hours to planning, and appeared energized by being part of the process; they did not leave the thinking to the architects and a small coterie. The process was collaborative and inclusive. Conversation joined by the building committee, the congregation, and the architects led to a thoughtful and responsive solution. Most of the members were in favor of what Rabbi Robinson called a “high end” design. That can, of course, be costly. Not all good plans work perfectly. It is vital for a congregation to select an owner’s representative who understands the congregation’s goals and can guide them to the correct solution. The first of the owner’s representatives—there have been two principal ones over time and three construction managers—presented a program before the building was designed and thus presented an unrealistic budget. Even economical measures such as the use of acoustical tile had to be revised. He chose non-union labor to save costs, but during a period of active building in the city, he could not hire a construction company able to do the work for the fee proposed; later, the synagogue had to pay $2 million to someone dismissed who instigated a lawsuit. Steel was ordered and erected incorrectly; that and delays had to be dealt with. Perched water found in the substrate caused water infiltration and delays. Other below-grade problems arose as well. The original sub-contractor had not followed the engineer’s drawings, nor did the waterproofing sub-contractor follow CetraRuddy’s drawings. These and other problems illustrate the need for clients to select the right construction manager who becomes the architects’ partner, and then to select the right contractor. Three successive contractors who were low bidders but inexperienced in complex and high-quality design prolonged the construction period. Work stopped in 2010, but since the previous synagogue had already been sold, the only solution was to continue to build despite the increased cost. A synagogue member gave $10,000 to hire a construction auditor. At last, an anonymous donor, known as the White Knight, rescued the project by presenting over twenty million dollars. As congregation members were asked to raise three million more, the synagogue took out a mortgage for this sum. Some expenses were cut; for instance, a flat ceiling replaced a distinctive curving ceiling over the multi-functional room. At present, the building and its maintenance staff are supervised by Tamar Fix, the synagogue’s Executive Director. The facilities on the first (ground) floor are organized as if congregation members were on a journey. They enter the spacious wood-veneered lobby and encounter a hall, where, at the entrance, a staircase fitted into a curve of the façade sweeps down to the lower level and the multi-functional room there (Figure6). Arts 2019, 8, 113 7 of 12 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13

FigureFigure 6. 6.Entrance Entrance doors doors (right). (right). StairsStairs (center)(center) down to multi multi-functional-functional room. room. View View to to east east with with part part Figure 6. Entrance doors (right). Stairs (center) down to multi-functional room. View to east with part of curvingof curving façade. façade. Photo Photo David David Sundberg Sundberg/ESTO./ESTO. of curving façade. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO. Ahead,Ahead, a largea large window window at at thethe farfar (west) end end offers offers a aview view of of daylight daylight and and nature nature (Figures (Figures 4 and4 and 7). 7). Ahead, a large window at the far (west) end offers a view of daylight and nature (Figures 4 and 7).

Figure 7. West window, and part of north wall of cedar. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO. FigureFigure 7. 7.West West window, window, and and partpart ofof northnorth wall of cedar. cedar. Photo Photo David David Sundberg/ESTO. Sundberg/ESTO.

Arts 2019, 8, 113 8 of 12 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

To thethe leftleft areare storagestorage areasareas andand restroomsrestrooms andand thethe wallwall partlypartly coveredcovered inin stone.stone. Opposite, a curved wall suggests movement to the right, right, past past a a lobby lobby that that directs directs worshippers worshippers into into the the sanctuary. sanctuary. A recess from the lobby gives the finalfinal access to the sanctuary, allowing a mental pause between the social and community area and the space (Figure(Figure5 5).). The sanctuary, of course,course, was the primary space to be designed, and the congregation wanted a circular one familiar from its firstfirst building. They saw this as reflecting reflecting the equality of men and women despite thethe specificspecific roles roles assigned assigned in in Orthodox Judaism to each to each gender. gender. The architectsThe archi proposedtects proposed a slight a slightand at and first atglance first imperceptibly glance imperceptibly elliptical elliptical form, in form, order into accommodate order to accommodate 442 people. 442 The people. geometry The geometryof the walls of enhances the walls the enhances acoustics the while acoustics obeying while the obeying Orthodox the imperative Orthodox toimperative avoid mechanical to avoid mechanicalsound amplification sound amplification during prayer. during The angledprayer. andThe undulatingangled and wallsundulating were also walls intended were also to evokeintended the totabernacle evoke the in the tabernacle wilderness in thatthe wilderness sheltered the that biblical sheltered Ark of the the biblical Covenant. Ark If of not the everyone Covenant. recognizes If not everyonethe analogy, recognizes the congregation’s the analogy, decision-makers the congregation’s understood decision the-makers reference understood when the architectsthe reference presented when theit. A architec ramp alongts presented the synagogue’s it. A ramp walls along brings the wheelchairsynagogue’s users walls so brings subtly downwheelchair to the users bima so that subtly their downmovement to the is hardlybima that discernible their movement to most of is the hardly congregation; discernible in the to mostprevious of the synagogue, congregation; wheelchairs in the previouscould not synagogue, reach the bima. wheelchairs However, could the ramp not reach is useful the primarilybima. However, to lead anyonethe ramp gently is useful and easilyprimarily to a toseat; lead the anyone architects gently found and forms easily that to accommodate a seat; the architects everyone found rather forms thanseparate that accommodate elements suiting everyone only ratherlimited than groups separate (Figure elements8). suiting only limited groups (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Sanctuary interior. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO. Sundberg/ESTO.

DiscussioDiscussionn arose arose about about the the configuration configuration of seats. of seats. No one No wanted one wanted to relegate to relegate women women to a position to a positionbehind the behind men; the this men; raised this the raised challenge the challenge of designing of designing a mechitza a mechitza that would that cutwould the interiorcut the interior in half. Thein half. rabbi, The building rabbi, building committee, committee, the architects, the architects, and the and congregation the congregati spenton longspent hours long inhours search in search of the ofmost the inclusive most inclusive seating seating solution solution that respected that respected the rabbi’s the interpretation rabbi’s interpretation of Jewish of law. Jewish The architectslaw. The architectsdevised a devised glass mechitza a glass mechitza that is partly that is transparent, partly transparent, partly translucent partly translucent to shield to shield views views of the of other the othergender, gender, and high and enough high enough to provide to provide separation separation while not while interrupting not interrupting the room’s the strong room’s volume. strong Thevolume. mechitza The mechitza continues continues into a glass into enclosure a glass enclosure for the bima. for the A personbima. A sitting person behind sitting the behind center the of center one of ofthe one enclosing of the enclosing panels can panels see the can activity see the around activity the around bima but the cannot bima bebut seen cannot from be it; seen this from is essential it; this for is womenessential and for forwomen the men, and for who the must men, avoid who themust sight avoid of womenthe sight during of women theservices during the (Figure services9). (Figure 9).

Arts 2019, 8, 113 9 of 12 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Figure 9. SanctuarySanctuary interior. interior. Mechitza Mechitza around the bima, showing clear and more opaque glass. Photo David Sundberg/ESTO. Sundberg/ESTO.

The roo roomm is colored in soft and restful tones, with pale hues bringing warmth, and cool colors creating calm balance. Gentle Gentle indirect indirect lighting lighting from from two two recesses recesses around around the the sanctuary sanctuary walls walls provides provides good illumination that that can can be be modified modified (Figure (Figure 88).). The ceiling is a soft blue, reminiscent of the sky, and concave to evoke the sky over the most ancient Biblical site of prayer; it may also refer to that color in the Torah. The walls are are made made of of wood, wood, washed washed in in a a pale pale gray gray-blue.-blue. The The light light-filled-filled sanctuary sanctuary space, includi includingng natural natural light light from from a atall tall window window behind behind the the ark, ark, is isboth both beautiful beautiful and and important important to theto the congregation. congregation. Near Near the the door door on on one one side, side, perforation perforation holes holes assist assist the the acoustics; acoustics; the the acoustical engineers originally wanted more of them but the architects did not. The custom custom-designed-designed carpet in tones of blue is well maintained in the sanctuary but but less less so in the surrounding corridor, revealing the problems that arise after a building has been in use for some time. This This quiet quiet sanctuary is given a perhaps jarring note by the heavy ark and the chairs flanking flanking it, designed at the building building committee’s insistence by a firm firm that specializes in these installations; the company is known for using Jerusalem stone in its products. The The furniture furniture around the bima is too heavy to moveve for the canopy to be affixed affixed most attractively. Although these elements are inconsistent with the otherwise integrated design, thethe spiritualityspirituality ofof the the sanctuary sanctuary remains remains undisturbed. undisturbed. The The congregation congregation and and architects architects did did not notinstall install murals, murals, colored colored glass, glass, or inscriptions. or inscriptions. The feature of the interior that is usually most remarked upon is the ceiling, with 613 small lights representing 613 mitzvot (divinely ordained precepts and commandments) and and the clear desert sky above the original nomadic taberna tabernacle.cle. Early Early designs designs had had fewer lights, but the committee promoted the easily easily-understood-understood idea idea of being in contact with the mitzvot during the services, and members were delighted to learn about this symbolic gesture. The inspiration for for many lights came from the architects, but a building committee member suggested increasing the numbernumber toto 613.613. Apart from from the the sanctuary, sanctuary, a amajor major requirement requirement was was a beit a beit midrash midrash with with a capacity a capacity of about of about 150 150people. people. It is It a is spacious a spacious and and well well-lit-lit room room on on the the second second floor, floor, lined lined with with Cedar Cedar of of Lebanon bookshelves. It It accommodates accommodates an an ark ark and and bima, bima, seats seats and desks, and desks, and areas and for areas discussion for discussion and devotion. and devotion.A low wall A separates low wall the separates prayer area the from prayer the area rest from of the the room. rest The of theark androom. bima The are ark undistinguished and bima are undistinguishedin design but have in design meaning but forhave the meaning congregation for the becausecongregation they because came from they the came former from synagoguethe former synagogue(Figure 10). (Figure 10).

Arts 2019, 8, 113 10 of 12 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

Figure 10. Beit Midrash, detail. Western Western glass wall. Photo Photo David David Sundberg/ESTO. Sundberg/ESTO.

The building also needed a spacious entrance lobby to accommodate the members who had had to cluster for conversation outside the former synagogue’s cramped lobby (Figures 44 andand5 );5); they they often conversed in the street. The new building provided classrooms, storage areas, cloakrooms and restrooms, and and an an approximately approximately 6800 6800 square-foot square- multi-functionalfoot multi-functional ballroom ballroom below gradebelow for grade banquets, for banquets,receptions receptions and even children’sand even children’s indoor sports. indoor The sports. program The alsoprogram specified also aspecified rabbi’s study, a rabbi’s offi cesstudy, for officesauxiliary for , auxiliary large clergy, and small large kosherand small kitchens, kosher and kitchens, an outdoor and an rooftop outdoor area rooftop for Sukkoth area for dining Sukkoth that diningcan accommodate that can accommodate almost three almost hundred three people hundred who maypeople bring who their may own bring food their or own order food some or on order site. Thesome idea on site. was toThe have idea everything was to have that everything a religious that community a religious needs community in one building. needs in The one third building. floor wasThe thirdto be income-producing,floor was to be income with- roomsproducing, for potential with rooms rental for to potential religious organizationsrental to religious such asorganizations a charity or sucha nursery as a school;charity ator present, a nursery they school; are rented, at present, as are additionalthey are rented, spaces as on are the additional second level. spaces In addition on the secondto the desired level. In programmatic addition to the spaces, desired state-of-the-art programmatic mechanisms spaces, state for-of heating-the-art and mechanisms cooling, provision for heating for andelectrical cooling, installations, provision for water electrical supply installations, and drainage, water and supply other infrastructureand drainage, and had other to be infrastructure fitted into the hadlimited to be urban fitted site into (Figures the limited 11 and urban 12). site (Figures 11 and 12). The congregation is proud of its building but to supplement its operating funds, pay its staff and assure ongoing maintenance, it insured that the design of its multi-functional basement ballroom and some other rooms could accommodate congregational uses as well as rentals to appropriate groups and for events connected to Judaism. It handles its High Holy Day overflow crowds by holding multiple ceremonies so as not to violate the city’s building safety code which also requires multiple Sabbath services when many people come to the synagogue.

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

Arts 2019Arts, 20198, 113, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 1311 of 12

Figure 11. Plan of the ground floor. North is on the right. Courtesy CetraRuddy.

Figure 11. Plan of the ground floor. North is on the right. Courtesy CetraRuddy. Figure 11. Plan of the ground floor. North is on the right. Courtesy CetraRuddy.

Figure 12. Section looking south. Courtesy CetraRuddy.

It is necessary for theFigure architects 12. Section to make looking occasional south. Courtesy visits to CetraRuddy assess the condition. of the building and to handle the city’s rules andFigure inspections; 12. Section iflooking a congregation south. Courtesy chooses CetraRuddy its architect. well, a representative of the firm will be available for occasional consultation and support. These and other circumstances need to be discussed with existing synagogues and their and building committees when a new synagogue is planned. No building is complete on the day it opens; there are continuing costs related to maintenance, unforeseen problems, new legal requirements, and demands of the congregation. Strict supervision of the budget is essential, with provision made for unforeseen problems. The building history at Lincoln Square suggests that hiring various levels of contractors be done on the basis of Arts 2019, 8, 113 12 of 12 competence rather than price. The experience of this well-designed synagogue may prove exemplary for others contemplating a new sanctuary. Young families often stay in the Lincoln Square area until the number of their children exceeds the capacity of available neighborhood apartments; they then move to suburban houses. The congregation has always required constant recruitment and internal renewal, as it does today. A congregation that has improved its facilities and has integrated them into the daily life of its members is the congregation that is likely to grow. Lincoln Square Synagogue’s successful survival manifests the resilience of Orthodoxy despite secularization, intermarriage, and the competition of Conservative (European Reform) and Reform (European Liberal) synagogues. It also reflects the fidelity of the older long-time members, their sound supervision of the building, and the appeal and learning of Rabbi Robinson. For this congregation, the architects provided a sanctuary of which the members are proud and which adds joy to their Sabbath.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: I am grateful for the cooperation of CetraRuddy, Rabbi Shaul Robinson, and members of the building committee, especially Scott Liebman and Shelley Richman Cohen. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

Abramson, Edward E. 2008. A Circle in the Square: Rabbi Sholom Riskin Reinvents the Synagogue. Jerusalem: Urim Publications; : Lambda Publications, Inc. Dunlap, David. 2013. At Last, a New Lincoln Square Synagogue. New York Times, January 27. Gardner, James. 2012. Lincoln Square’s New Shul Looks Nothing Especially Synagogue-Like. The Real Deal. February 24. Available online: https://therealdeal.com/2012/02/14/lincoln-square-synagogue-looks-nothing- especially-synagogue-like/ (accessed on 30 March 2019). Gruber, Samuel D. 2004. American Synagogues. Edited by Scott Tilden. New York: Rizzoli International. Landowne, Morton. 2013. Entering Lincoln Square’s Period. The New York Jewish Week. January 15. Available online: jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/entering-lincoln-squares-second-temple-period/ (accessed on 10 April 2019). Levin, Michael, and James E. Young. 2004. in Contemporary Architecture. New York and Munich: Prestel. Meek, Harold A. 1995. The Synagogue. London: Phaidon Press. Millet, Marietta S. 1996. Light Revealing Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rinaldi, Marco. 2013. Lincoln Square Synagogue by Cetra/Ruddy. Global Architecture Archive. March 2. Available online: https://aasarchitecture.com/2013/03/lioncoln-square-synagogue-by-cetraruddy.html (accessed on 30 March 2019). Rosenblatt, Gary. 2013. If You Build It Will They Come? Jewish Week. January 2. Available online: https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/if-you-build-it-will-they-come/ (accessed on 30 March 2019). Stolzman, Henry, and Daniel Stolzman. 2004. Synagogue Architecture in America. Mulgrave: Images. Torres, Elias. 2005. Zenithal Light. Barcelona: COAC.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).