Comments on: Replay: Preserving Our Mid-Century Heritage

By: William King

William King — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:06:39 +0000

Atomic Indy is doing a great job of creating a community of like-minded .The past generations not being able to bind us.

By: Chris Barnett

Chris Barnett — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:27:17 +0000

A gentle poke to Alison King: everyone is “aging”, even the young. Those of us who lived our childhoods in places filled with MCM houses, schools, libraries, medical offices, banks, and shopping centers are not as old as you might think. And we are, as a generation, at a reflective stage of life. The youngest boomers are now pushing 50, and could offer the greatest pool of supporters for MCM preservation.

One of the really hard issues for MCM buildings is to incorporate energy-saving technology in the commercial structures. The roof deck is a relatively easy place to add insulation, even when there is an exposed tongue-and-groove wood ceiling laid over laminated beams. But the curtain-walls of the MCM “originals” are pathetic when it comes to heat transfer (both loss and gain). You can’t just put in new windows; it often requires a whole new building face, and that’s not strict preservation.

By: John Morris

John Morris — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:40:31 +0000

That’s really the bottom line. Most of these buildings are at their core anti urban and pretty hard to integrate back into a really dense viable mixed use city. I’m not saying many can’t stay like many of the fabulous houses like the Frank House in Pittsburgh and some of the very well designed apartment buildings we have in Shadyside.

The most important thing is always how well the urban structure and community fit together. If buildings detract from that in a big way–like perhaps 75% of Brutalist structures they probably should go.

Also, there’s a lot to be said for pushing buildings beyond their original intent. I think there’s a restaurant at the bottom of Lever House now and a lot of Park Ave and Midtown buildings have put in retail and other uses that were strictly designed out, creating a much more vibrant urban fabric.

The very fact that an area with a lot of these buildings is so in need of “revitalization”, is usually a clue that the buildings should go or be radically changed.

I really don’t think this is a fad at all. In fact, given just how economically disastrous many of these buildings have been, like Allegheny Center in Pittsburgh. The question is why they have stuck around.

By: Alison King, Modern Phoenix

Alison King, Modern Phoenix — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:31:29 +0000

Thanks to Yuri for bringing this article to my attention so I could send it out to our tribe, the MoPhos. [Modern Phoenicians]

http://www.ModernPhoenix.net is paying very close attention to the topics you bring light to, and are well aware that we are The New Guard for the Midcentury Era. What is most frustrating is that many of those who lived through the era firsthand are aging or have passed on. Their memories are fading.

Part of our responsibility as preservationists is to document as much as we can while our sources are still vigorous. I urge all of you involved in the Good Fight to not delay on that primary source interview you’ve been putting off. Record now, edit later.

Alison King
http://www.modernphoenix.net

By: George Smart

George Smart — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:59:29 +0000

We lost the most famous modernist house in Raleigh NC, the Catalano House, in 2001. By the time there was any public support for preservation, the house was too far gone, a victim of neglect, abandonment, vandalism, weather, and time. To save other houses from similar fates, our nonprofit has documented almost every mid-century modern in the state. You can’t save something that no one knows about. We track the most endangered houses the moment they go on the market. And we issue national alerts for those that are particularly vulnerable. Recently our efforts helped save a pristine MCM with a target on its back: golf course location, small square footage, empty lot next door, and the owner in a senior care facility. After a full court press, by the beginning of 2010, it has two wonderful, appreciative new owners. Preserving MCM can work but we have to completely rethink strategies. You can’t wait until the 11th hour. http://www.trianglemodernisthouses.com

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:54:14 +0000

Thanks for the comments.

anon 12:52, I agree that we have the right to use our own judgment. I like historic preservation as a general rule, but it is only one of the values that I hold. That’s what I mean about the past generations not being able to bind us. We’ve got to make our decisions, hopefully good ones. I think that means we preserve a good bit of our past, but I don’t think a “no casualties” policy is realistic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:39:56 +0000

here’s an interesting case from St. Louis: a building that originally built in the early 20th century then re-clad in modernist style in the 50’s. It was recently listed on the Nat’l register of Historic Places and given tax credits because of the re-cladding, as opposed to the original design.

http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2009/10/farm-and-home-building-looking-spiffy.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:52:37 +0000

^Those sound like commom sense criteria. Maybe we could also add that renovations be done in a way as to be reversible if future generations want to restore the building to its original style.

Another point to consider, why does the preservation conversation always start around the year 1890? Are we not glad that cities were free to tear down buildings from the 1840’s to build those that are so beloved today? Most of our preserved historic districts represent the 3rd or 4th complete rebuilding of their respective areas. What if people in 1890 had been told they had to wait another generation to rebuild? We wouldn’t have some of the grand city centers we have today. I like preservation too, I also find it a tough position to defend.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:28:33 +0000

This issue could probably be settled by sticking to a few criteria before removing a piece from the MCM time period (or any for that matter.)

(1) Ask the question if what is replacing a MCM building is truly better, not just “newer.” Many people don’t know the difference. For example, a parking lot in a small city downtown would not be better than MCM bank or library. Neither would a taco bell, shell station, or CVS.

(2) Is this a worthy piece of the time period or is it forgetable? That same bank building may itself violate several features of good urban design and have a 50 year history of being a brutal eye sore. In that case replacing it with something that accomplishes the goals of increasing density, engaging the street, complementing adjoining structures, etc may be the better option.

(3) Is anything else in the area representative of this time period? A city like Phoenix maybe could lose some of the forgetable pieces from this period, however, a city with a only a few MCM examples, ought to think twice.

I couldn’t agree more with the invert the world concept for offering a real alternative to greenfield development. Such has been done with some success, but for the moderately impatient types like myself, too slowly.

By: C. Resources, Inc., Historians

C. Resources, Inc., Historians — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:46:05 +0000

Atomic Indy is doing a great job of creating a community of like-minded MCM appreciating folks. What’s also needed is a timeout of destruction so that we can gain an understanding of the importance of mid-century architecture as a design period. It’s hard to appreciate buildings we grew up with. Much like it’s hard to evaluate a presidency until a few decades have passed, it’s hard to evaluate the importance of a period of architecture until time allows us to understand it and separate the good from the bad. That’s why it’s so important, as you said, to save these structures now so that time can allow us the distance to really see their beauty. Lots of people hated the old Second Empire Marion County Courthouse, until it was torn down and the new City/County building went up. Now most people lament the loss of the old one and hate the design of the new one. Best to take a step back and really think long and hard about this one before we make the same mistake twice. And that’s true about most MCM architecture. Let’s see how it holds up over time.