Have mid-twentieth century towers reached "never build again" status?

[the urban politician]

One of the signs that a tower is priceless is that modern building techniques, cost of materials, tenant preferences have reached a point that such a structure will never be built again except for unusual circumstances.

Those gothic and Art Deco buildings from pre-1940 have enjoyed that status for a long time.

But this layman (I'm far from the expert that many of the forumers here are) is now wondering if many mid-20th century towers, and perhaps even some of the earlier PoMo stuff, have reached that point?

I'm thinking of stuff like Chicago's Inland Steel Building, Chase Tower, Thompson Center, etc etc and similar counterparts in other cities.

Shouldn't many of these, and less noteworthy examples, rapidly be considered for landmarking before they are forever lost?

[Crawford]

Thompson Center dates from the 1980's, and isn't modernist in style, at all. It's classic postmodern.

I'm not aware of a Seagram Bldg. in Chicago. Chase Tower in Chicago is classic mid-century, though.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Thompson Center dates from the 1980's, and isn't modernist in style, at all. It's classic postmodern.

I'm not aware of a Seagram Bldg. in Chicago. Chase Tower in Chicago is classic mid-century, though.

Oops that was a type-o on my part. I meant the Inland Steel Building, although Seagrams in NYC would obviously be on that list. And my post does include PoMo as a possibility

[mhays]

The Inland Steel Building looks like a generic box aside from the exoskeleton. Seagram is pretty generic too, and has a windswept mostly blank plaza in front. Definitely not historic aside from the fawning Seagram gets from a certain set because it was an early example...one of the first of many of its aesthetic.

[the urban politician]

^ But I'm not asking if you like it.

I want to know if we would ever build anything like these towers again without going through painstaking measures. I don't know the answer, just thought some of you guys here would

[mhays]

We build similar buildings all the time. the only difference is they both have less square footage than you'd do at those sites today.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Shouldn't many of these, and less noteworthy examples, rapidly be considered for landmarking before they are forever lost?

In San Francisco, we landmark everything. This one already is but it probably deserves it--I've always loved the color:

San Francisco Landmark #183
Crown Zellerbach Building
1 Bush Street/523 Market Street
Built 1959
San Franciscan Isadore Zellerbach founded his paper manufacturing company, Zellerbach Corporation, in 1924, and merged it with Crown Willamette in 1928 to create Crown-Zellerbach (which dropped its hyphen before constructing this building).

The Crown Zellerbach Headquarters Building was built in 1959 when the company was at the zenith of its success and could afford a grandiose corporate statement. In 1986, Crown Zellerbach was acquired by James River Company in an extremely hostile takeover by British financier Sir James Goldsmith.

The Crown Zellerbach Headquarters Building, designed by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, LLP, was San Francisco's first glass curtain wall tower in the International Style, built just one year after Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson had perfected the style in their Seagram Building on Park Avenue in New York.

Another first for San Francisco was locating the building in a private plaza, an idea subsequently duplicated with mixed results.

A third innovation was the use of horizontal steel girders stretched across the entire width of the building eliminating the need for interior supports . . . .

https://noehill.com/sf/landmarks/sf183.asp

[The North One]

No

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

In San Francisco, we landmark everything. This one already is but it probably deserves it--I've always loved the color:


https://noehill.com/sf/landmarks/sf183.asp

I love that glass. I don't remember seeing this one in SF. Where is it?

[mhays]

So that's why we have land use codes eliminating giant blank walls.

[Jasoncw]

Midcentury buildings have reached that point, depending on the building.

Curtain wall systems have advanced, and performance expectations have increased. For example, the General Motors Tech Center's walls are only 2 inches thick. Glass is something else that changed. Single pane windows with or without coatings have a different appearance than double or triple glazed windows with current coatings. For an example you can see the United Nations HQ renovations.

There's also higher expectations for fire safety. Often times that means the structure can't be exposed in ways that they might have been able to earlier. But it also means that the number and location of fire stairs, the requirements of fire rated walls separating certain uses, and other fire safety things, means you can't make the same floor plans. Then there's even simple things like safety signage/lights/etc. There's also parking requirements, and handicap accessibility.

Something else that has changed is the affordability of expensive materials, and the availability and cost of high quality labor. Back then you have an architect designing with precious materials and requiring a high level of craftsmanship. And you also have the architects designing custom door knobs, furniture, ash trays, and all kinds of details, even commissioning new typefaces, for the buildings.

Then there's things that are more cultural. In houses we expect there to be a large number of gigantic bathrooms. We expect gigantic kitchens. We expect much larger bedrooms. Some of these things aren't compatible with the architecture of that time. Offices are arranged differently from how they were back then.


But even still, it depends on the building. Many of them could be built essentially the same. Some can't. Most could be but wouldn't.

[Xelebes]

Huh? Kitchens in the 50s and 60s are much larger than the kitchens of today. Kitchens have shrunk or have become one and the same with the dining room, divided by only a counter.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

The Inland Steel Building looks like a generic box aside from the exoskeleton. Seagram is pretty generic too, and has a windswept mostly blank plaza in front. Definitely not historic aside from the fawning Seagram gets from a certain set because it was an early example...one of the first of many of its aesthetic.

The Seagram Building is admired because it is perfect.

I don’t mean that as a qualitative assessment, but as a matter of fact that the proportions, finish, etc are the ideal version of that particular architectural style.

[mhays]

I don't think "opinion" and "fact" mean what you think they do.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I love that glass. I don't remember seeing this one in SF. Where is it?

1 Bush Street/523 Market Street

It's not that noticeable now unless you know about it because it's surrounded by much taller buildings.

Originally Posted by mhays

So that's why we have land use codes eliminating giant blank walls.

That's the elevator bank, of course, and it's located on the side of the building rather than the center so that, along with the lack of interior columns, the building can have huge, unobstructed floor plates which it does.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Huh? Kitchens in the 50s and 60s are much larger than the kitchens of today. Kitchens have shrunk or have become one and the same with the dining room, divided by only a counter.

Maybe in Canada. The house I grew up in, a suburban Washington DC split level built in 1949, had a very small "galley" kitchen and similar kitchens were pretty typical at the time and place. Large kitchens with "islands" and that sort of thing we have today were unknown then.

[isaidso]

^^ Kitchens are massively larger today than in the 50s/60s on both sides of the border.

Originally Posted by mhays

Seagram is pretty generic too, and has a windswept mostly blank plaza in front. Definitely not historic aside from the fawning Seagram gets from a certain set because it was an early example...one of the first of many of its aesthetic.

That certain set being people that have an appreciation for some of the best architecture of the 20th century. Other cities, including my own, clamoured to get a Mies because they recognized the timeless elegance of it.

Mies buildings are priceless. That said, there are some that just see a 'generic box'.

[isaidso]

Toronto-Dominion Centre Mies van der Rohe



Courtesy of Flickriver


Courtesy of pinterest


Courtesy of BuzzBuzzHome

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Huh? Kitchens in the 50s and 60s are much larger than the kitchens of today. Kitchens have shrunk or have become one and the same with the dining room, divided by only a counter.

Kitchens are much bigger and more "central" in homes today. At least in the U.S., whether we're talking suburban or urban living, kitchens built today have no relation to the kitchens of old (which were hidden away and considered dirty/for the "help").

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't think "opinion" and "fact" mean what you think they do.

I think too many people use the word “opinion” to justify being wrong. Like the idiot birther I once met you tried to end an argument about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya by saying that he had his opinion and I had mine.