 |
|
Seeing the Rivers Building in a new lightAuthor: Winslow Hastie, Director of Preservation & MuseumsPublisher: Historic Charleston Foundation Date: 03/01/2010 Contact E-mail: w.hastie@historiccharleston.org Building Materials, Architectural Elements Warrant Second Look at Rivers Federal Building By Winslow Hastie, Director of Preservation & Museums, HCF Historic Charleston Foundation staff has been researching the L. Mendel Rivers Federal Building, located at 334 Meeting St. on the eastern edge of Marion Square, for the past year or so with the intent of learning more about its architectural design and the historic context in which it was constructed. The property was abandoned by the federal government in 1999 after Hurricane Floyd damaged the building and caused asbestos on the interior to spread. Since that time there has been considerable speculation on the future of the site and some fairly concrete plans have even been presented. While the future remains uncertain regarding specifi use of the site, HCF, along with others in the local preservation community, strongly advocates for any redevelopment scheme to consider adaptive reuse of the existing building. Staff’s primary concern has been the prevalent misperception in the community that the building has to be demolished due to asbestos contamination. The remediation of asbestos on the interiors of buildings has been a common practice in historic preservation for decades. Another very important point is that the asbestos will have to be remediated whether the building is demolished or retained. While educating the public that the building’s demolition should not be considered inevitable, HCF staff also wants to examine the building more closely to determine its significance in the context of federal architecture from this period (1964), and to take a closer look at its design and materials. While the Rivers Building is not yet a historic resource in the traditional sense because it is less than 50 years of age, it is an outstanding example of architecture from this period that was constructed of high quality materials. It was also the first major federal office building to be constructed in South Carolina after World War II. In a News and Courier editorial from 1965, columnist Ashley Cooper asserts that the building was designed with Charleston’s architectural traditions in mind and that it formed a successful urban wall along the eastern edge of Marion Square. He also wrote an article in 1964 that highlighted how local architect John Califf borrowed architectural design features from various historic buildings around town in the construction of the Rivers Building, including the segmental arches at the base of the building (from 70 Ashley Ave.), the use of Flemish bond brick and marble window surrounds and panels (from 21 Legare St.), and the punched window openings and use of polychrome materials (from 213 King St.) This professed sensitivity to local architectural context and vocabulary is certainly a departure from most building design approaches in the 1960s. In addition, the building is stepped back from Meeting Street to create a landscaped plaza in front and to mitigate the building’s mass on the streetscape; from an urban design perspective, this setback also allows Citadel Square Baptist Church to remain a prominent visual landmark as one travels south down Meeting Street. The former owner of the building, the federal General Services Administration (GSA), has prepared a historic context statement for this period of federal architecture so that they can more adequately understand the significance of these buildings nationwide and eventually determine which may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and should therefore be retained. One of the GSA documents, Architecture of the Great Society: Assessing the GSA Portfolio of Buildings Constructed During the 1960s and 1970s, came out of a conference that they sponsored at Yale University in 2000. A second study titled Growth, Efficiency and Modernism: GSA Buildings of the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s also presents a more detailed analysis of this period in federal buildings and how to better evaluate these buildings’ significance. A key assertion of this paper is the acknowledgment that many federal buildings from this time period were testaments to efficiency and economy, and as such, would never be deemed architecturally significant because they were built hastily without much consideration of their overall design, materials and the urban environment in which they were constructed. HCF staff would argue that the Mendel Rivers Federal Building does not fall into that category and should be analyzed by an expert in modernism who is professionally trained to evaluate such a building. The Rivers building is a product of “The Great Society,” which was a progressive federal domestic agenda of the 1960s. Full of postwar optimism, this agenda pursued democratic ideals such as the eradication of poverty and racial injustice and the reformation of education and medical care, while at the same time meeting the needs of a rapidly growing civilian employee corps and the baby boomer generation. Initiated by President John F. Kennedy and then implemented by Lyndon B. Johnson, The Great Society was marked by an unprecedented federal building program throughout the nation. In 1962 President Kennedy commissioned the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture” which promulgated two main goals: to incorporate the best in contemporary architectural thought and to include local and regional architectural traditions in the building’s design. In staff’s estimation, the Rivers building accomplishes both of these goals successfully. Preservation of what’s termed the “recent past” is a relatively new phenomenon in the world of historic preservation. As many icons of modernism have reached the standard “50-year rule” in terms of the minimum age for historic properties, including Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House and Phillip Johnson’s Glass House (both operated as house museums by the National Trust for Historic Preservation), preservationists are becoming more comfortable with modernist architectural vocabulary and the general concept of those buildings indeed being historically significant. However, we must allow these buildings to reach 50 years of age, so that we will then be able to view them more objectively because, as the National Park Service states, “The passage of time allows our perceptions to be influenced by education, the judgment of previous decades, and the dispassion of distance.” Architecture from this time period is certainly not beloved in Charleston, where 18th and 19th century architecture is obviously more widely embraced by the community and its visitors. However, Charleston represents a wide spectrum of architectural styles spanning several centuries, and this building represents yet another important chapter in the architectural continuum of the city. This overall diversity of styles is what constitutes the well preserved architectural tapestry that sets our city apart and makes it so aesthetically appealing. Charleston does not have many buildings from this period, and certainly most of our remaining examples do not share the quality of materials and detailing that the Rivers building features. As Michael Maher, Director of the city’s Civic Design Center, writes: “The Federal Building’s fate challenges our wisdom in responsibly projecting the city into the future. How do we define historical and architectural quality? Are we stewards of the full history of this place, or only a preferred image of history?” Preservationists are all too familiar with the harm done by knee-jerk reactions to architectural styles, especially in Charleston. We have lost so many treasures from the Victorian period that were for a long time deemed inappropriate for this city. Oftentimes, mid-century buildings suffer from an even greater prejudice in the eyes of the general public. Richard Longstreth, a modernist preservation expert, urges: “Modern buildings are often perceived as easy to hate. They are, however, part of our architectural heritage, and they are not disposable. In evaluating them, we need criteria that transcend the issue of taste and that look at these structures holistically, rather than from any single point of view.” And that is all we could possibly ask for. Back |
  |
| © 2010 Historic Charleston Foundation | 40 East Bay Street, Charleston, SC 29401 843-723-1623 |