A guest Editorial by Jim Zavist, AIA.
Recently, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board designated an old Denny’s restaurant as an architectural “landmark”: Seattle Times Article.
This raises, again, the challenges about whether or not mid-century modern architecture will (and should?) be appreciated and properly recognized, both across the country and here locally, in the St. Louis area: http://tobybelt.blogspot.com/2006/11/overland.html
We’re already set up to recognize landmarks, both historic and architectural, both individual structures and groups of buildings (in districts). One basic requirement for architectural significance is being at least 50 years old. Most of us are pretty comfortable with (and conditioned to) recognizing structures from the 19th Century and the early 20th Century, place like Soulard and Lafayette Square. We’re also somewhat comfortable with recognizing certain “modern” public structures, like the Arch. Where there’s a lot more debate is with the need to preserve “modern” architecture.
The ’50’s and the ’60’s were a time of change in popular tastes, both in architecture and in other areas of design. Many of the downtown buildings from the teens and twenties were reclad in aluminum and porcelain steel. The suburbs took off, and architecture morphed to respond to an explosive growth in the use of the automobile. For many of us, it’s the architecture of our childhood. For others, it’s just old and dated / “uncool” stuff that reflects the suburbs we now despise. There was a time when the “painted ladies” of the Victorian era weren’t appreciated. Now is the time that mid-century architecture is most in danger of being lost. It’s no longer new and stylish, and not old enough to have “come full circle” and become stylish and appreciated again.
It seems like most mid-century modern architecture falls under the control of one of three groups of owners, public entities, private commercial owners and private residential owners. Structures under public control or used for private residences are the ones that seem to be under less pressure – their biggest challenge comes when their owners deem them “functionally obsolete”. Commercial owners, especially retail owners, are much more prone to want to tear down, replace and be “up to date”. That said, let me throw out some examples for discussion on the merits of designating them local architectural “landmarks”:
- St. Louis Fire Department Headquarters – 1421 N. Jefferson
- The Record Exchange (previously a branch city library) – Hampton & Eichelberger
- Maplewood City Hall – north side of Manchester, between Laclede Station Rd. and Big Bend Rd.
- the older parts of Crestwood Plaza
- Lindell Bank Building, Hampton & Chippewa
- multiple inner-ring suburban churches, including the Ethical Society
- Del Taco on Grand north of Forest Park Parkway
My questions to the blogosphere – should any or all of these be designated as architectural landmarks? What other ones should be on the list? Are any more endangered than the others?
The other part of this whole discussion is private property rights and functional reuse. It’s one thing to designate a structure as a landmark (and offer tax credits). It’s a whole ‘nuther thing to define functional, economically-viable uses for older, and at times, “obsolete”, structures. The Record Exchange is a classic example. It was apparently not too difficult to move out the book stacks and to move in the record racks – no significant exterior changes were required and the structure’s appearance was (and is) “preserved”.
The antithesis to this is the Schnuck’s at Hanley & Clayton Road. The land underneath the structure and the parking lots is worth a lot more as something, anything else, probably a multi-story mixed-use project. Clayton could designate the structure as “historic” and could delay its ultimate demolition, but there’s little that that can be done legally to stop it from happening. Admittedly, it’s not “great” architecture, but, much like the Denny’s, it is representative of what was considered to be good retail architecture from that era (see http://www.groceteria.com/ for others). Is it worth the battle to save it (and other retail structures from the ’50’s and ’60’s) or should we just “move on”?
Finally, is the residential side. St. Louis County was home to several notable “modern” architects and recently identified a comprehensive list of “notable” structures: http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/parks/history/MidCenturyModernArchitecture.pdf In some of the “nicer” parts of the county, the same argument of “functional obsolesence” is being used to justify the demolition of significant residential structures so they can be replaced by larger McMansions that, charitably, “make a different statement” for their owners. Unfortunately, one legacy of that time is increasingly threatened: http://www.stlmag.com/media/St-Louis-Magazine/November-2007/A-Conversation-with-Ralph-A-Fournier/ Some areas are starting to address the issue (http://www.olivettemo.com/aam/documents/ResidentialNPRAdvisoryCommitteeFinalReport.pdf), but many aren’t, and all face the same private-property-rights-versus-public-good conundrum almost all areas struggle with . . . thoughts?
