Spotlight on Issue 27: Modern History
Credit: Laurenmanning via Flickr
This article appears in Issue 27 of Next American City. To subscribe, click here. To see a list of newsstands, click here.
In a lecture last July, New Yorker architecture critic Paul Goldberger stated that historic preservation battles will increasingly be “fought on the grounds of modern landmarks — those buildings that were constructed in the years after the preservation movement rose to become a major force, those buildings that many of us, myself included, grew up disliking — even believing were the enemy.” Indeed, many preservation ordinances require that a building be at least 50 years old to be considered “historic,” meaning that buildings constructed in the 1950s and ’60s are or soon will be eligible for historic registers, lists of buildings determined to be eligible for tax credits and, in some cases, protection from demolition.
Popularized in the U.S. by the likes of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson, the modern movement sought to bring a sort of universality into the built environment. It was all about the expression of the age, largely characterized by technology and materials. Architects wanted cities and buildings to function like machines, a goal that streamlined, simple forms and structural clarity accomplished with the help of steel, concrete and glass.
But modernist buildings have not traditionally been considered an important part of our cities’ fabric or our architectural heritage — if part of it at all. The country’s collective ambivalence toward modernist architecture has resulted in the destruction of countless landmarks of modern design. Goldberger thinks this is because “there was no modern equivalent of the brownstone, or the exquisite colonial houses of our landscape, or of any other style whose average buildings everyone could jointly admire and feel comfortable about preserving.” Although this attitude is beginning to change — slowly — advocates of modern architecture across the country are fighting battles to prove that modern can be historic.
Several midcentury architectural landmarks appeared on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2009 list of endangered buildings, including the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, built in 1966 and designed by World Trade Center architect Minoru Yamasaki. It’s an elegant 19-story building with a sweeping glass and concrete facade. The hotel has hosted celebrities and presidents, and was once known as the West Coast White House, being a favorite retreat of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
It therefore shocked preservationists when the hotel’s owner, Next Century Associates, announced plans in 2008 to replace the building with two 600-foot mixed-use towers. Many were disappointed at the lack of consideration the developers gave to the hotel’s historical status and aesthetic appeal. In addition, it was a perfectly fine, functioning building that could easily be adapted to a new use or rehabilitated. The developers, though caught off guard, ultimately heeded the outcry: In February Next Century reached a deal with the National Trust and the Los Angeles Conservancy to incorporate the existing hotel into their project.
Not all outcomes have been so successful, however. In Philadelphia the fate of the Sidney Hillman Medical Center, a small midcentury hospital, remains uncertain. According to John Gallery, the executive director of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, the Hillman Center is an unconventional building because it combines modern form with high-quality materials normally associated with earlier classical buildings (in other words, it’s not one of those concrete block eyesores). Rather, it utilizes a warm orange limestone for its upper stories and sleek, polished granite on the ground floor. “It’s not a flat wall like many modernist buildings,” Gallery says, “but an eye-catching composition of angled forms.”
All of this could be lost very soon, however. A Chicago developer has proposed to replace the four-story building with a 32-story apartment tower. Gallery and others have objected not only to the demolition of the Hillman Center but also to the proposed building’s scale; they argue that a tower would be incongruous in a neighborhood of low-rise townhouses, churches and schools.
But apart from concern about the new building’s height, there has not been much local opposition to demolition, except from the preservation and architecture communities. In the past, significant public outcry has often derailed demolition projects, but local residents don’t see the building’s historical significance — as they might, for example, see that of the 19th-century gothic revival church across the street. But Gallery sees Philadelphia as a museum of architecture. “You want an example of every style or period,” he says. “The public doesn’t understand that the Hillman Center is one of these museum pieces — it’s one of the most important examples of midcentury architecture in Philadelphia.”
In New York the future of the Donnell Library Center remains in doubt. The Donnell, an elegantly spartan five-story concrete building in Midtown Manhattan, was completed in 1955 as a branch of the New York Public Library (NYPL). But in 2008 the library announced that the property had been sold to Orient-Express Hotels for $59 million, and would be demolished. Some may disagree that the building is visually appealing, but few could argue against its benefit as a community space. In fact, interest in the library soared once the demolition plans were announced. Although the initial deal with Orient-Express fell through and the shuttered library remains in the hands of NYPL, plans for its sale have been renewed.
What will it take for the public to gain a better appreciation of midcentury architecture? Time, most likely. It wasn’t until the 1970s and ’80s that even the architectural community began to appreciate Victorian buildings, for example. “To one generation,” Goldberger says, “the excesses of Victorian architecture that we now so treasure were the height of vulgarity. To another generation, the zestful lines of art deco and art moderne were mere commercial expedience, not real architecture. Now we value both, and struggle to preserve them.” Until the time comes when there is a wider understanding of how modernist buildings contribute to the architectural legacy of our cities, we will have to rely on the efforts of advocacy groups to save our museums of architecture.


Police Chiefs Gather in NYC to Discuss Racial Profiling and Immigration Policy

Appropriateness on Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:31am
Regarding the sale of the Donnell. Plans for its sale have not been “renewed,” it was sold. THe deal was renegotiated with OE Hotels by NYPL and OE was given more time to pay of the $69 million, to June 2011. If ground is not broken for the new hotel at that time, OE has to pay a penalty of $30 mil. We, the committee to Save the Donnell Library have been turned down for support of landmarking by Community Board 5 by a vote of 6 to 5 with the vote being contested by one voter who claimed she didn’t understand what she was voting for, Since we could not get support of DOCOMOMO, the one organization that supports landmarking some mid century buildings, the steam has gone out of the effort temporarily. The National Trust for Historic Places has judged the Donnell worthy of designation but they need permission from the owner of the property, NYPL president Paul LeClerc, who has refused to respond to their letter asking for approval. THe sale of the Donnell was made without any public hearing. Considering that 92% of the operating funds come from taxes paid mostly by NYC residents, some state and some federal, this is an outrage. But, obviously the politicians have decided that this sale is legit and so it seems to be. Anyone who wants to help with restoring and landmarking the Donnell, which the NYPL says needs $80 to put back into shaper but have refused to supply the report that came to that conclusion, is welcome to contact me. But bring friends.
Palvar on Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 9:03am
Look, if you folks want to preserve these buildings, you need to work with the respective State Historic Preservation Office - they are the ones with the real power when it comes to preservation. Anything 50 years or older is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
@Appropriateness: if the building is federally funded, it will be reviewed by the SHPO as part of the National Historic Preservation Act.
With regards to the Hillman Center: this is one block from Market St and surrounded by skyscrapers. Keep the building if you can find a use for it, but scale is not an issue.
Appropriateness on Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 7:56pm
@Pavoar-The Donnell qualifies for both the Nartiona and State Registers of Historic Places, (which I misidentified above). I have a copy of the letter notifying my group of the designation. But, the head of the NYPL which owns the Donnell will not respond to the letter, so the Donnell will not be designated unless you can give me an idea of the process to follow. The Donnell is over 50 years old.
Palvar on Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 8:30am
@Appropriateness: I’m confused as to whether or not the building is listed. If it isn’t yet listed, but is eligible, give the New York SHPO a call and they will be able to tell you what to do to have it added to the register: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/shpo/
If it is listed, they will be the ones best able to advise you. Again, if the project is federally funded it will have to go through the National Environmental Protection Act process which will trigger consultation with SHPO. Either way, speaking to SHPO is your best route. Good luck!
Appropriateness on Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 8:05am
It is eleigible but not listed. Of course I called SHPO when this first happened and was told they could do nothing because the owner of the Donnell would not respond to them.