The narrative concerning the majestic courthouse located at 60 Centre Street in New York City often requires a caveat. While extensive renovations were undertaken approximately three decades prior, addressing critical needs of this almost century-old building, persistent issues remain, some even exacerbated by time and the elements. One such example is a mural in the Jury Assembly Room’s east end, marred by water damage from a leaking lavatory above, a stain that has yet to be rectified for over a decade.
These past renovations, though vital to improving the courthouse’s condition, now occurred 30 years ago. In a building nearing its centenary, continuous maintenance is paramount, especially to safeguard prior conservation successes against the relentless passage of time, accidental damages, and the insidious ingress of weather elements. Alarmingly, water infiltration is once again impacting sections of the rotunda mural, underscoring the urgent need for upgraded courthouse maintenance. During the significant renovation project, an opportunity was missed to modernize the courthouse’s aging heating and plumbing systems. Despite proposals at the time, this crucial work was omitted, resulting in a situation where these systems are now in dire need of replacement, inevitably leading to substantial disruptions in court operations.
Beyond these systemic issues, numerous other signs of degradation plague the courthouse, demanding immediate attention and repair. The bustling and overcrowded clerks’ offices, subjected to constant use, exhibit considerable wear and tear. Similarly, some attorney offices suffer from overcrowding and a distinctly threadbare aesthetic, likely causing dismay to newcomers transitioning from the private sector. Water damage is evident in various ceilings throughout the building. Marble, a prominent feature of the courthouse’s design, is cracked and broken in multiple locations, with fragments detaching from walls. Notably, missing marble door frames have been replaced with makeshift pine boards, some painted, others left bare. Elsewhere, marble elements are either absent or desperately require repair. The original courthouse clocks, proudly positioned above the judge’s bench in courtrooms, are increasingly non-functional, with some missing hands entirely. Compounding these issues, the public restrooms are in a state of disrepair, described as “dingy” at best. While their original pedestal sinks and expansive marble installations are valuable assets worthy of preservation, a comprehensive refurbishment of these essential facilities is now urgently needed.
Several of the deficiencies plaguing the courthouse in recent years, and persisting today, stem from neglect, oversight, and sometimes a combination of both. A stark example of this occurred in April 2008 when a speeding vehicle, traveling north on Centre Street, veered onto the sidewalk, injuring six pedestrians and demolishing approximately 25 feet of bronze railings at the base of the portico stairs. These railings, while not original to the courthouse’s opening, were installed by 1954, if not earlier. The subsequent “repair” by the City involved inserting iron pipes into the gaps left by the missing bronze rails, crudely attaching them to the remaining bronze sections with duct tape. Astonishingly, over 14 years later, these inelegant and purportedly temporary iron pipe substitutes, along with remnants of duct tape, remain in place at this prominent entrance of 60 Centre Street.
Further compounding this compromised entrance, the City, at some point, re-anchored the railings using iron anchor bolts. This decision proved detrimental as iron, prone to expansion due to rust, is unsuitable for anchoring in granite or similar stone. The inevitable rusting and expansion of these iron bolts resulted in fracturing and damaging numerous granite steps beneath the railings, causing significant splintering.
Expert consultation confirmed the feasibility of repairing the broken steps by inlaying new granite sections. Discussions with bronze fabrication specialists indicated that the damaged railings could also be professionally repaired. Regrettably, despite these viable solutions, the necessary repair work has never been commissioned.
Consequently, the very entrance to this important courthouse at 60 Centre Street, the grand staircase ascended by countless visitors, remains marred by neglect and unresolved errors. The same entities responsible for maintaining this courthouse also steward City Hall and the Tweed Courthouse. It is improbable that such visible disrepair would be tolerated for such an extended period at those equally significant buildings.
Another issue affecting the staircase, albeit addressed in a superficial manner, involved skateboarders. The awe-inspiring staircase at 60 Centre Street became a popular skateboarding destination after hours and on weekends. This activity was not only inappropriate and dangerous but also resulted in significant oil staining from skateboard wheels on the portico stairs. The implemented “solution” was the installation of interlinked metal crowd-control fencing across the entire width of the portico staircase. While this measure effectively deterred skateboarders, it unfortunately introduced a new aesthetic problem, defacing Guy Lowell’s beautiful staircase and façade with unsightly metal barriers. The skateboarders, meanwhile, simply relocated to Foley Square across the street, continuing their risky activities on the fountain there.
Over the decades following its inauguration, the courthouse at 60 Centre Street has suffered regrettable losses of original fixtures. Some losses resulted from ill-conceived decisions by authorities, while others stemmed from negligence or vandalism. For instance, historical photographs from the courthouse’s opening reveal stately light fixtures, believed to be from Tiffany Studios, adorning the ceiling of the Ceremonial Courtroom (Room 300). Evidence suggests these same Tiffany fixtures were originally installed in all courtrooms throughout 60 Centre Street. These historical images clearly show their resemblance to surviving original ceiling fixtures found elsewhere in the building, such as those in hallways. However, at some point, the courtroom ceiling fixtures were replaced, likely between the 1940s and 1950s, before 1970. The original, beautiful Tiffany lights vanished, replaced by the unremarkable fixtures seen today. The fate of these discarded original lights remains unknown.
The reasons for this replacement are unclear, although it’s speculated it was an attempt to increase courtroom illumination. While courtrooms do receive natural light from large exterior windows and internal light courts, their high ceilings undoubtedly pose a lighting challenge. Nevertheless, removing the Tiffany fixtures was a drastic measure, especially considering their beauty and value, both monetarily and artistically. Today, these original Tiffany fixtures would be considered highly valuable, if not priceless, and would undoubtedly be a highlight on programs like Antiques Roadshow. However, the loss transcends monetary value; it represents a significant diminishment of Guy Lowell’s artistic vision for the building’s interior. The courtrooms, central to the courthouse’s function at 60 Centre Street, deserved the utmost care and attention from those entrusted with its stewardship.
Ironically, during the restoration work in the late 1980s and 1990s, courtroom lighting was once again addressed, as the replacement fixtures proved inadequate. This highlights the shortsightedness of discarding the original, beautiful Tiffany fixtures based on lighting concerns that ultimately persisted. More powerful bulbs were installed in the replacement fixtures, and supplementary “high hat” fixtures were added during this later renovation.
At its opening, the courthouse at 60 Centre Street also boasted attractive task lamps or desk lamps, possibly also Tiffany creations. Many of these disappeared over the years, with only a few remaining by 1970, and eventually becoming entirely extinct, likely due to theft.
This pattern of loss provides context for the regrettable “Save a Watt” program of the 1970s, a story of misguided good intentions. The City, aiming to conserve energy, planned to replace the incandescent light fixtures throughout 60 Centre Street with modern fluorescent alternatives.
An attorney working at 60 Centre Street noticed pendant light fixtures being removed and placed precariously on the hallway floor. Fearing their disposal and replacement, he learned from an electrician about the plan to modernize the lighting. This attorney, not in courthouse administration, alerted the administration, who were unaware of the project. Despite being a courthouse, the court leadership was not routinely informed of daily maintenance tasks carried out by the City, the building’s owner and maintainer. However, the scale and impact of the “Save a Watt” program warranted communication with the Administrative Judge, which never occurred.
Upon learning of the program, the Honorable Edward R. Dudley, then Administrative Judge, and County Clerk Norman Goodman contacted the City. The Landmarks Preservation Commission was also alerted and promptly investigated. Judge Dudley and Mr. Goodman were deeply concerned, not only by the lack of notification but also by the nature of the project. The City intended to replace nearly all incandescent fixtures with fluorescent ones, effectively removing the majority of the original light fixtures from 60 Centre Street permanently.
These original fixtures included pendant fixtures, ceiling globes, and decorative bronze ceiling pieces referred to as “sconces,” all original to the building and attributed to Tiffany Studios by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The City planned to replace them with inexpensive plastic and tin “fixtures” and intended to sell the original fixtures at auction or otherwise, with no consideration for their historical or architectural significance to 60 Centre Street.
Despite the City’s stated commitment to preserving landmark buildings, insufficient consideration was given to whether the supposed energy savings of “Save a Watt” outweighed the architectural damage to Guy Lowell’s courthouse. The program, however well-intentioned for other buildings, was demonstrably ill-conceived and detrimental at 60 Centre Street, representing a despoliation of this important landmark.
Judge Dudley and Mr. Goodman’s intervention led to a partial compromise. Existing pendant globes were preserved, and repairs were made to some. Remaining ceiling globes were to be collected and repositioned within the courthouse. However, in the ensuing confusion, some ceiling globes went missing, adding to previous losses.
The City insisted on replacing almost all bronze ceiling sconces with the cheap plastic and tin “fixtures,” except for a couple that were spared. It is estimated that over 200 bronze sconces were removed, replaced by inferior fixtures that remain in place today in the hallways and offices of 60 Centre Street. These cheap fixtures have deteriorated further, with broken or missing covers and frequent malfunctions.
Had Judge Dudley and Mr. Goodman not intervened, the losses would have been far greater. However, their compromise was insufficient to prevent substantial damage. Judge Dudley lacked the authority to halt the program entirely, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, while supportive, lacked jurisdiction. The “Save a Watt” program, as implemented at 60 Centre Street, was a preservation disaster, especially considering that subsequent advancements in LED lighting would have rendered the entire undertaking unnecessary.
Architectural and decorative details were paramount to Guy Lowell’s design, and their destruction severely undermines our artistic and cultural heritage. Regret is insufficient; the City should proactively rectify the lasting damage of this “municipal malpractice.” The plastic and tin “fixtures” should be discarded, and a foundry like Excalibur Bronze should be commissioned to replicate the lost bronze sconces for reinstallation throughout 60 Centre Street. Similarly, replacements for the original courtroom ceiling lights should be fabricated to match the originals as closely as possible, rectifying the earlier blunder. Administrative Judge Joan B. Carey’s 2010 initiative to replace replacement fixtures in Room 300 with improved lighting recalling the Tiffany originals demonstrates that such restoration is achievable. This is the minimum action required to honor Guy Lowell’s vision and the City’s commitment to safeguarding it.
In the 1990s, a decision was made to replace many original hallway fire safety doors at 60 Centre Street. Despite objections emphasizing the landmark status of the building, the original doors, featuring wire mesh safety glass, brass fittings, and faux wood graining, were removed and replaced with modern, utilitarian metal doors. These replacements, deemed “ugly and pedestrian,” clash with the original harmonious design. While perhaps intended to be jarring for safety awareness, it is questionable whether these modern doors offer significantly greater safety than the 1927 originals to justify the disruption and removal.
Staff found that the new doors often locked or closed too securely for normal use, leading to the unsafe practice of propping them open, something never necessary with the original doors. Furthermore, the handles on the new doors have been prone to falling off.
This and similar incidents underscore a vital principle: original fixtures in landmark buildings should never be replaced with modern alternatives unless there is a compelling and exceptionally strong justification. Failure to adhere to this principle leads to the gradual degradation of our artistic patrimony, even with well-intentioned but misguided modernization efforts.
Recently, the heavily used back entrance of 60 Centre Street was closed due to problems with the hinges of the original wrought-iron doors, posing a risk of collapse and injury. These elaborate wrought-iron doors and surround, original to the courthouse, are nearly 100 years old. Their closure significantly inconveniences court operations and access, especially for deliveries and disabled individuals who utilize the ramps in this area, despite their non-ADA compliance. While ADA-compliant ramps and a lift have been proposed, they remain unrealized.
Current estimates suggest repairs to the rear doors will take approximately 18 months, a timeline viewed skeptically given past experiences with courthouse maintenance delays. Regardless, the plight of these doors serves as a metaphor for the ongoing challenges facing the courthouse at 60 Centre Street.
Over many years, original courthouse chairs, tables, and benches, often only slightly damaged and restorable, were discarded. About three decades ago, procedures were implemented to prevent this, and court staff now endeavor to repair original furnishings using the court’s equipment budget. Salvaging parts from irreparable pieces further aids in future repairs. Many original furnishings have been saved through these efforts.
However, original furnishings and fixtures remain at risk. During the writing of this article, an original courthouse chair was discovered in an inappropriate location and brought to the attention of staff for relocation and preservation. Another original chair, beyond repair but potentially useful for parts, was also found. Recently, replacing original courtroom jury boxes due to ADA compliance concerns was proposed. If ADA issues are to be addressed, jury boxes seem a peculiar starting point, especially considering more pressing issues like jury deliberation rooms. Furthermore, ADA compliance should prioritize accommodation and modification, not destruction of original architectural elements. Destroying Guy Lowell’s original jury boxes, like the “Save a Watt” program and the removal of original courtroom lights, would demonstrate a profound lack of appreciation for the beauty and quality of these originals and would be fundamentally at odds with the landmark status of 60 Centre Street.
This account concludes with a disheartening episode: in the 1990s, a maintenance worker, ironically tasked with preserving the courthouse, stole original brass door push plates and foot plates from courtroom and hallway doors. Preserving original fixtures in landmark buildings is paramount, as their loss is often irreplaceable, especially with items of comparable quality. The ongoing challenges at 60 Centre Street underscore the urgent need for a renewed commitment to preservation, restoration, and responsible stewardship of this architectural and historical treasure.
