Modern Buildings: A More Nuanced Notion of Worth

by Seth Tinkham

Summary: Today, historic preservation in the U.S. is committed to representing the fullness of settled history and to presenting the many national narratives that make up the greater whole of American history. However, this has not always been the case, and the development of this wider appreciation of the diversity of narratives within American life has required the historic preservation movement to alter its definition of history and the ways in which built structures are seen to contain historical value. Ultimately, the movement has been able to redefine the types of structures it considers historic, growing from Mount Vernon to Modernism.

Many communities within the U.S., however, have proved unable to move beyond a rather fixed definition of history. For a general audience to whom Colonial and even Colonial Revival styles seem historic and beautiful, there is little public support for the preservation of structures that challenge established community notions of beauty and history. This has very real implications for the integrity of the built fabric of cities. As an architectural style, Modern buildings tend to confront most directly the less-nuanced appreciations of historical value. Because these buildings largely rejected the role and place of more classical building elements, it is difficult for some communities to see them as being historic, because they do not visually reference the styles inherent in the communities’ idea of history. The result is that many cities and towns throughout the U.S. are ill-equipped to include Modern structures in their understanding of the historic built environment.

Preserving a piece of history
Many Modern buildings, then, are threatened with demolition as cities and rural areas grow and change. The danger is that Modern structures document an important period in this country, and, if we accept the fundamental assertion of historic preservation that contact with our past is important to remembering it, removing these structures from the landscape is tantamount to removing parts of history.

In short, while the historic preservation community has been able to widen what it considers historical, communities at large have generally not been able to do this. The fundamental question then becomes why: Why have communities generally set their conception of the types of structures that may be considered historical?

Example: Boston City Hall
Through a case study of Boston City Hall (1963) by Kallman, McKinnell and Knowles, I assert that many communities have conflated history and beauty. I suggest that by examining the words and intent of the architects who designed City Hall, coupled with contemporary discussions of the structure, we can see not only the progress of the historic preservation movement, but the lack of progress by the larger community. For the community, difficult associations with urban renewal projects in the city cloud an appreciation of the structure as the positive force it was designed to be.

In general, the conflation of history and beauty has tended to prevent an evolving sense of the kinds of buildings that may be considered historic; that is, seen as containing historical value to the community. Many communities retain ideas about what constitute historical structures that reflect older trends in historic preservation. These ideas, when confronted with newer architecture, do not provide an adequate framework through which to integrate the contributions made by these newer buildings to the larger historical narrative reflected in the built fabric.

The implication is that some communities, in conflating history with beauty, have fixed, mutually reinforcing definitions of history and beauty. Structures that present a different aesthetic and a more general, evolving historical sense are not seen to be historical. Consequently, these structures are not afforded the protection offered by historic preservation. Not all Modernist structures are worth saving. They do deserve consideration, nonetheless, because they form a valid documentary source for specific moments in time, just as other, more accessible structures are.