American buildings to Americans in 1910

[the urban politician]

We complain about how tacky and schlocky a lot of new construction infill looks to us today in cities, especially buildings designed to look traditional (plain forms, brick, etc). We talk about how they don't fit in with the gritty cityscape around them.

Of course, there is about a 100 year gap in age between the newer stuff and the original stuff, so understandably the new stuff probably looks a bit cartoonish.

Question is, what would you guess people in 1910 thought about the buildings around them that had been built only recently? We see them as treasures now, but when first built they must have also looked very new, perhaps a bit out of place, maybe even a bit dull? In fact, with greater emphasis on ornamentation back then (with brand new, brightly colored pieces of ornament), I'd even go so far to say that some of those buildings may have seemed even more schlocky to the people living then than ours do now.

I invite your thoughts..

[Aleks]

i've always wondered about this.

its like, we see the burj dubai today and think, ewww (well, maybe not in this page, but i have a feeling most americans would think so).

but what did the british say about the empire state? what did mexico, europe, asia, think about new york?


hmm...

[volguus zildrohar]

I would think people in those days were impressed with what they saw - the concept of the highrise city was a totally new thing and during a time in which technology was accelerating rapidly, a time when people clamored into cities because of the opportunity and wonder they offered, I would think they'd be impressed.

[Matthew]

From what I've read, skyscrapers were seen as a "city within a city" and were looked on positively by residents. It was different then and an average resident could walk into any tall building for a variety of services. You would have your doctor, jewelery store, clothing store, cafe, etc., with in the same place. A 20-storey skyscraper built in 1926 in Winston-Salem had a miniature golf course in the basement and a variety of stores and offices above. A skyscraper across the street was apartments with a restaurant and 2,500 seat silent movie theatre. Cities wanted them, as they told others a city had "arrived." Companies wanted them too, for show. Classical buildings were seen as conservative and often weren't as well liked. Some said the style didn't look right on a tall building. They were used by banks and government offices. Art Deco was the future and edgy. Your local power company, an oil company, an airport, railroad headquarters or your phone company likely built an art deco building, as high-tech/futuristic industries at the time. The 22-storey Reynolds American Tower in Winston-Salem is Art Deco and instantly became a city symbol, with its futuristic design. It's only the fifth tallest, but is still loved as much today as it was then. That building had space set aside for the company's headquarters and the other floors labeled by their use, like a floor for dentist offices. It had everything from an architecture firm to railroad offices. One building, two blocks away, had a bank, insurance office, car dealer and more in the same building. Get your loan on the ground floor, your Chevrolet on the seventh floor and your insurance on the fourth floor. Yes, the building was built for the car dealer and had car wheels in the stone work. A special elevator would raise and lower the cars; until the 1920's when cars became too heavy for the elevator. As you can see, it was different then. Today we have single use buildings for office employees only or residents only and maybe a few newer buildings combining offices and residential with storefronts, but you don't see the "City Within a City" buildings today, where everyone could walk down grand marble hallways, with gold and silver ceilings to elevator banks that were like works of art themselves to see their barber or have their shirts cleaned. Today guards ask you why you're there, direct you back to the door and say no pictures.

[the urban politician]

Judging by the responses, I think I probably wasn't clear about what I was trying to convey.

I'm not really talking about skyscrapers. I'm talking about your typical town architecture--ie 3-5 story buildings in the neighborhoods and commercial streets of towns and cities.

[Matthew]

Most of the smaller buildings were plain. Usually brick, with a catalog ordered cornice. Smaller banks, movie theatres and higher-end stores would spend extra to grab your attention with a small building in the block of plain brick buildings. Many of the banks would look almost the same, in a classical style. Movie theatres are more interesting and captured the feeling of exciting and grand structures in distant places. They were seen as an escape/adventure. In the early 1900's, stores developed their own architectural styles, so their stores are recognizable in every city. No this isn't new. Some local high-end department stores were designed like the lobby of a skyscraper, complete with elevators. On the exterior, some would have the appearance of European buildings. I would guess seeing the more creative designed structures was like escaping to a far away place. The other plain buildings likely weren't noticed. For the cities, Europe was where many American cities looked to for ideas.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Aleks

i've always wondered about this.

its like, we see the burj dubai today and think, ewww (well, maybe not in this page, but i have a feeling most americans would think so).

I don't see buildings like the burj changing at all, because there facade is 99.9% glass.

[urbanlife]

Well the opinion about 1910 buildings in 1950 was to tear them down because they were aging junk. Most of the buildings you are thinking about were immigrant built buildings and were often times either built with what was affordable or the buildings were built to reflect where they came from. The ones that reflect were probably admired greatly by the ones that used them.

But that is all just speculation, but I am sure there is plenty of recorded history and history books that document this opinion that you are seeking. I am just not that well invested in it to say for sure.

[Cirrus]

We complain about how tacky and schlocky a lot of new construction infill looks to us today in cities, especially buildings designed to look traditional (plain forms, brick, etc).

I don't know about where you live, but where I live traditional-looking buildings are much more popular than newer ones, and are certainly less plain than newer ones. The opinions of a bunch of skyscraper geeks on an architecture/planning forum are not necessarily representative of the whole.

Anyway, there is a fairly well-documented tendency among the public to think buildings about 30 years old are ugly, as that is enough time to go out of style but not enough time to be considered historic. This was true 100 years ago as it is true today.

[hammersklavier]

No, I think I know what you're getting at. It's like:

"Hast thou set'st thy eyes on yonder novel Furness?"
"Nae. Methinks Furness buildeth a tonne of manure in the French manner of donkey rears. It be so bright and ornamental and it be misplaced hither in yon Great American City..."
"Thou thinkst? Methinks though Furness is the greatest architect yet!"

...or something like that.

[Austinlee]

One thing I think is true is that whenever something monumental or cutting edge is built in one country, other countries tend to downplay it or criticize it and that's called jealousy.

[harryc]

Context is important as well - a block of perfectly identical houses - all with the same lawn and shrubs - all the trees saplings, will be much less attractive and stylish than the same block 100yrs later with a variety of modifications, a few replacements, some additions, different styles of trees and landscaping.

b.t.w my 83 yr old house is now very stylish (Chicago bungalow).

[JManc]

the french were not happy about that huge monstrosity they erected in the middle of paris in 1889.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by harryc

Context is important as well - a block of perfectly identical houses - all with the same lawn and shrubs - all the trees saplings, will be much less attractive and stylish than the same block 100yrs later with a variety of modifications, a few replacements, some additions, different styles of trees and landscaping.

b.t.w my 83 yr old house is now very stylish (Chicago bungalow).

+1

Mature trees especially make a neighborhood seem established. That's why I'm often surprised to drive through older areas of suburbia and, unless they have noticeably declined in wealth level and have rusty cars in the front yard, they look like pleasant, desirable areas. Chicago has grown in rings like a tree... drive out Northwest Highway or North Avenue and you will notice the rings if you pay attention. The "suburban developments" just outside the pre-war town centers are usually quite attractive and they seem almost urban, despite their location far from any sort of commercial or employment center and their auto-oriented nature. Mount Prospect and Prospect Heights come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but the newest suburban developments seem to be far more soulless and depressingly auto-oriented than the ones immediately following World War II, despite being extremely similar functionally.

1950s/60s Example (Street View)
Trees are fully mature after 50 years of growth, and the neighborhood feels established. Many of the homes are ranch style, and their size suggests that these are middle-class homes.

1980s Example
Trees are not saplings anymore, and have 25 years of growth. Still, they feel small, and the area still seems suburban. Many of the houses are split-level, reflecting an increased desire for additional square footage on the part of the average middle-class family.

2000s Example
The few trees that exist are tiny, insubstantial saplings. More will be planted eventually, but these will take many years to flourish. The houses are now a full two stories, pushing the amount of square footage in the average household to its highest level in American history.

Note that none of these are pedestrian-oriented in the way that most cities are. There is no diversity of land use, and despite the presence of sidewalks that appear well-maintained in all three neighborhoods, there's nothing to walk to. The only difference is the age of the neighborhood. I'm reasonably sure the unit densities of all three neighborhoods are comparable, since they all have similar lot sizes and about the same amount of area dedicated to streets and parks. Households have shrunk since the 1950s, so that has led to a decrease in density over time, but this has affected all three neighborhoods.

Now, the mindset of each person is different. After deciding on a suburban location, some homebuyers might look at the 2000s neighborhood (Lake in the Hills), newly-built, and conclude that in that neighborhood, they can get the most square footage for the a very low price. The homes are traditional, and the lawns are green and spacious. Their home is new, and has absolutely no maintenance problems. Everything around them is new, from schools to fire stations to Wal*Marts, and there are no legacy costs that drive cost-of-living up. Still others might look at the 1980s neighborhood (Lake Zurich) and see homes that are smaller, but also a little less expensive, and with an established base of schools, shops, and public services in the community. Others yet look at the 1960s neighborhood (Arlington Heights) and see really good schools, train service, and a community with an established and thriving downtown (still not really within walking distance, but accessible by car).

When these neighborhoods were built, they were all pretty much the same. But over time, infrastructure and development has turned the 1960s neighborhood into a place with a lot more things that make it appealing to us urbanites, from train service to a dense, skyscraper-filled satellite downtown to foreign restaurants and trendy retail chains. This suburb has fought and won the battle faced by older suburbs against disinvestment. Some suburbs won't be so lucky, but many of them will figure out a way to preserve their appeal to some segment of the population, and then they slowly turn into established and enjoyable communities.

[Mr Downtown]

I think there were a couple of things going on.

The sheer size and technological sophistication of these new sky-scrapers must have seemed quite astonishing. But the world was also coming to grips with electricity, speed, telephony, subway trains, and even flying machines.

As for style, I suspect that learned observers were appalled at some of the pastiches, pattern-book architecture, and combinations of traditional styles that were created by less-than-stellar architectural practitioners. Many buildings that we today see as marvelous examples of "classical" architecture were probably thought of at the time as train wrecks done by philistines who wouldn't know Baroque from Rococo.

[village person]

Originally Posted by harryc

Context is important as well - a block of perfectly identical houses - all with the same lawn and shrubs - all the trees saplings, will be much less attractive and stylish than the same block 100yrs later with a variety of modifications, a few replacements, some additions, different styles of trees and landscaping.

b.t.w my 83 yr old house is now very stylish (Chicago bungalow).

I think there's a whole class of Americans who would have a reversed preference from what you describe, attracted by the millions to the next sapling-lined cul-de-sacs that still smell of saw dust as soon as the previous begins to show the smallest sign of wear or age. The disposable neighborhood...

[LSyd]

weren't there a lot (well, at least vocal) group who complained about "gaudy Victorian architecture?" maybe not so much in 1910, but 20 years earlier?

and most Americans were working too hard during 16 hour workdays to care.

ardecila, good comparison.

-

[Busy Bee]

Here's an example of what TUP is referring to:



Is this tacky as hell or is it admirable? Not now but maybe 40 years from now?

Will these stand the test of time—both aesthetically and quality-wise?





This is an example of horrible no matter how long you wait:

[brannelford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Question is, what would you guess people in 1910 thought about the buildings around them that had been built only recently?

Probably people did not think too highly of certain new constructions.
While it's not in the USA, back in the 1860's, people in Vienna didn't appreciate the newly constructed Vienna State Opera.

"Public response

The building was, however, not very popular with the public. On the one hand, it did not seem as grand as the Heinrichshof, a private residence which was destroyed in World War II (and replaced in 1955 by the Opernringhof). Moreover because the level of Ringstraße was raised by a metre in front of the opera house after its construction had begun, the latter was likened to "a sunken box" and, in analogy to the military disaster of 1866 (the Battle of Königgrätz), was deprecatingly referred to as "the Königgrätz of architecture". Van der Nüll committed suicide, and barely ten weeks later Sicardsburg suffered a fatal heart attack so neither architect saw the completion of the building. The opening premiere was Don Giovanni, by Mozart, on May 25, 1869. Emperor Franz Josef and Empress Elisabeth (Sissi) were present." per Wikipedia



photo is courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Here's an example of what TUP is referring to:



Is this tacky as hell or is it admirable? Not now but maybe 40 years from now?

Will these stand the test of time—both aesthetically and quality-wise?





This is an example of horrible no matter how long you wait:

I kind of like them, because of the row of little peaks, the balconies, and the brick isn't too bad either. Sure they lack on fine detail, but the over all look and concept isn't bad at all.