New Lecture Series: Priceless: New Approaches to Historic Preservation in the 21st Century

Great series historic preservation lectures to begin today; about to head off to the first of them.

Diane Lederman of the Republican provided a schedule of events, as well as this introduction:

AMHERST - A talk by the designer of the World Trade Center Site Memorial will highlight a series of lectures this fall at the University of Massachusetts on current architectural issues.

Called “Priceless: New Approaches to Historic Preservation in the 21st Century,” the series is free and open to the public. All talks begin at 4 p.m.

The new series ties into a new preservation initiative at the university, said Max Page, the director of historic preservation initiatives for the College of Humanities and Fine Arts.

The university is now offering a Master of Science in Design and Historic Preservation.

The series is intended for everyone. “Preservation is the way most people interact with the past,” Page said. (read the rest)

Here is the text of the announcement from UMass:

Priceless: New Approaches to Historic Preservation in the 21st Century

A Lecture Series of the new Historic Preservation Initiative in the Architecture + Design Program and the College of Humanities and Fine Arts

All lectures (except for Jim Wald and Michael Arad) take place at 4 pm in Herter Hall, Room 231 on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus.

September 24 Liz Ševčenko, “Sites of Conscience: Historic Preservation for Human Rights”

Liz Ševčenko is founding Director of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, a network of historic sites that foster public dialogue on pressing human rights and social justice issues. She works with initiatives in more than forty countries to design programs and practices that reflect on past struggles and inspire public involvement in addressing their contemporary legacies.

September 30 Michael Arad, “Reflecting Absence: Designing the National September 11th Memorial”

Michael Arad is a partner at Handel Architects LLP. His design for the World Trade Center Site Memorial, "Reflecting Absence," was chosen by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in January 2004. Prior to winning the Memorial competition, Mr. Arad worked as an architect for the New York City Housing Authority and for Kohn Pedersen Fox, where he worked on several major projects, including Union Station Tower, a mixed-use 108-story skyscraper in Hong Kong, and Espirito Santo Plaza, a 37-story tower in Miami that won the AIA New York Chapter Design Award Citation in 2001.

Co-sponsored by the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning and the Dartmouth Club of the Pioneer Valley.

Note: This talk is in Hills North, room 105 at 4 pm.

October 1 Jim Wald, “The Politics and Practice of Preservation in Amherst”

Jim Wald is a professor at Hampshire College, Director of the Hampshire College Center for the Book, member of the Amherst Board of Selectmen, and Chair of the Historical Commission for the Town of Amherst.

Note: This will be a walking tour, leaving from the Amherst Town Hall, 4 Boltwood Avenue at 1 pm.

October 15 Daniel Bluestone, “Forming Attachments: The Building and Preservation of Belmead (1845-2010)”

Daniel Bluestone is Associate Professor and Director of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Virginia. He is the author of Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation (2011), and Constructing Chicago. He has also led several award-winning efforts to preserve significant historic sites in Chicago and Charlottesville.

October 27 Gerald Frug, “The Architecture of Governance”

Gerald Frug Gerald Frug is the Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He served as a Special Assistant to the Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as Administrator of the Health Services Administration of the City of New York. He is the author of dozens of articles and book chapters on local government, as well as of Local Government Law (2010, with Richard Ford and David Barron), City Bound: How States Stifle Urban Innovation (2008, with David Barron), and City Making: Building Communities without Building Walls (1999).

October 29 Sergio Kiernan “The Battle for Preservation in Buenos Aires”

Sergio Kiernan is the Architecture Editor of Página 12, the foremost investigative paper in Argentina, and the author of Classical and Vernacular: The Architecture of Alejandro Moreno” and SYASA 20 Years, about the restoration of the Teatro Colon in Buenos Aires.

November 12 Richard Todd, “Preserving Appearances: On Artifice and Authenticity”

Richard Todd has spent many years as a magazine and book editor at The Atlantic Monthly, The New England Monthly, Worth, Civilization, and Houghton Mifflin. He has written scores of articles on a wide range of cultural themes for Harper’s, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Magazine, Condé Nast Traveler, and the Columbia
Journalism Review, among others. He is a professor at Goucher College and author most recently of The Thing Itself: On the Search for Authenticity.

November 19 David Fixler, “Preserving the Modern: Case Studies from Massachusetts”

David Fixler is a principal of design and preservation at Einhorn Yaffee Prescott AE/PC in Boston, President of DOCOMOMO-US/New England, the international organization dedicated to preserving and documenting the modern movement, and author of numerous articles on the preservation of modern architecture. He recently led a team that completed a major preservation planning report for the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus.



The series is made possible with the support of the Dean of the College of Humanities and Fine Arts, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Department of Art, Architecture, and Art History, the Department of History, the Department of Political Science, the Legal Studies Program, the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, the Dartmouth Club of Pioneer Valley, and Hancock Shaker Village.

For more information, please contact Max Page, Professor of Architecture and History, and Director of Historic Preservation Initiatives for the College of Humanities and Fine Arts, at mpage@art.umass.edu, and visit our website at http://umass.edu/architecture.

Historic Structures: Another Success for Preserve UMass

At the 29 September meeting of the Amherst Historical Commission, Joe Larson, Recording Secretary of Preserve UMass, gave us a preliminary briefing on the progress of the inventory of historic resources on the UMass campus undertaken as part of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the University after the latter violated environmental protection and historic preservation procedures in its demolition of old buildings.

The Opening of Massachusetts Agricultural College [predecessor of UMass]

painting in the lobby of the Murray D. Lincoln Campus Center, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Preserve UMass has in the meantime issued the following press release

Date: November 8, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Historic Assessment of UMass Amherst Campus Completed

Two years after the Amherst campus of the University of Massachusetts was placed on the 2007 List of the Ten Most Endangered Historic Resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, campus administrators have completed a major step in reversing this designation. An independent professional assessment has been completed of the 112 existing campus buildings built during the period 1728 – 1959, and the University has filed documentation with the Massachusetts Historical Commission on the historic and architectural significance of each building.

As a result of the assessment, 82 UMass buildings will be added to the state’s Inventory of Archaeological and Historic Assets of the Commonwealth, bringing the total University structures so listed to 105. Of these, 54 have been identified as eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, according to the consultants hired by the University: Einhorn Yaffee Prescott of Boston and other locations across the U.S., Vanasse Hangen Brustlin of Watertown, MA, and Pressley Associates of Cambridge, MA.

“We congratulate the University administration for selecting this outstanding team of professionals’ said Professor Emeritus Joseph S. Larson, Corresponding Secretary of the private organization, Preserve UMass, that had pressed for an independent assessment in 2007. “The significance of this assessment is that for the first time the question of the historic and archaeological significance of each of the older buildings has professional standing. This could not have been achieved without the cooperation of the University, the involvement of the over 125 supporters of Preserve UMass, the members of the Town of Amherst Historical Commission, and the staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. And we commend the University for retaining the professionals to conduct an assessment of the modern campus buildings, some of which were designed by nationally known architects. Preserve UMass views the combination of historic and modern buildings on the UMass campus as an important living exhibit of American architecture.”

In their report to the University, the consultants recommended establishment of a University of Massachusetts Amherst Historic District, saying that “A number of architects, landscape architects, and planners of local and/or national prominence were involved in the design of the individual buildings and the overall plan of the current University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. The aggregate efforts of these design professionals produced a distinctive public university campus landscape, primarily of the mid-19th to mid-20th century, which is unique in Massachusetts.”

Professor Larson reports that Preserve UMass will continue to be involved in historic preservation on the campus. “Our role will be to work for establishment of the Historic District, nomination of the 54 qualified buildings to the National Register, and full consideration of historic, architectural, and archaeological values in future campus construction.”

Note: A list of the 112 buildings and a map of the historic buildings (pdf files) are available from Preserve UMass on request by email to larson@tei.umass.edu.

We welcome this announcement and hope that the principle of respect for historic structures and cooperation with both the local and state historical commissions will now be firmly enshrined as a principle at all members of the Five College Consortium.

[image added]

Preserve UMass to be Featured in TV Interview

Joe Larson, Corresponding Secretary of--and driving force behind--Preserve UMass (PUMA), will be featured in an interview with Elisa Campbell on "Through the League Lens," ACTV Channel 12, at 7:30 P.M. on the following dates:

1. April 30
2. May 14
3. June 4

The program should also be viewable online after the initial broadcast.

Presumably, Joe spoke not only about his long-standing efforts on behalf of Mass historic resources, but also about our recent very encouraging recent meetings with the teams that are designing the commemorative markers on the history of the campus and documenting the remaining historic structures (about which more on this page in the coming days).

"Building Consensus": Architecture and Preservation at UMass Make Headlines

The current issue of UMass Magazine features a very important trio of articles highlighting the debates over architecture and historic preservation on campus:

• "Building Consensus," journalist Eric Goldscheider's lead piece, reviews the controversy and the stakes:

Past and future had a bit of a scuffle on campus last spring. As crews prepared to dismantle the College Barn to make way for a new Recreation Center across from the Mullins Center, a fledgling preservation group stopped the proverbial wrecking ball mid-swing.

Led by professor emeritus of wildlife biology Joseph Larson ’56, ’58G Preserve UMass, or PUMA, has more than 100 members, including alumni and active and retired faculty and staff. In the face of the barn’s demise, they convinced Preservation Massachusetts, a statewide organization with a kindred mission, to place the campus as a whole on a list of the 10 most endangered historical resources in the Commonwealth. (full article)

• In "Joining Together," Professor of Classics Emeritus Vincent Cleary tells the story of the old Student Union and chronicles its central role in the life of the campus, from the Eisenhower era, through protests over the Vietnam War and the Rodney King verdict. (full article)

• In "Preserving the Future," our colleague Professor of Architecture and History Max Page (and a former member and Vice Chair of the Historical Commission) explains why the modernist style of many of the campus buildings should be treasured rather than scorned:

What I wish to suggest is that the architecture of this campus, far from being impersonal, cold, drab architecture that some see today was in fact a heroic statement of the value of a public university. As the college became a university in the second half of the 20th Century with aspirations to turn Massachusetts citizens into national leaders, it chose not to mimic the colleges nearby—brick Amherst College, Gothic Mount Holyoke, Victorian Smith. No, campus leaders decided that this national public research university would stake its claim as something modern through its architecture. This university would be elite but not elitist, it would be open and accessible, and it would pursue research in the public interest. There was to be nothing quaint or precious about this new university. It would unshakably place itself as herald of the future. (full article)

The pdf version contains all the articles, along with graphics (photographs and timeline) in full color.

PreserveUMass Shines a Spotlight on the University: bright spots and dark corners

This piece follows on our recent postings concerning both modern architecture on campus and the larger question of the University's willingness to observe State laws on historic preservation.

Preserve UMass, which has led the fight to save historic buildings on the campus, issued the following statement over the Massachusetts Historical Commission's listserve on 4 October:

Preserve UMass is pleased to report that the UMass Amherst campus administration has taken some very positive steps on issues important to historic preservation.

1. The professional assessment of all buildings 50 years old or older is underway. We will be watching to see how the results will be used.

2. The campus administration has decided to put Old Chapel under the wing of the Library and restoration of its interior is now on the top of the Library's list of fund raising projects. This makes a lot of sense since the Chapel (never used as a religious chapel) started life as the first campus library.

3. When the renovation of the Campus Center was announced the administration stated that the architectural design of the original architect would be respected. Many people do not like the concrete buildings of the 1970's, but they represent American architecture of the period and nationally known architects were specifically solicited to ensure that their style would be included on the campus scene.

Meanwhile, we have been waiting for well over 3 months for a response from the UMass Building Authority (UMBA) to comments on a draft Memorandum of Agreement sent to the Authority by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in June. UMBA finally responded at the end of last week. We were encouraged to see that UMBA will now agree to MHC's request to document, though photographs and written material, the remaining three structures of the Grinnell Arena Complex, namely, the wooden Victorian Horse Barn, Grinnell Arena itself, and Blaisdell House (the oldest Mass Aggie built structure left on the campus). UMBA had originally wanted to be held only to documenting the now demolished stucco cow barn.

UMBA up to now has been refusing to support one of the most important outcomes of the professional assessment of the campus' historic buildings - namely nomination of qualified buildings to the National Register of Historic Places. We were pleased to see in their response of last week that they will withdraw from that discussion and defer to the Amherst campus administration. We will take that lead and press for campus acceptance of nominations to the National Register.

The most discouraging news in the UMBA response of last week was their continued refusal to admit that the projects that they undertake on the UMass five campuses constitute a "state action." UMBA in oral presentations at two public meetings have made it clear that they "are not part of the University." Their refusal to accept the MHC view that their activities involving state land, state owned buildings, and funds from University issued bonds, are not "state" actions is hard to explain, unless you consider that they may want to erect a shield from environmental and historic preservation regulatory oversight. We will continue to shine a bright and very public light on this issue.

Joseph S. Larson
Corresponding Secretary
Preserve UMass

Architecture: Preserving the Modern--from the ridiculous to the sublime

As the National Trust for Historic Preservation continues to remind us, modernist mid-twentieth century architecture is embattled: Even where it was once welcomed as a visible statement of commitment to innovation and progress, it is now not merely scorned, but threatened with destruction.  

Acutely endangered sites range from a major academic building on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, to Boston City Hall, to a Christian Science church in Washington, D.C.  To be sure, many of these structures are difficult to maintain and to reconcile with modern energy-conservation practices.  Still, listening to those who would dismantle this heritage, one at times has the feeling that this is an emotional act of revenge, rather than a rational one of renovation or reconstruction.

The case of the Christian Science church would be amusing if there were not more at stake: Preservationists had the building designated a historic landmark, and now church members are trying to have that designation removed so that they can demolish their place of worship.  (Presumably, if it were a vessel of flesh and blood rather than concrete and steel, it could just heal itself.)  Fortunately, we live in a society that separates church and state, so church members will have to demonstrate not simply that they don't like their building any more (for they are of course free to sell it and relocate elsewhere), but that their practice of religion will be "substantially burdened" if the building is not altered.  Good luck.  

One church member laments,

"We think it says, 'Stay away.' Something goes on in here that they don't want to get outside, which is exactly wrong for all Christianity. We don't think the architecture conveys taking the Word to the people." [. . . . ]
"Nothing expresses a church's religious exercise more than its architecture. And this architecture does not express our theology and our exercise. Brutalism is not our religious expression."

Leaving aside all the architecturally, theologically, and historically problematic aspects of that statement:  If brutalism was not the ideal style to communicate the message of a welcoming church, but then why didn't the church think of that when it commissioned the building, which was presumably intended to last for some time? Is it impossible for the current generation to understand the reasoning and sentiments of the preceding one? Does not the teaching of the church count for more than the shape of the building in which it takes place?   And, if the architecture was not a burden to the practice of religion when the structure was built, how can it be so now? Once upon a time, believers were willing to suffer martyrdom for their faith, but nowadays aesthetic discomfort resulting from changing tastes evidently constitutes intolerable oppression.  Call Human Rights Watch.

As we have seen, the University of Massachusetts has been dismantling the vernacular architectural remnants of its agricultural heritage, causing community members, alumni, and preservationists to fear in particular for the fate of its modernist structures, which, like their counterparts elsewhere, are endangered.

It is therefore both ironic and encouraging to see that Lexington, Massachusetts, the cradle of the American Revolution, has no problem embracing its modernist heritage.  As a press release to the Massachusetts preservation listserve announced, there will be a symposium on that happy coexistence on 17 October:

Mid-Century Modernism: Lexington's Second Revolution

When people think of architecture in Lexington, 'modern' may not be
the style that comes to mind. However, in the post-war years, a
building boom led to the development of nine distinct neighborhoods
with utopian aspirations: to create low-cost modern houses that
blended with their surroundings and took advantage of the hilly
topography of their sites, natural light, and access to the outdoors.
These close-knit communities shared common land amenities and
governance, and still flourish today. And, more significantly, their
contemporary style houses are one of the most vital and well-preserved
architectural features of Lexington.

(details)

It's modernist domestic architecture and not brutalist public structures, to be sure.  But if Lexington can embrace its modernist heritage, why can't we? It might be, well, a revolutionary change.

University of Massachusetts: Preserving the Modern?

The University of Massachusetts last month announced plans for a sweeping internal renovation of the modernist Campus Center, designed by Marcel Breuer. The emphasis in the press release was on improving amenities and general levels of service, with an eye to maximizing profitability in a competitive hospitality industry:

For the first time since the Campus Center Hotel at the University of Massachusetts Amherst opened its doors in 1970, the facility is undergoing a complete renovation of its guest rooms, lobby and adjoining areas.

According to Meredith Schmidt, director of the Campus Center/Student Union complex, all 116 guest rooms are being gutted and modernized. The remodeling will be completed two floors at a time so that the hotel can remain open and accommodate guests during construction. Work on the initial two floors is scheduled to begin Aug. 22. The tentative completion date is April 2009.

“This is more than just re-carpeting and changing bedspreads—this is a total makeover,” said Schmidt. “We are trying to create a three-star hotel. We know we have location and now we want to offer a very upscale product to the community.”

[. . . .]

Instead of one-bedroom or two-bedroom junior suites, the refurbished hotel will offer a mix of room types with new king, queen or double beds. Each room will be outfitted with new desks with ergonomic chairs, dressers, coffee makers, hair dryers, plasma televisions and high-speed Internet connections. Closets with glass doors will be constructed and in the bathrooms, bathtubs will be removed and replaced with walk-in glass showers. Even the room doors will be refinished to a dark walnut color, said Schmidt.

As an afterthought, the piece noted the architectural significance of the structure:

Schmidt said the firm’s renovation plans reflect a conscious respect for Bauhaus architect and influential modernist Marcel Breuer, who designed the Campus Center with his associate Herbert Beckhard.

(more)

Two things raise possible concerns:

1) The fact that the rooms are "being gutted." If all the fixtures are being ripped out and finishes changed, it is not clear what "respect" is being shown for the internal aesthetic integrity of the structure.

2) In particular, the fact that the work is being financed by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority, which callously pushed ahead with the destruction of historic agricultural buildings this past fall and winter--and even after being found in violation of state law, repeatedly obstructed and delayed agreement on a memorandum of understanding brokered by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

Still, the mere fact that the University is (1) acknowledging in advance and (2) promising to protect the character of a historic structure offers at least modest grounds for optimism. To the extent that progress has been made, we owe that to the vigilance of Preserve UMass. Whether any such confidence is justified, only time will tell. The University indicates that the work is being carried out two floors at a time, so that the building can remain in operation. Work is expected to end by April 2009.

Preservation in the Balance: Preserve UMass

The current issue of the University of Massachusetts alumni magazine contains a letter from Emeritus Professor Joe Larson, Corresponding Secretary of Preserve UMass, which attempts to strike a balance between concern and hope for the fate of the historic resources on campus.

Larson begins by noting a profound irony:

The Fall 2007 issue featured several articles on the accomplishments of alumni in the fields of historic architecture, restoration, preservation, and adaptive re-use of historic structures. This issue also carried a notice that UMass Amherst has become the first public institution in New England to offer an accredited professional graduate degree in architecture. But concurrent with the publication of this issue, on November 14, 2007, the UMass Amherst campus was placed, by Preservation Massachusetts, on its list of Massachusetts’ 10 Most Endangered Historic Resources.

He ends with a warning but also a note of encouragement:

I submit that it is time for the campus administration to develop an approach to historic preservation that complies with state law and actively engages the expertise of faculty and alumni.

The University's recent hiring of a professional consultant on historic resources--long called for by Preserve UMass, and since mandated by a decision of the Massachusetts Historical Commission--is reason for cautious optimism. Perhaps the University has now demonstrated the ability to learn lessons as well as teach.  In any case, let us hope that the new chancellor will be receptive to messages of concern from the dedicated faculty, staff, students, and alumni who care about their institution's history as well as its future.

Does Society Have the Right to Kill the "Ugly"? (On Preserving Modern Buildings)

The evolving discussion of whether to assess and preserve modernist architecture at the University of Massachusetts echoes debates taking place around the country.

Modern architecture raises particular issues for preservationists and the general public alike.  The main obstacle is the perhaps understandable reluctance of the average person to consider relatively new buildings "historic" or worthy of preservation, or both.  Skepticism concerning the historicity of the recent is compounded by the fact that modern architecture does not have the popular constituency that venerable buildings do. "Unloved" is a term often applied to both individual structures and the modernist styles as a whole.  It can moreover seem that there is no urgency or clear purpose to preservation because modernist structures are still relatively common and the forces of time have not yet performed their winnowing and sifting.  As one preservation group warns, "We need to separate the masterpieces from the mediocrities before they are all sacrificed for density and infill."

A subsidiary issue is a technical one. Preservationists today shrewdly (and correctly) argue that conservation or re-use of existing buildings can be an important component of "green" and sustainable practices. However, they also acknowledge that many modernist buildings (a counterintuitive insight, perhaps) are less "green" or energy-efficient than older ones, and for these and other reasons, pose significant environmental and financial challenges.

Pointing to the steady disappearance of "resources of all types built within the last 50 years, with little consideration of their historic merit, design importance, or role in creating a sustainable future," The National Trust for Historic Preservation "aims to enhance the public's appreciation for and understanding of mid-20th Century architecture . . . [and] hopes to unite emerging popular interest in preserving the recent past with proper preservation practices through the promotion of continued use and sensitive rehabilitation of these structures."

All of the foregoing issues play a role in a continuing controversy at the University of Wisconsin, which may anticipate what we can look forward to at UMass.  The Wisconsin State Journal reported last year:

My brother visited Madison recently, and he spent a morning photographing a Madison architectural landmark.
The Capitol? No.

A Frank Lloyd Wright design? Definitely not.

No, he was documenting the wonders of the George L. Mosse Humanities Building, the most maligned structure on campus. UW-Madison officials can hardly wait to knock it down; the chancellor himself has joked about auctioning off the privilege of pushing the demolition plunger.

But to my brother, a building engineer and architecture buff, the building at the corner of Park Street and University Avenue is an excellent example of an architectural style known as "Brutalism." It was designed by one of Chicago's revered architects, Harry Weese.

Among Weese's best-known works is the Metro in Washington, D.C.  The Humanities Building, erected in 1968, was named for George Mosse (my undergraduate advisor), one of the most celebrated members of the distinguished history department housed in that building, following his death in 1999.  Its stylistic pendant, the adjoining Elvehjem--I mean, Chazen--Art Museum, including the Department of Art History and Art Library (1970), is more popular and successful.  Thus far, it has avoided the wrecking ball and succumbed only to the renaming mania that plagues our universities and other civic institutions in an age of declining public resources, short memories, and rising donor expectations.

My former fellow student Anne Matthews wrote about the beginnings of the controversy, "Embracing the Brute," in Preservation Online, making an effort to be fair but not to conceal her own loathing for the structure.  As one who spent just as much time in its classrooms and offices, I was as aware as anyone of its flaws, from potentially awkward circulation patterns to construction defects.  Above all, it on bad days seemed to epitomize the triumph of the auteur principle of architectural arrogance over understanding--designed with little regard for how people would actually use it. (Admittedly, it is far from the worst example. One thinks of the controversy surrounding the new Bibliothèque de France.)

The Journal article, citing the judgment of Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Management Al Fish, explained:

It's a maze and an "energy hog." The concrete has "spauled,'' meaning it has chipped and cracked from heat and cold. It has leaked since the day it opened. The poor music department is largely underground, where wildly fluctuating humidity and temperatures wreck the instruments.

And, said Fish, "Who would build a building with empty space under the sixth floor, so the floor is always cold?"

The heating and ventilating systems have never worked right, leading those forced to work in the building to refer to it as "Inhumanities."

Fish said UW has spent more money maintaining the building (upward of $10 million) than it did to build it back in the 1960s ($8 million).

Even granting the truth of the preceding, I was nonetheless always able to appreciate (indeed, I felt captivated by) the aesthetic intent of the structure, which had an integrity and a stern, distinctive beauty that our other, generally more anodyne or derivative modernist campus buildings (Van Hise Hall or the Southeast Dorms and Gordon Commons, for example) lacked.  The Humanities Building, for all its practical flaws, always seemed to me a far more successful project than the roughly contemporaneous Vilas Communications Hall, across the street, whose mixture of brown brick and concrete, among other things, rendered it neither fish nor fowl, neither fully satisfying nor capable of arousing real hatred.

For me, the Humanities Building always (or at least since I took Maureen Mazzaoui's course in my sophomore year) called to mind a Renaissance palazzo, another urban manifestation of the symbiosis of art and power, in which a severe exterior both masks and protects a thriving cultural life.  Thriving it was.  The lectures by charismatic teachers such as Mosse or his colleague and activist Harvey Goldberg (not that they agreed on everything) were not just classes; they were events, which seemed at times to attract as many spectators as formally enrolled students.  Those same lecture halls became, on weekend evenings--remember that this was in the days before the videocassette and the dvd--the sites of the screenings by some of the many campus film societies, where, for a buck apiece, one was introduced to the treasures of classic and recent cinema. It was there that I first saw "The Blue Angel," "Casablanca," "Battleship Potemkin," "Kuhle Wampe," and "The Rules of the Game."  The acoustics may have been less than perfect, but pianist, composer, and Artist in Residence Gunnar Johansen nonetheless filled the concert hall whenever he offered his famous "Music in Performance" course, and inspired many a student to return for concerts in the evenings.  Both the Journal and Preservation Online,  citing Mr. Fish or merely the conventional wisdom, refer to the "maze"-like character of the building.  Well, it all depends on your point of reference. To be sure, as Anne points out, the building had no single main door. Does it have to? It has 21 doors on three levels.  It faced several major thoroughfares and patterns of pedestrian movement.  Precisely because it was an integrated humanities building at a key juncture of the campus, it had to satisfy the needs of various clienteles throughout the week, night and day, from students to faculty to concert-goers.  A maze?  well, maybe, if one reaches too readily for metaphors and means simply that patterns of circulation followed the shape of the structure, which was (again, not unlike a Renaissance urban palace) after all built around a courtyard. No, if one means the term in the literal sense of a tortuous path leading to a single, elusive goal.  I always knew where I was going, and when I so chose, I appreciated the distractions of an encounter with music or art in between history classes.  One of the most enduring stray memories of my first year of college is of sitting on a bench alongside the glassed-in lower courtyard: eating a brown-bag lunch while reading Richard Brinsley Sheridan's "School for Scandal," and discovering, to my surprise and delight, that the anonymous pianist behind the door of the practice room across the hall just happened to be playing the Piano Trio in F minor, op. 65, by Dvořák.

To be sure, I had equally memorable intellectual revelations elsewhere on campus--for example, Van Hise Hall, where I spent about as much time in my French and German literature classes.  But that was a soulless building, which is simply to say:  The experience there derived from the brilliance of the teachers and the liveliness of the students and was not tied to a sense of place. It is hard to imagine anyone getting either very enthusiastic or sad about the potential demise of Van Hise (well, maybe a few).  The Humanities Building was truly a humanities center, where one was almost unavoidably brought into contact with a multitude of the liberal and fine arts beyond one's own discipline.  

It was home to many of the University's luminaries at the height of their fame, and was a focus of cultural life for the campus and the city as a whole during four crucial decades, from the student revolt of the 1960s to the present. These traits, along with its intrinsic architectural significance, need to be taken into account when determining its value and future.  (Indeed, this is precisely the intent of measures such as our local demolition delay bylaw.)

Architectural historians and preservation advocates argue that the building should therefore be maintained or at least adaptively reused. The campus planners respond that this is throwing good money after bad:

Milwaukee architecture critic Whitney Gould has suggested nominating the Humanities Building for landmark status, saying it incorporates a historical style of architecture that might not be appreciated now, but may be in the future.

Arnold Alanen, a UW-Madison landscape architecture professor, notes that beloved campus buildings such as the Red Gym, the University Club and the dairy barn endured similar eras of disrespect. Humanities is a link to the modernist period . . . . He thinks the university should preserve the best elements of different historical styles as a way of linking generations of students together.

"Especially when it's a building by such a leading architect," he said. Alanen advocates gutting the building and rebuilding it from the inside.

But UW-Madison doesn't think it's worth the trouble.

Fish said it isn't about the style as much as the function. While well-built century-old buildings such as Chamberlain Hall and Education are worth renovating, most of the buildings from the '60s aren't.

"The campus buildings built in the 1960s were built with 20- to 30-year life spans,'' he said. "They were built fast and cheaply, to stay ahead of the wave of Baby Boomers entering college. ... Now it's all falling down around us.

The building is slated to come down within the next decade and a-half.  Aficionados are not wasting time.  The Madison Trust for Historic Preservation is trying to educate the public about modernism, and various private individuals are already calling attention to and informally  documenting the structure.

Get ready for a similar experience when our own Campus Center, Library, and Fine Arts Center come up for discussion.  

As noted in an earlier posting, the University of Wisconsin seems generally to have taken a mature and balanced approach to the question of preservation versus new construction.  Still, a potential or incipient tendency to favor preservation of older buildings--whether for financial or marketing considerations--to the exclusion of modernist ones could tip that balance.  The University of Massachusetts would be well-advised to study and learn from Madison's successes and mistakes alike.

Preservation Hall of Shame: Press Roundup on UMass Campus Buildings

The controversy over the destruction of historic resources on the campus of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst has been big news over the past year.  Herewith, an overview of press reports antedating our  initial blog entry:

• Katherine Neubert, "Preserve UMass recent negotiations," Massachusetts Daily Collegian, 28 April 2008

a convenient summary of issues under discussion

agreement:  

that the main section of the historic Stucco Cow Barn, Milkers Bungalow, and Calf Barn could neither be saved nor adapted to a modern use.

still under discussion:

Negotiations now focus on a Memorandum of Agreement's (MOA) third draft by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and Preserve UMass, the Amherst Commission and the state Commission are ready to sign. Though, the administration and the UMass Building Authority haven't agreed yet.

The draft MOA contains a series of findings that document the events that led to the loss of the barn and give standing to Preserve UMass and the Amherst Commission to be parties to the agreement.

It also includes five stipulations regarding the preservation process. The University must produce written and photographic documentation of the stucco barn and several other historic buildings. UMass must also create a permanent exhibit documenting the important role the University has played in agricultural research.

More significantly, the agreement stipulates that UMass will conduct a campus cultural survey and master plan that will meet state and national standards with respect to the buildings that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This includes planning for adaptive reuse of the historic structures to provide functions that are of current importance to the University.

• Kristin Palpini, "History lessons:  After project delay, UMass plans survey," Daily Hampshire Gazette, 19 March 2008

Announcement of the tentative agreement between the University and Massachusetts Historical Commission that the historic stucco barn may be demolished.  A prominent silo remained a point of controversy.  Preserve UMass and the Amherst Historical Commission had recommended turning the silo into part of a historic monument to and exhibit on the agricultural heritage of the University, a proposal included in the draft Memorandum of Understanding produced under the auspices of the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

In the original agreement, UMass would have preserved the silo. However, after an engineering study was conducted, university officials said keeping the silo would not be financially feasible.

"Anything is possible with money," said James E. Cahill, director of UMass facilities and campus planning. The silo "wouldn't be able to stand on its own without significant structural enhancements, and so we've determined, based on that, that it's not feasible to do."

Joseph S. Larson, a member of Preserve UMass, a group of former and current UMass professors and preservationists, said he expects the silo will eventually come down. But he questions how much it would actually cost to keep the silo standing.

"When push comes to shove, the silo will go too," said Larson. "We agreed the Stucco Barn should go down soon."

The article goes on to note that the stop-work order cost money and time.  The contrast in approaches and values between UMass Facilities and Preserve UMass could not be clearer:

"If the university puts demolition of the old buildings on hold until that assessment is done and then uses that assessment to set priorities for preservation and adaptive reuse, we would deem that a success," said Larson. "That's really what we asked for at the beginning of this."

Meanwhile, contractors are moving ahead with excavation and preparing the site for the rec center's foundation construction.

"We're moving ahead full steam," said Cahill.

• Ben Williams, "Historic barn halts progress on recreation center," Daily Collegian, 7 Feb. 2008

Larson believes that the University now feels inclined to have professional historical review of the campus.

"Having to cease work is costing the University money, which is unfortunate, but that is the cost with not being compliant with state law from the beginning," Larson said. "Our hope is that after all of this dust settles the University will never get into this [situation] again."

Useful article, though, a more appropriate headline would read: UMass's cavalier attitude toward law prompts stop-work order.

• Diane Lederman, "UMass to sort campus buildings," Springfield Republican, 20 Dec. 2007

In the wake of the MEPA hearing (see below), UMass announces plans to send out a request for proposals in order to "for a consultant to evaluate the historic or architecturally important buildings on campus to determine which structures should be saved."

Hiring a consultant has long been the request from Preserve UMass. The group was particularly upset after the university was preparing to raze a historic barn on the site of a $50 million student recreational center before a consultant was hired and doesn't want any more buildings razed until the consultant issues a report.

State officials halted the razing because university officials had not submitted the request for permits with the state Historical Commission and the environmental policy office.

The project could be delayed up to 90 days, said James E. Cahill, director of facilities and campus planning. Cahill said, however, he is hoping for a resolution in a few weeks.

• Diane Lederman, "UMass to focus on preservation," Springfield Republican, 11 Dec. 2007

That was certainly wishful thinking.  The real story, of course, was the University's failure to do so. The report does provide solid background on the controversy in advance of the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA) public hearing.

• Andy Smith, "Papers stunt UM complex," Massachusetts Daily Collegian, 29 Nov. 2007

Certainly an infelicitous title because it is opaque and confusing (note to student journalists: don't strive so hard for effect; be clear). That said, the article provides useful background to a failed attempt to find common ground in advance of the MEPA hearing:

Members of Preserve UMass and the Amherst Historical Commission met on Nov. 16 with James Cahill, director of UMass's Facilities and Campus Planning, to see if the three parties could agree on a joint response to the Massachusetts Historical Commission's [MHC] stop-work order for the $50 million Student Recreation Center.

The stop-work order, which was issued by the MHC on Oct. 26, was due to the failure of the University of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Building Authority and the project designer of the recreation center to comply with state law. Massachusetts state law requires building designers to notify and confer with the MHC when historic buildings are impacted by construction by state agencies. In this case, and in many others, this law was not followed, according to the commission.

Of particular importance are excerpts from official e-mails regarding violations of regulations by UMass.

Preservation Hall of Shame: Weapons of UMass Destruction, or, a University Desecrates its Own Heritage

December 2007: 

the University and its collaborators respond to critics.

The greatest and continuing crisis of historic preservation in Amherst these past two years involves structures belonging to the University of Massachusetts.

Although both the West Cemetery and the University campus earned spots on the list of  “Ten Most Endangered Historic Resources” in the Commonwealth, the contrast could not be more striking. In the former case, Amherst residents and government alike readily rallied to save a treasured resource. In the latter, the responsible authorities (and one can use that term only in deliberate and full awareness of its ambiguity) have done all that they could, first, to deny that a problem existed; and second—once forced to acknowledge the problem—to obstruct an amicable and thoroughgoing solution.

The University of Massachusetts (UMass) and the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (UMBA)—they insist on this administrative distinction, so let each earn its individual place in the Hall of Shame)—in their rush to erect new facilities (however badly needed; this not the issue), have displayed callous disregard for the spirit and letter of the law alike.

Buildings have been lost. Others are threatened by sins of omission or commission. Only thanks to the persistence of a new citizens’ advocacy group—“Preserve UMass”—were the light of public opinion and the legal power of the Commonwealth brought to bear on the wanton destruction. Because we are still engaged in protracted negotiations, I will reserve detailed comment on them until the results become public. In the meantime, the sad story to date can easily be summarized:

Recent Timeline:

Spring 2007

• Emphasizing the high cost of maintaining "legacy buildings," UMass produces a list of structures variously slated for maintenance, renovation, or destruction, employing subjective standards and categories devised without advice of appropriate experts. Among the threatened structures are many of demonstrable historical and architectural significance including some listed on local and state inventories.

• In response, concerned faculty, staff, alumni, and community members form “Preserve UMass,” led by Joseph Larson, Professor Emeritus of the Natural Resources Conservation Department and Chair of the Pelham Historical Commission.

Summer-Fall 2007

• The then-Chancellor refuses to meet with PUMA (it will not have a “seat at the table”). In hopes of obtaining the professional evaluation that the University had declined to procure, PUMA (with the support of the Amherst Historical Commission) nominates and secures designation of the UMass campus as one of the state’s “Ten Most Endangered Historic Resources.”

Fall 2007

In preparation for construction of a new recreation center, UMBA begins to demolish the 1910 Brooks Dairy Barn, a pioneering, state-of-the-art facility in its day, listed on the Massachusetts Historic Assets Inventory. PUMA, discovering that the authorities cavalierly failed to file for the mandatory review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA), secures a stop-work order. It is subsequently revealed that both UMass and UMBA have a substantial record of non-compliance.

December 2007

• The Commonwealth convenes a MEPA public hearing on the Brooks Barn.

WSHM TV3: the public's right to know













Professor Joe Larson of PUMA demands real answers to tough questions

How dare you question us?!

You didn't tell us there would be a quiz: desperately searching for answers (we know they're here somewhere)

• The Commonwealth finds no significant environmental issues but sharply orders UMass and UMBA to comply with state historical regulations. The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs declares:

I have received numerous thoughtful and detailed comment letters on this project that also speak to the importance of other historical resources on the UMASS Amherst campus. I strongly encourage the University of Massachusetts Building Authority and UMASS Amherst to work cooperatively with MHC and interested parties to take a comprehensive survey of structures of historic and/or architectural importance on the campus. Consultation with MHC should be a first step during the planning process for future projects and I expect that the Proponent and the University will ensure that all future projects comply with regulations pertaining to historic and archaeological resources.

January 2008

• MHC convenes a meeting to prescribe a course of action. On the one side: UMass, UMBA, and their contractors and lawyers. On the other: PUMA, Amherst Historical Commission, Preservation Massachusetts, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, all of which receive official standing from the Commonwealth to review any agreement. The preservation advocates acknowledge that it is not practical to save or adaptively-reuse the Brooks Barn as a recreation center, but propose stringent guidelines for documentation of what is to be demolished, creation of a corresponding on-site exhibit on the University’s agricultural-architectural heritage, and clear methods of inventorying and analysis to precede any further changes to historic structures and landscapes, in accordance with the law and accepted professional practice. They further insist that the Barn be treated not as a discrete structure, and instead as part of an integral but now compromised complex of historic facilities.

• Based on the aforementioned discussion, MHC drafts a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

March 2008

• UMBA destroys the historic Brooks Barn.

Before and after the use of weapons of UMass destruction:

Winter-Summer 2008

• Negotiations over proposed MOA drag on through multiple revisions and several months as UMass and UMBA raise repeated objections.


It is truly difficult to say which is more deplorable: the utter philistinism of the University authorities or the sense of entitlement that leads them to act in such a highhanded manner. On the one hand, one can only applaud UMass for increasing construction of facilities and hiring of faculty in an aggressive attempt to secure its status as a truly national university of the first rank. On the other hand, one cannot fathom how the oft-stated desire to raise the intellectual caliber of the institution is compatible with disregard for, first, the law; and second, its own heritage, which moreover belongs not to it alone and is, rather, the patrimony of the Town and Commonwealth.

The underlying issue, of course, was the failure to understand that there is a heritage to protect. It may well be that not only philistinism, as such, but also a corresponding status anxiety contributed to the current tragedy. Indeed, the signs that prominently mark each UMass construction site with the proclamation, “New Dirt,” can be read in an interesting way and may reveal more than they were intended to. In the first place, the phrase itself is of a liminal register, trying to be at once professional and hip: “Yeah, man, we’re a high-powered research institution and want to compete with Berkeley and Ann Arbor, but hey, we’re cool and don’t take ourselves too seriously and use small words that 'the people' understand—just look at this sign! (wanna see my piercings? I mean: SAT scores?).” In the second place, it is as if all the activity is in part an attempt (subconscious or other) to bury or erase the shameful past: The "new dirt” of construction for offices, classrooms, or labs of the “Research-1” university intended to supplant the “old dirt” of agriculture. It really isn’t necessary—the pretence and posturing and prevaricating, I mean.

Ironically, if the University had an ounce of self-confidence and strategic instinct, it could have embraced its agricultural heritage, turning it from a mark of shame into a point of pride: As one of the first Morrill Land Grant (1862) universities, the Massachusetts Agricultural College was a pioneer in democratic education and new scientific research alike. In 1869 or 1910, the field trials of plows and the construction of the Cow Barn were the forerunners of today’s vaunted Polymer Science center and Nanotechnology Institute. A leader then, a leader now; for nearly 150 years, a pioneer in a changing world: Is that so hard to grasp? Are there no marketing and advancement advisors to speak common sense (and cents) to power?

As our concern for late nineteenth-century vernacular and agricultural structures makes clear, historic preservation does not involve only ancient and elegant buildings (indeed, the boundary is set at 50 years; the Eisenhower-era ranch house, no less than Washington’s Mount Vernon thus potentially qualifies). The historical evolution of the campus from pioneering agricultural college to leading academic research university should be a story that we highlight and tell with pride. That story is recorded in the built and landscape environment of the University, valuable in itself and also as a means of promoting support of that institution and cultural tourism for the town as a whole. Its value as an ensemble is greater than the sum of its parts, and the destruction of each individual historic building or landscape feature—though the loss may seem small and acceptable to some at the time—whittles away at the integrity of the whole.

Indeed, a news report on the Amherst Preservation Plan led with the Historical Commission’s appraisal of the campus as “a showplace of historic architecture,” and the co-author of the Plan stated in a public hearing that “many of the earliest buildings from its days as a land-grant college—as well as some contemporary structures—are historically significant and endangered” (Tom Marshall, “UMass considered as historic district,” Daily Hampshire Gazette, 29 June 2004; reproduced in Appendix E-2 of the Preservation Plan). One of the top priorities of Preservation Plan is therefore the creation of a contiguous University of Massachusetts Historic District (pp. 29, 36).

What the Historical Commission, PUMA, and like-minded preservation groups and citizens are asking is not impossible. Indeed, it is strikingly similar to a statement of purpose recently promulgated in the Master Plan of the University of Wisconsin, another leading public institution of higher learning that has a distinguished heritage in agriculture and academic research alike—and moreover shares many concrete historical ties with UMass:

These Guidelines are not intended to prescribe solutions nor limit creativity, but rather to establish a flexible framework that respects UW’s past and addresses its current challenges, while being inventive in establishing its future.

It is notable that this document opens with a photo essay on "buildings we like," which in turn begins with "historic fabric buildings"--including agricultural as well as academic, administrative, and residential--very similar to those on the "hit list" in Amherst.  What a difference in tone and sensibility:  Whereas the UW-Madison documents speaks first of affection for buildings, the UMass-Amherst report treats "legacy buildings" primarily as a problem and an expense.

 To read a separate, earlier report on the 1898 University of Wisconsin Dairy Barn (“Cow Palace”) is to think with regret on what might have been here:

The Dairy Barn's local significance as an enduring campus landmark is indisputable. By virtue of its role in the early development of the University of Wisconsin's College of Agriculture, the Dairy Barn's significance to state history also is readily apparent.

As one who grew up in Wisconsin and attended the University there, I also have fond memories of the 1909 Stock Pavilion.  Back in the day when we transacted business on paper rather than online, we used to pick up our course registration forms there every semester.  Above all, though, it was the site of numerous major local events, from a campaign speech by Harry Truman (well before my time, of course) to concerts of classical and rock music.  I still very clearly recall sitting there, my chair sinking ever so slightly into the sawdust floor material (at least I think it was sawdust), as the  Madison Symphony performed with guest artists—e.g. Eileen Farrell singing Wagner arias—under the benevolent gaze of bovine portraits.

That said, I have no desire to make invidious, not to mention, ahistorical comparisons. The UW report makes it clear that even the Cow Palace only narrowly escaped destruction in a scenario eerily reminiscent of the vandalism currently taking place at UMass:

A. F. Gallistel, then superintendent of the UW Department of Buildings and Grounds, chaired a committee that inventoried campus buildings and made recommendations about their maintenance and retention [1946; JW]. … The Dairy Barn, 49 years old at the time, was deemed ‘obsolete’ and an ‘extreme fire hazard,’ with the committee recommending that the barn be razed ‘when replacement is available.’

A bulletin of the late 1940s further declared that the Dairy Barn: "contradicts almost everything recommended in dairy housing," that the building was "out of step with modern dairying," "highly inflammable," and "not planned for the saving of time and money in herd care."

Historic preservation thus depends not only on foresight, good sense, and good taste, but also on just plain dumb luck. The UW Dairy Barn lucked out or outlasted its enemies and found continued use and a loyal following. The UMass Cow Barn ran out of luck and time. May she rest in peace. May we all be wiser and more vigilant in the future, lest further pieces of our heritage be sacrificed on the altar of convenience and faddishness.

Epilogue and Prospects:

Shame on UMass! 

If you would like to express your concern over the threat to our heritage, address your comments to:

• UMass Facilities and Campus Planning

• UMass Building Authority

• And be sure to copy the Massachusetts Historical Commission

Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the rank philistinism that brought us to this painful point will have passed with the departure of the old administration (the cultural equivalent of a kidney stone). The Interim Chancellor seemed more inclined to listen to concerns about historic resources. Above all, the recent appointment of distinguished scholar and experienced administrator Robert Holub as the incoming Chancellor is reason for confidence and optimism.

As a Germanist (we do not know one another, but shared teachers at the University of Wisconsin, half a generation apart), he is familiar not only with Heine’s entirely appropriate critique of the nationalist idolization and completion of the Cologne Cathedral, but also with Goethe’s youthful enthusiasm for the Gothic Strasbourg Cathedral and his adult investigations of the antiquities of the Rhine and Main regions, to which he dedicated a new periodical.

And all of us should heed the advice of the 18th-century English architect Nicholas Hawksmoor, who saw no contradiction between building the new and maintaining the old:

"Whatever is goode in its kinde ought to be preserv'd in respect for antiquity, as well as our present advantage, for destruction can be profitable to none but such as live by it."