Towards a Death of Architecture

Berkeley Art Museum (Mario Ciampi)

Buildings are physical representations of the social, economic, political, technological, and cultural climates of their eras of origin. Ultimately buildings represent our cultural heritage and our architectural history. However, mid-century modern era buildings are increasingly interpreted as antiquated architecture that is functionally obsolete and lacking use in today’s society. Our recent-past modern buildings are being labeled as “failed” or “useless” architecture. As a result, mid-century modern architecture is rapidly being demolished and replaced with newer sustainable structures believed to better represent our most current social and cultural ideals. Current architecture is believed to be far more aesthetically pleasing than their modern predecessors.

But in the context of society, including heritage, what constitutes “useful” architecture verses useless building? There must be a relationship of parts to complete the building, but structure and function alone do not equate to architecture.  Perhaps “useful” should be a term connected to architecture exhibiting enduring design excellence? Paradoxically, design excellence is tangled with style, and history demonstrates that style preference is ephemeral, subjective, and fluxuates at a high velocity. Yet the loss of style preference, or the falling out of design aesthetics favor, is one of the biggest rationale for the demolition of modern era buildings. Presently, Brutalism is at the crux of the demolition/ preservation debate. 

Prentice Women’s Hospital (Bertrand Goldberg)

Framed in the context of history, it can only follow that Brutalist buildings were going to be executed as formal monumental concrete structures that directly juxtapose (even challenge) their environments. But more often than not, the perspective of historic context is outnumbered by present aesthetic preference.  For example, Prentice Women’s Hospital (Bertrand Goldberg) in Chicago, the Berkeley Art Museum (Mario Ciampi) in California, and several of Paul Rudolph’s brute beauties were technological and architectural triumphs of their time. However, the Brutalist buildings like other modern era buildings that rate low on the aesthetic-scale have been equally disregarded in their maintenance. The argument for demolition based on deficiencies caused by a lack of maintenance becomes all too convenient.  The wide-spread demise of brutalist civic and urban buildings is a demise of the ideologies behind the intent of the architecture and those housed within. 

Yale Art & Architecture Building drawing (Paul Rudolph)

Aesthetics cannot be the pretext for significance or the preservation of architecture. Letting aesthetics judge value will strip our architectural history of some of the most influential and innovated examples of modern era architecture. In effect, we are killing, and ultimately denying claim to, a portion of our architectural history. There is value in the perspective of context and value in re-using and re-imagining modern era architecture. If aesthetic preference continues to get in the way, what use is there for the architect or an architectural legacy?

Preserving the Modern in St. Louis

St. Louis, MO is home to several architectural gems from the Mid-Century Modern era. The city recently conducted a “windshield” property survey of over 2,000 non-residential buildings constructed between 1945 and 1970. The Cultural Resource Office of St. Louis is highlighting a selective survey & inventory of 200 significant properties with input from PMA and the public to help develop a master list of 25 of the most significant Mid-Century Modern masterpieces.  

Surveying these architecturally significant structures gives a voice to a past era that still directly influences us today. St. Louis’s built heritage from the Mid-Century Modern era showcases structures from internationally recognized architects that revolutionized architecture and design throughout the 20^th century. 

A Legacy of Modern Architectural Design

The post-World War II era in the United States saw the acceptance and rise of Modern Movement Architecture across urban areas. Contributing factors to this development included the impact of the auto industry on the built environment, a more cost-conscious public and government, and technological advances in construction materials and methods.. In addition to these factors, St. Louis was home to the prestigious school of architecture at Washington University. The school had diverse and international students and teachers that contributed to some of the most prolific designs of modern architecture.  

When discussing St. Louis Mid-Century Modern architectural design three architects stand out: W.A. Sarmiento, Gyo Obata, and Minoru Yamasaki. Their designs were sleek, yet whimsical, and made St. Louis globally recognized for its modern architectural designs.  

W.A. Sarmiento is an internationally regarded architect who designed some of the most prolific buildings in the city of St. Louis. A native of Peru, Sarmiento began as a draftsman for Oscar Niemeyer. In 1952 he accepted a position with the Bank Building & Equipment Corporation in St. Louis. From 1952 through 1964, Sarmiento revolutionized the design and function of banking facilities. Ten years after working for the Bank Building & Equipment Corporation, Sarmiento left after J.B. Gander’s death and formed his own company. W.A. Sarmiento Architects expanded to included offices in St. Louis, Phoenix, and San Francisco. Sarmiento closed his practice in 1978 and left behind a legacy of modern architectural design including the saved American Automobile Association (AAA) Building (1976), the Chancery of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (1962), and the Jefferson Bank and Trust Building (1955). 

The St. Louis Science Center James S. McDonnell Planetarium (1963), was designed by the local firm of Hellmuth, Obata, & Kassabaum (HOK), with Obata as lead designer. HOK was founded in 1955, and to this day is a global leader in architectural design. Their practice began by designing schools in suburbs of St. Louis, and by the 1960s it had grown and began to open offices nationally, with their first international branch opening in 1984. Obata was the lead designer of the Saint Louis Science Center Planetarium along with other notable St. Louis buildings. The building has a visually striking and expressive shape, somewhat reminiscent of a nuclear power plant tower. It is a thin concrete shell structure, hyperboloid in section. This architectural design is a premiere example of thin-shell concrete contemporary design.  

 

Minoru Yamasaki’s domed design for Lambert’s main air terminal became the forerunner of modern terminal building plans. In 1951, the firm of Hellmuth, Yamasaki, and Leinweber was commissioned to design and update the Lambert- St. Louis Municipal Airport. In 1956, their design was the first building in St. Louis to receive a National AIA Honor award. This building was originally composed of three vaults, with a forth added in 1965. Yamasaki’s design became a model for a new generation of airport terminals. Eero Saarinen’s designs for the TWA terminal at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, and the Dulles Washington Airport terminal both echo the repetitive concrete vaults of Lambert St. Louis Municipal Airport.[i]

 

For more information about this exciting project, including a list of buildings for intensive research, mid-century modern properties, city map with property locations, and property descriptions. Please visit: Mid-Century Modern Survey

---

[i]  Landmarks Association of St. Louis, Lambert Field. Duffy, Robert W. ,http://www.landmarks-stl.org/architecture/lambert_field [Accessed April 9^th, 2013].

Historic Preservation and New Construction in Historic Districts

OSU Buildable Area. PMA.

Historic Districts are not frozen in time. Ideally, Districts are busy, vital places where people live, work, socialize, and see community values reflected. Typically, buildings contribute to a district and share common characteristics becoming more historically valuable as a group than as individual properties. If we create, restore, and invest in Historic Districts, the Districts will continue to tell a story about a particular time period, a particular community, or perhaps a particular industry. So is new construction appropriate within a Historic District, and if so, how does one properly design and integrate the new building within the existing historic context? This posting will explore some factors and opinions on new construction in Historic Districts.


Some individuals argue that appropriate infill must be visually identical to nearby historic resources. Most architects in practice today have a condescending reaction against recreating previous styles as making “faux” or “Disneyland” architecture, even though western architecture for hundreds of years has recycled various stylistic revivals. It is not an absurd concept to design and build beautiful, high-quality buildings that reflect an older style and method of construction. Other individuals have no trouble placing a contemporary structure next to older structures, since modern buildings have a responsibility to reflect our shared culture and lifestyle.

OSU Canopy. Opsis Architecture.

Neither of these absolutes works for most situations. New buildings, as stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards, do need to be “differentiated” from contributing buildings in a District to avoid a false sense of history. The question is how much differentiation is required?   Though there are cases where a “missing tooth” in a very cohesive pattern of buildings should be constructed to resemble its historic neighbors, in other cases the visual diversity of architectural styles and periods within a District allows for more flexibility in differentiating new buildings.  Historic Districts are listed on the National Register because they possess a concentration of buildings that are linked either historically, aesthetically, or both. One Historic District might represent a fairly large span of time, various architectural types and styles, and a number of different uses. Another District might be much more specific in its focus.

As Preservationists and Architects, we need to analyze the characteristics and contexts that are the same and the characteristics and contexts that are different about the resources within the District. Each case is unique and site-dependent. It is possible to allow for stylistic additions and change without showcasing the change; to temper the inclination to design an individually iconic building; and to limit a modern “intrusion” so as to respect and highlight the older buildings. Good design, high-quality detailing, and high quality materials contribute towards compatibility, and adaptive reuse and change is inevitable to the vitality of a Historic District.

Canopy Arch. Opsis Architecture.

Each jurisdiction having authority makes its own interpretation of what it means to be compatible. One recent example is an approval by the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) in Corvallis, Oregon. The Corvallis HRC approved a design for a freestanding metal and glass canopy in the heart of the national registered Oregon State University Historic District. The HRC concluded that there was no historic precedent for a freestanding non-building element, but found that the canopy was visually light and well-designed and fit into the open space pattern of development without detracting from the neighboring Contributing resources. The role of the historic consultant in this case was to construct an argument as to why the canopy was compatible in the District, and push back against earlier suggestions that the canopy become more “building-like” with masonry columns. An open structure with a veneer of building material would have created a less compatible design.

Each proposal for new construction in a Historic District should be informed by its context. There is latitude for new construction to be distinct, as long as the new work does not detract from the surrounding historic resources.

Brutalism. The Ugly Face of Preservation.

In recent months there has been much discussion and conflict over the preservation of architecture from the Modern Movement. Structures that once represented the technological and artistic triumphs of the architect from the mid-twentieth century are viewed as unruly intrusions to the environment around them, especially Brutalist style structures. Brutalism represents an aesthetic of architectural design and planning that is rational, geometric, stripped of ornamentation, and predominantly composed of corrugated concrete. This style was initiated by Le Corbusier whose architecture was perhaps the “brutal reaction to the machine mass-produced Miesian building types” born in the post-World War II era.[1]

While we have come to slowly accept, as significant to our architectural history, the glass curtain wall machine-like jewels from one camp of the Modern Movement, we are quick to deny claim and significance to those rugged, concrete, man-made structures of the Brutalist style. Why? They are aesthetically unattractive. Brutalist structures are testaments to urban ideals for civic and educational facilities of the Modern Movement. They also project attitudes of raw unforgiving dominance, and were built by some of the world’s most forward thinking architects. Yet, Brutalism has and is continued to be met with severe criticism and cold reception. Criticism is continually directed towards the design and rough aesthetic qualities of the structures facades, but also for how their corrugated concrete does not mix well with damp climates. No wonder vocal disdain was heard loud and clear at the University of Oregon campus during the late 1970s, implementing the initiation of The Oregon Experiment.[2]

Still, today there are cries for the demolition of Brutalist structures, many of which are called architectural eye-sores or more simply, ugly. Two of Paul Rudolph’s designs, The Orange County Government Center of 1958 and Sarasota High School of 1960 have been in the spotlight of the demolition or renovation debate. Acceptance of Brutalism has been rough from the beginning, and history has proved it is not getting easier. However, we must preserve structures from the Modern Movement, even the declared eye-sores, because they are significant markers of our architectural history. The Brutalist style of architecture offered an alternative and direct challenge to the glass curtain wall that was a dominant characteristic of urban renewal and planning during the Modern Movement. Brutalism was the bold statement to the passivity of glass curtain wall design, and perhaps the closest bridging of conceptual architectural drawings and building.[3]

Perhaps a more pressing issue is why is there a lack of value associated with preserving architecture from the Modern Movement. Even the more favored glass curtain wall structures are still met with uncertainty in regards to preservation. Let’s not forget that Veterans Memorial Coliseum once faced cries for demolition, despite its intellectual display of form and material.  Structures from the Modern Movement are historical documents that attest to the cultural, social, economic, technological, and artistic climates of the eras in which they were conceived. Yet, preservationists are met with ferocious declarations of demolition once these structures begin to show any signs of weathering and aging, which prompts the reminder that for some they are also aesthetically disappointing and offensive.

Preservationists have to ask the more difficult questions of which structures should be saved, and why. Preservation becomes problematic because a set of criteria has been created that ultimately judges the significance of a structure not only for the manners in which it was conceived, but as part of our “perceived architectural heritage.”[4] Declaring a structure(s) as part of our cultures architectural heritage further complicates the preservationists roll because it is then implied that the structure(s) has been significant to the contribution of our current cultural identity.[5] Have structures executed in the Brutalist style been significant towards the contribution to our cultural heritage?  Perhaps not, but they are important markers in our architectural history.

Should structures executed in the Brutalist style be wiped clean from our architectural history? No, but this style should not be fostered, recreated, and executed again. And one of the best manners in which to ensure this is to keep a physical and visual historical record. Preservation cannot be for the aesthetically pleasing only, because our architectural history would be stripped bare and left with dispassionate and boring structures. 

[1] Curcic, Slobodan. “Review of The New Brutalism. Ethic or Aesthetic by Reyner Banham.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1969) 171-173.

[2] University of Oregon. <http://uplan.uoregon.edu/faq/FAQPatternLanquage.html> [Accessed May 2, 2012].

[3] Rohan, Timothy R. “Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph’s Art and Architecture Building at Yale.” Grey Room, No. 1 (Autumn 2000) 84-107.

[4] Whiteley, Nigel. “Modern Architecture, Heritage, and Englishness.” Architectural History. (1995) 220-237.

[5] Refer to previous footnote.

---