Preserving the Modern

Welcome to the Summer issue of Preservation Architect. It is a full issue, and comes at a busy time, just after convention and as we enter the second half of the year. I think you will find many opportunities herein to connect with relevant issues, and believe you will enjoy the read. The committee is always looking for active participation from members and components, so please contact us if you have ideas or want to volunteer!

To provide an opposing viewpoint to one of our featured articles, Carroll William Westfall’s “Why Preservation Cannot Save Us from Modernism, and Why Classicism Can,” I wanted to write a short piece on preserving modernism, as it was the impetus for my becoming co-chair of the upcoming jointly-sponsored conference with the Committee on Design in Copenhagen, Denmark (please clickhere for more details). I find that many in the preservation community are struggling with preserving buildings from our recent past, i.e., those that are called Mid-Century and are now coming of age to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The relative youth of some of these buildings and their often “stripped down” appearance has taken awhile for some to appreciate, and others still have doubts as to their contribution to significant architecture.

Why is this era of architecture, in all its iterations of style, so difficult to appreciate? Is it because there was such an extraordinary boom in construction after World War II that one style saturated the market? Do we take some of these buildings for granted and just see them as background architecture, when in fact many may be very fine buildings? Why do we often categorize them as non-architecture, when their engineering, integration of functions, crisp features and elegant proportions comprise a well-designed whole? Why can’t the public just accept that time moves on, and each era needs to be respected for what its architecture has brought to culture? These are the issues that relate to finding ways to identify, assess, document and list these structures.

Many architects know and delight in Mid-Century icons such as the United Nations Building, Gordon Bunshaft/ SOM’s Lever House, and Mies van de Rohe’s Chicago Federal Center and Farnsworth House - but what about more ordinary structures? There are lots of excellently designed buildings, campuses and commercial complexes constructed in the mid-century that are finding new appreciation. Their clean-lined designs, their settings and relationships to their environments, their transitions from indoor to outdoor by the use of plazas, glass and elegantly designed lobbies, as well as their full integration of furniture, finishes and lighting, all speak to the care with which mid-century architects undertook their commissions. A number of corporate giants are finding that preserving and retaining their Mid-Century corporate headquarters, such as RJ Reynolds in Virginia, or General Motors in Michigan, serves as a strong business indicator of the soundness of the corporation and its respect for its legacy as it moves into the future.

Thousands of structures need to be identified and listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a first step to their preservation. There are also technical challenges with materials conservation and building performance that architects need to develop and share. The steel structures, thin skins and curtain walls of so many of the recent past buildings have created a preservation dilemma. How do you bring back to life materials and fastening systems that are on the verge of failure? How do you bring contemporary performance levels to buildings designed during a golden age of prosperity and lack of concern for energy efficiency? How do you save post-war thermo-plastics and composite materials that now are considered unfriendly to the environment, or went out of production as poor performers?

Many HRC members and allied organizations, such as the Association for Preservation Technology International and DoCoMoMo, are working to encourage identification and protection of these structures. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, through its acquisition of the Glass House and the Farnsworth House, as well as its annual 11 most endangered list, is bringing visibility to this era of architecture. The General Services Administration has been a major proponent of preserving modernism through their Federal Modernism initiative, and there is a wealth of information on their website (http://www.gsa.gov/federalmodernism). More conferences and technical bulletins are being written about how to preserve fragile materials, how to detail replacement materials and systems, and how to be more sustainable and energy efficient when sensitively retrofitting exterior envelopes. The underlying philosophical issue continues to be maintaining the integrity of these resources while major rehabilitation is undertaken. It is an issue that will stimulate much discussion as architects grapple with many of the technical issues to do with materials conservation or lack thereof. A particularly good resource is the recent publication Preservation of Modern Architecture, by Theodore H. M. Prudon, published by Wiley & Sons.

The Historic Resources Committee is part of this new wave of interest, and as such is co-sponsoring the upcoming conference in Copenhagen, Danish Modern: Then and Now. As we go to press, registration is filling fast. So if you have ever considered learning more about the class of architecture known to many as Mid-Century Modern, I hope that you will join me for this exciting event over Labor Day weekend. This will be just the first effort as HRC joins with others to bring awareness of this continuing topic of interest: preserving our modern architectural heritage.

Sharon C. Park, FAIA
2008 Chair, HRC