<%BANNER%>

Historic Preservation of the Recent Past

Center for World Heritage Research & Stewardship at the University of Florida University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021079/00001

Material Information

Title: Historic Preservation of the Recent Past Challenges Facing the Preservation of Modern Architecture
Physical Description: 1 online resource (93 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Purkerson, Carrie A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Over the past two decades, the recent past has become an increasingly critical topic for preservationists. As Modern buildings pass the fifty-year mark, or rapidly approach it, differing views arise about the need to preserve these buildings. Most Modern buildings have been disliked or misunderstood since the beginning of the Modern Movement, and the surmounting technical problems faced by these buildings only fuel the conflicting opinions on how to deal with these aging structures. My study first looks briefly at the history of Modern architecture to provide a foundation for the ideas, architects, and buildings behind the movement. Next, the technical issues encountered in Modern building envelopes are discussed. Then, the negative views of the aesthetics of Modern design and the presence of aesthetic preferences in decision making are discussed. Essays, journal articles, and case studies were utilized for information on the connection between preservation and Modernism. This data helped to define some of the important challenges of preserving Modern architecture and led to the examination of groups that promote and protect many of these important historic resources from the recent past. The observations section of my study addresses the need for educational reform to make preservationists and the general public aware of the importance of Modernist buildings in our place in history, and discusses some of the other obstacles faced by Modern buildings.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Carrie A Purkerson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Prugh, Peter E.
Local: Co-adviser: Graham, Roy E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021079:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021079/00001

Material Information

Title: Historic Preservation of the Recent Past Challenges Facing the Preservation of Modern Architecture
Physical Description: 1 online resource (93 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Purkerson, Carrie A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Over the past two decades, the recent past has become an increasingly critical topic for preservationists. As Modern buildings pass the fifty-year mark, or rapidly approach it, differing views arise about the need to preserve these buildings. Most Modern buildings have been disliked or misunderstood since the beginning of the Modern Movement, and the surmounting technical problems faced by these buildings only fuel the conflicting opinions on how to deal with these aging structures. My study first looks briefly at the history of Modern architecture to provide a foundation for the ideas, architects, and buildings behind the movement. Next, the technical issues encountered in Modern building envelopes are discussed. Then, the negative views of the aesthetics of Modern design and the presence of aesthetic preferences in decision making are discussed. Essays, journal articles, and case studies were utilized for information on the connection between preservation and Modernism. This data helped to define some of the important challenges of preserving Modern architecture and led to the examination of groups that promote and protect many of these important historic resources from the recent past. The observations section of my study addresses the need for educational reform to make preservationists and the general public aware of the importance of Modernist buildings in our place in history, and discusses some of the other obstacles faced by Modern buildings.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Carrie A Purkerson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Prugh, Peter E.
Local: Co-adviser: Graham, Roy E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021079:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101129_AAAAAA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-29T19:31:31Z PACKAGE UFE0021079_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2170 DFID F20101129_AAAASC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH purkerson_c_Page_26.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
12be5b46a03935bd70d9c4641540f7b0
SHA-1
19cc7e20e1939599c5609f0b73fd2540ee320d9f
1954 F20101129_AAAARO purkerson_c_Page_07.txt
43b79753f01d2595ebcdefccf19e01d6
4f483aeab67d1b7d17597916890fdff4d6459dc5
2063 F20101129_AAAASD purkerson_c_Page_30.txt
814a7cb8e40a535413f42e20dbb70478
64767563df58a58c1b05d92e27470bb8c3e889e6
1735 F20101129_AAAARP purkerson_c_Page_10.txt
952da9941dc1533dc6aa40b1bdc7752f
99f6ca1f1dc932c1c47c07d294bf2b6a75ab23b9
2061 F20101129_AAAASE purkerson_c_Page_32.txt
316e3a6df81ba9623439b72fa71542c0
a46125017066f9a8325d69275d4860eb2f06b138
2058 F20101129_AAAARQ purkerson_c_Page_11.txt
10eef69b55c3ef30acc03263a8e1b870
c78a380a0b9fe7c97625e4b9ad2ff81bb8b3ef9a
2085 F20101129_AAAASF purkerson_c_Page_34.txt
15ced7884503d6bb27e420c911cf6a94
010b36794358ffca73b08ba42e06d53387488d65
2077 F20101129_AAAARR purkerson_c_Page_12.txt
97c61692f1b3ef5becf05e1fae13b1b1
c47361dc33e0331815a673338b546fd0bdc6a83d
1952 F20101129_AAAASG purkerson_c_Page_35.txt
5968be209dabd486315dda685d30369c
d40fdb1e177acb1b217da82fa8e05740719d1c33
515 F20101129_AAAARS purkerson_c_Page_13.txt
87a3c5b0211fb8be9a11a68bedb68b54
707d9dfa0022e47d45c01551f09e5e86ed8ee7d6
2084 F20101129_AAAASH purkerson_c_Page_38.txt
0af58da120ebac687298e25afb027266
2e36ad006158ab132704b2c6d669a9df4be4abc4
F20101129_AAAART purkerson_c_Page_15.txt
41e0f9f983f081245cd6f1c03d6fde01
8845fe63db7d96dffd8fbeb455dbdeaade9bfc4d
2065 F20101129_AAAASI purkerson_c_Page_39.txt
50d0de7110d54d1685386658dc6c903f
e1b8fc8f52a4eb5cd7657a0bbdbb4da41961a0a1
2067 F20101129_AAAARU purkerson_c_Page_16.txt
a3463137aae5150fc9cede777005d495
be0391ae4e589ac0294e202875485d66fca497c1
2041 F20101129_AAAASJ purkerson_c_Page_41.txt
d7d882b69568f9345f4150e825058510
77840f25dde7edbc53b06da0cc239675e9e83d4f
2064 F20101129_AAAARV purkerson_c_Page_17.txt
e5ece17d95bfe0917d03167668069b48
fce4f7f53b911b2e762b19ee810fc13b8de0cde8
1793 F20101129_AAAASK purkerson_c_Page_42.txt
5c53b8dd1a00c2a9be1ac70f2bb8c4fd
2a78652279c511101c25a361b42807e85e8beaaf
2160 F20101129_AAAARW purkerson_c_Page_20.txt
db99e8e041bdf57d6923d01b53d4444a
e63abd3dc7f71777e5b1ebcbadbc0dc45243ecaf
2138 F20101129_AAAASL purkerson_c_Page_43.txt
79894ca79f6c6f83acd735d37f3f3e45
d7a927c8f20dcdbb8ee46003737ea65c992a6319
2094 F20101129_AAAARX purkerson_c_Page_21.txt
784c1728d54133bc7cf07c87de5ad1f2
4017c539ba9c057ff73e2e9c8b11aa1c8ecd8dbb
2176 F20101129_AAAATA purkerson_c_Page_59.txt
41144550cab5709b6c6c01935d300fb8
fc8c75bfa18cb2b2ec9c252a1af26ad2e789f527
2219 F20101129_AAAASM purkerson_c_Page_44.txt
ef15823ea0968010995b17f018b3c38d
975b6ee7301cbd145ca4c284a5c044c039edb588
2203 F20101129_AAAARY purkerson_c_Page_22.txt
e5277741069f145cc0db680cc13c96ad
67ff2be26446717fa319e5e4e15df1c8565826f8
2019 F20101129_AAAATB purkerson_c_Page_61.txt
80fa1a6a71d3b0cb77cfbac12f0cb6b4
fe5af30909a94124e801eb3fe1b96fbd9759a0bc
2071 F20101129_AAAASN purkerson_c_Page_45.txt
5b7f2e37e355252e36d6246f32ac4cb8
4adb1bb8e35ce51eefaf7fd594309778cc530e48
713 F20101129_AAAARZ purkerson_c_Page_23.txt
9e60fee29d75cd278e2c4ec74d38ad36
8e7833578eca1a08b6a218be6517bf1483ab504a
F20101129_AAAATC purkerson_c_Page_62.txt
6c32c9b7d2e682cd73d013d4fecc96bf
552c4390524ff049394e4dba083c51117a9814e6
2116 F20101129_AAAASO purkerson_c_Page_46.txt
a1e0f04ff7907aa26a65b6a611d27e1a
d1b0dad5f37dce1d4145da8f30c252df491b8f45
2115 F20101129_AAAATD purkerson_c_Page_64.txt
3ee46b15f3d2d8239928e6b6c9daff89
aaa9991300c36e03d39363638e064a59aae912c5
1918 F20101129_AAAASP purkerson_c_Page_47.txt
a64a7ebbe807b41d71ad6c32885ac75e
3f07a0b44342b0d2efbeef416a684e2ccacbf8dd
1887 F20101129_AAAATE purkerson_c_Page_65.txt
d618f46867056348f796ef3390a769af
6aa3456c480d778a794a5908f089ed501c834a28
2226 F20101129_AAAASQ purkerson_c_Page_48.txt
468aa9727a55a9284ba57327431073e9
022463e9a16516478642f7bb7ed5b5f4c47ef56b
1967 F20101129_AAAATF purkerson_c_Page_66.txt
622245cac10df7240919d1e2409f54d3
9df981bd764bdc42a09e6fe3114f353a8d8b1ea4
2157 F20101129_AAAASR purkerson_c_Page_49.txt
06093bf02c739ea60feb772cfdf3f18b
fb5414d7663932ebd1cdf1818a841b416951b8c3
1915 F20101129_AAAATG purkerson_c_Page_67.txt
cecbb4ef3c744259bf4b68a4adcf7e1d
cfdc8fe1c9b3d688919840085371810eaa9debdc
2052 F20101129_AAAASS purkerson_c_Page_51.txt
ac6ffe09e8e3bf3b8c4ab26949225606
07aaaf7d5c9167407b45ed3021cb2085de036f88
2009 F20101129_AAAATH purkerson_c_Page_68.txt
202b56486b6acabff17803fe87bf45e1
18954bd73842ded1db139a3c55a76cf0301a3717
1350 F20101129_AAAAST purkerson_c_Page_52.txt
856c93677de452821317869c7a58b765
eb1a07e11fdc16864e9f4a64f8b04f2563ccab1b
F20101129_AAAATI purkerson_c_Page_69.txt
66666a9e99a4f128ea6c423457d12f02
f6394ddb15d314dd6c92cd7e73eafdaa1cbc5ca9
2035 F20101129_AAAASU purkerson_c_Page_53.txt
5411182bca0f0bd03c3338a3e5a00070
86bb30ce95f031ec8361804abafe5979e233bd58
1406 F20101129_AAAATJ purkerson_c_Page_71.txt
dd6b4ba10b2c3095bfc38c42e7fc546f
f6a5b377fd2874d917293102bc6b024a45a48feb
2127 F20101129_AAAASV purkerson_c_Page_54.txt
df0fc6e359bbbd7eb55b3b8021dad8ea
ef629baeafedec21d49340d5cf8665c692631988
F20101129_AAAATK purkerson_c_Page_72.txt
363d6afe72600f3f2999a714a54580c6
060c679206a6b17f7d59784b51b2f2009f84da74
2202 F20101129_AAAASW purkerson_c_Page_55.txt
24c7244dfa03c03009ecc0d4e99c27b0
58fecf65151ad30cc0f3909c7a963cf8322fa2fb
2030 F20101129_AAAATL purkerson_c_Page_73.txt
1c91411536ad6fac39f5c5618aa80681
f4bcc38f0c74d9fe071d022e383a6ef0a28d18a1
2098 F20101129_AAAASX purkerson_c_Page_56.txt
840c8f692d41f5918c7d810c9e44e56f
a36086e79bed3030ca6b53cbdbbd123f8eafd383
1981 F20101129_AAAATM purkerson_c_Page_74.txt
b5a453f5960f7568251ed4938c57fe10
0df828cde7e30c5b9a0884089023f29587e1e196
2120 F20101129_AAAASY purkerson_c_Page_57.txt
66b775f49fff0148c5d9c01e23a2b54c
e1a8ffa4d5ebe21b98adbfc8c5217d1d40150e5d
3096 F20101129_AAAAUA purkerson_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
9f251ce662570eebbe40a312a3bdaa48
f7c9c9889e8ecc4973d8dd68988f69632293fa77
2039 F20101129_AAAATN purkerson_c_Page_77.txt
efe1fbdc385f21412fb959d05b5edd1e
7b9ffb588a7d49b045ccd35f4151d456e955b594
2079 F20101129_AAAASZ purkerson_c_Page_58.txt
477ce3160084e942d0382d7af861a7be
c9c2c0bb87d0323fa79006d881c53b2443ef089a
2808 F20101129_AAAAUB purkerson_c_Page_04thm.jpg
ad355abd33ed4cd7058d9b80101551ff
68e50a4b29a44996daee14c1967c8d1edb96b990
2707 F20101129_AAAATO purkerson_c_Page_79.txt
f39c0c623138af1e39fde1c8638357bd
bbe676d1ef524feffb0fb26dc45fda2d5341894c
20484 F20101129_AAAAUC purkerson_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
9f45c9d3229bfe174fdb0406cca516e8
08ab42f391d4b113bccbe3c177df4739215e1f24
3323 F20101129_AAAATP purkerson_c_Page_81.txt
3317e4ea8a0da1ef9b06532e24feaaee
b4cbfea8d0de93f0e337178880010a08c3799cd5
20976 F20101129_AAAAUD purkerson_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
ec66b0cb63529b637408fb6bfb02cc84
fca4772cbd94ca64c58dd6e806b686461c61902a
3259 F20101129_AAAATQ purkerson_c_Page_82.txt
7aba9d3bfc3f8f58891ca3c8c6d4a428
ce0a8f0b73e727c80b2f2708b991311c70e7a44d
5250 F20101129_AAAAUE purkerson_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
aed2c0747edbe22c12969e13ab9c64a4
f7008c439f6efcd6e0eb12bacd147c5b8d1efb7f
2548 F20101129_AAAATR purkerson_c_Page_84.txt
08bab1d4069fd2db2995e25a89053cfa
37bb78f8c35d1e96ca0afcca12fce2a9fcb811d8
1857 F20101129_AAAAUF purkerson_c_Page_08thm.jpg
707d047a812fd4f2a40d9cbe4de4f89d
ba8e79e60c11af5b03f51d98693918d616efcace
1154 F20101129_AAAATS purkerson_c_Page_85.txt
4ca99079795b9fc00710f92a73a53976
6c29cade941c1dfa6a237c10c47dc322e7104b66
24251 F20101129_AAAAUG purkerson_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
fa335a9f675810889d759304c1635659
3ee3b038cef9a1edc78d4b05324deefb00b6d394
1275 F20101129_AAAATT purkerson_c_Page_86.txt
a07aa4cbf6e67e7470928d8e058216ef
b430f762a3aea522dea834027afb761d6fd78e76
6743 F20101129_AAAAUH purkerson_c_Page_09thm.jpg
e3db855a427130bdbb6d1495b1b25e3f
ed78edc7d72e39138748ced85188aebd96c4a8e4
22620 F20101129_AAAAUI purkerson_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
63d4b6e647b1069c43f6622c2d09c0d9
5accd552d4cd2487bed0a86555d08b86727eda86
1273 F20101129_AAAATU purkerson_c_Page_87.txt
da7da6966029e8348e0ac9c746b4a69b
72e8c93e3b3b1f5d9c59e3d8f26fbc9ce4cf76b7
5997 F20101129_AAAAUJ purkerson_c_Page_10thm.jpg
aee76eef7aa390e7fdf65acc88a9b080
ed160c52629970f1561ca864a14f1e5ab03531d5
500 F20101129_AAAATV purkerson_c_Page_88.txt
9ee94b37ed6b5719c049a3f97d5b2131
c21c1ae14277b3a77ade421473d4b33ca25e6afc
25172 F20101129_AAAAUK purkerson_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
c0add8645e8102bd684944529a79b499
7a09191b5957c885f5e21c416c84b718b044d073
2402 F20101129_AAAATW purkerson_c_Page_89.txt
3d12d9e4b5147aa3446f6357781bdd1b
2dde879f312963680d8f5162632d3556c6cf208c
6820 F20101129_AAAAUL purkerson_c_Page_11thm.jpg
e91a16ce361aa11c59e05c903af63ccc
6975e09c2d25382e4fefcd4b7f8de04fac53035b
1191 F20101129_AAAATX purkerson_c_Page_93.txt
94edaac0c9b464f90510f6188bc38d0f
6d89cbb74fdba410d5e78cccf86cf1ce15cbf258
26394 F20101129_AAAAVA purkerson_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
df2c3a34f7763d6a3ed03c6a8abcc99e
dec26eab78488f103530598689c234845a243cf6
27247 F20101129_AAAAUM purkerson_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
5726b39450062d507e7552d703693c7e
77e6ce2cc61b9ead741339f2f3a4dc2af22dd3ec
313742 F20101129_AAAATY purkerson_c.pdf
ced03f1fcba5f7cd4e1485840acaec22
ec3ddcaa89497db5bbd216ea08c18bcc5a21402d
7382 F20101129_AAAAVB purkerson_c_Page_22thm.jpg
162e6df720ecc96c23986e3c8eaabcdf
29215f02c26f3a29e115ba69b7c78892bb9c00a0
7310 F20101129_AAAAUN purkerson_c_Page_12thm.jpg
c0295fca09a22795ae05c3a663028641
4729461a72e21f962a18dff2ce518a89c6143a2c
8015 F20101129_AAAATZ purkerson_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
c5877aeb92fc615a3d4d850afbad771b
e51973fcb7da84d39c969372aaa3b7948dde38b6
3413 F20101129_AAAAVC purkerson_c_Page_23thm.jpg
e9254b5929727664740630dcd125c851
b114214854e78c0705bfffa0196b6fc7a6e6d3f3
8492 F20101129_AAAAUO purkerson_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
95fe1caa69ebe0117a6eed6a3f331d44
15d7d58b3e1eb5cf71954ae3291f4626371ead1d
27583 F20101129_AAAAVD purkerson_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
4752f2413179866cd9c72cb803c24334
13b878a51794ae5b065c350e7989811b1ebc2497
2615 F20101129_AAAAUP purkerson_c_Page_13thm.jpg
5d8255273b452e7be6f36ef44793d5f5
b7b126bbcae6f606e46d07edf000b1e7a41329f8
7396 F20101129_AAAAVE purkerson_c_Page_24thm.jpg
c84997c24ca43f0d38b4273a7ad080a1
3fe11c2821dc83f929bc24824232b9159bd4105a
7130 F20101129_AAAAUQ purkerson_c_Page_14thm.jpg
265b0b3f9a606a59c436cad712c3986d
478c353246aa32190667903f17caa493977b6056
7515 F20101129_AAAAVF purkerson_c_Page_25thm.jpg
7b4ccefe466540ce8887f8036641bd01
702db8fe710227fa7c1bdf471c9d36823fcb1db3
24681 F20101129_AAAAUR purkerson_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
9333d0b2b71cdcb7a4fd77a57c4fca5f
17b025d0027e677ce5ed979fd964d93ce48f1b0e
27768 F20101129_AAAAVG purkerson_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
19571b35978a893fb7ffd1b3784910c0
323afc4a01222d92f1d2ba966e3f5ad96f4c009d
6621 F20101129_AAAAUS purkerson_c_Page_15thm.jpg
99478bd0ee1e7d6bba2147cc494ceaaa
4876c83ee48a134eed772617fdaae54034e22053
7526 F20101129_AAAAVH purkerson_c_Page_26thm.jpg
f569fb73e3cd2166bbf9b750d0586c57
91b6884ac5d2b515c051a97b6e6a1722cc1199a5
26315 F20101129_AAAAUT purkerson_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
ae52499113d58dad1bc3a8d976ef1a2a
39f26a64ffc08d887a59ec93bb5e46898ce71290
26165 F20101129_AAAAVI purkerson_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
f0683b4785eb10b9795d254650a0ec38
4c168419b4f700ad67da025ede06d1038a4343ef
7018 F20101129_AAAAUU purkerson_c_Page_17thm.jpg
b91e1155d28605ff42ec7a8f371e84db
cc4799e1a8d6c2be22af4fe39b75e61d3a2a336a
7366 F20101129_AAAAVJ purkerson_c_Page_27thm.jpg
a2b31197d09c5d57a713848371b5988f
03b451e8a79c45fa535826aab39ffeeb1b5e62ea
24884 F20101129_AAAAUV purkerson_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
c08c48aaa51a72927e70cb27684c14a1
0a2e3aed09fd1882cfe77e98f02eb68fd2740c8d
27368 F20101129_AAAAVK purkerson_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
58d4d48518f0ec13576cb85710ecd616
0ce1e68249a65fea3c476197edf59f6cab8a0aff
6887 F20101129_AAAAUW purkerson_c_Page_18thm.jpg
146e6a732e93b22500f23501a6251b55
bd03ffe7f8d3c1985d206fa8c19f85cbd4356072
26556 F20101129_AAAAVL purkerson_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
eb4fa3d0dca8b604155a3137781ea85b
ae2eb74357cd81d65c64782a24dde4f9e49bfa7c
27476 F20101129_AAAAUX purkerson_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
f2819b1693bb516de041df1f5413652e
67c33d8575ef53ac839ec30a91e006a0f1b65e6b
6937 F20101129_AAAAWA purkerson_c_Page_38thm.jpg
acd4a657c24e276ed6ca66e3d5323770
7d4f3933e37cdba924b895117d1370d37b18b065
7107 F20101129_AAAAVM purkerson_c_Page_29thm.jpg
688cc1096174b753522f444315328eed
696c69464cd99cf398facc04d69c0238fb7ee138
7603 F20101129_AAAAUY purkerson_c_Page_19thm.jpg
b32345146a429e23905de9f3012a6395
eca1ec3d74865c3b26b13ed133430cc73f7469d8
26762 F20101129_AAAAVN purkerson_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
c6c9c5aabdb13ef11e44d2499a6d4051
554e630f5a29cbf722e4d5a8f5295216d19660dd
7384 F20101129_AAAAUZ purkerson_c_Page_20thm.jpg
94b7226950add923169bede4f091d3da
4c1da4cd3a80505150dc6518ec52c4efa8626752
26597 F20101129_AAAAWB purkerson_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
8fc2eb4a0b503d017757620a9ebd8911
6d5403691ebc47a3e70ef76ba43531c668d3159f
7298 F20101129_AAAAVO purkerson_c_Page_30thm.jpg
519529e9869735f517afe4eaaaf9bc37
406df3d0fc9508731758c09e70038c96d88f0737
20453 F20101129_AAAAWC purkerson_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
7bc3fc67f0a38cf95acfba5992b4152d
8f691bc92cf77c4d28102a88c8607162cebdf8de
26632 F20101129_AAAAVP purkerson_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
9f7e608d992628e5b7be9f5f18f3c1bd
26b569047cff53d251a292e6de985262560d2daa
5958 F20101129_AAAAWD purkerson_c_Page_40thm.jpg
0a8cbc2bb3e2543b4997df341d4a2631
1b9addf62352981f4ff436b7b9d311c7ff1405d0
7255 F20101129_AAAAVQ purkerson_c_Page_31thm.jpg
59c6e976a2ed4ec6c502bae4b5ad03a1
7b591b3b65609dca2aba3e9585870db4a7611ee3
25130 F20101129_AAAAWE purkerson_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
286e6d6f1fdca91b11755ba6b5d6fe84
f780f1565a665031faef2170551377aa9b53126c
7395 F20101129_AAAAVR purkerson_c_Page_32thm.jpg
04bf359f2ce5e91810a51f203c25733e
099666abc8774574251185f1dfc6bd28ee1e8968
22772 F20101129_AAAAWF purkerson_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
3674bfbfa2f999e86b2c89f451753d17
59bdffeba4a24e1b523287935b86395b99b7a05a
25833 F20101129_AAAAVS purkerson_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
bf096fc3e0bc7076a7f2153c9cd7b568
fd991b80d636a21758ae05e07c57a7436dce67c2
6361 F20101129_AAAAWG purkerson_c_Page_42thm.jpg
d47b2b399236ba7aca48e2074d4dd1d4
261ad765a9677b9834b54737703c147a6d12613b
7317 F20101129_AAAAVT purkerson_c_Page_33thm.jpg
1ee0a42be66a2df14d8f72f70abb9c77
19013babd3a451ae23b6b47bc2303d6fb4d4d665
7432 F20101129_AAAAWH purkerson_c_Page_43thm.jpg
ebdf940b2ae1219400d8f3c557551d02
85b8072e06a16a6f2aa0f0447e969e5cf6da880d
6922 F20101129_AAAAVU purkerson_c_Page_34thm.jpg
02bcbd8dcce5cee146b5840cb08fe2f3
5f2219ac52d4dab256c62edcc9cd01849092c4c3
7619 F20101129_AAAAWI purkerson_c_Page_44thm.jpg
fd26ca8d0c363278b35ff71857276e04
d399b443b53f9ae98cb7c0da41e3947c1ff3d15c
25336 F20101129_AAAAVV purkerson_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
6c3a4e4c1d1185af26e5c279b37ff3e4
86e53b92f599a4b86cfb7cb84b3a11e29f9ca026
25458 F20101129_AAAAWJ purkerson_c_Page_45.QC.jpg
f411b0d52981c6c169736fbfdade50f7
dfe97b6244479eed9a874f7c71f3890c4b5bfed6
7126 F20101129_AAAAVW purkerson_c_Page_35thm.jpg
19969753b4db6f39d3dcda4987e0f3e0
957ef4806ed1a2aa43c632cfa3b3e42a9c9d5678
26832 F20101129_AAAAWK purkerson_c_Page_46.QC.jpg
c249da931064821b71f9fc0c5d084975
df827e65a08292650bb3ef01eeb4a5663684c063
2558 F20101129_AAAAVX purkerson_c_Page_36thm.jpg
d084124207f49de64effb903aec839ab
80db112fc8a88bc457ff16ebd6ab3b6a577ceff6
28075 F20101129_AAAAXA purkerson_c_Page_59.QC.jpg
ed9bd17b110c4df86a37ef34b2508a7e
b75e4d7147fb1248e9088984ed96594eab276102
7343 F20101129_AAAAWL purkerson_c_Page_46thm.jpg
3298713dd7b93d05a78ea419c3921bce
e1dd98def898d50ae6494e3365553ac07b44a332
7131 F20101129_AAAAVY purkerson_c_Page_37thm.jpg
3b6ca76b288d03c1bed1df1e1d2d9183
095c6cae06dd7975bb32608442a4b1e490fbd4c3
7533 F20101129_AAAAXB purkerson_c_Page_59thm.jpg
93ab1f02cd031661a6d9fb346d7e6f1d
bda20e3989ed974723896b96eeb8f21b95a98694
6848 F20101129_AAAAWM purkerson_c_Page_47thm.jpg
d0cfc9eab01a4e3374fcd3c0db9adb0d
0ac28a345f425105f76e261fbcf293ad34b831d0
26343 F20101129_AAAAVZ purkerson_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
d9b4ccfe3a7c8ba266b11e4d9528abdc
423fd3d79d01c85c9d3800f8cb28528bffa5890e
7407 F20101129_AAAAWN purkerson_c_Page_48thm.jpg
ea425dea027ef09d6b1adc397791243d
e1af2446df05bd9eaa5d5bfd49df08e093d56197
26542 F20101129_AAAAXC purkerson_c_Page_61.QC.jpg
9e7197b77e6068b99f4f7f1f4637fa57
3ba1ecae1634066e2d8813fce94f1b2bb9da8f2a
7339 F20101129_AAAAWO purkerson_c_Page_49thm.jpg
e95d4abc9a5b161392e6ca65246b58dc
c14aa2314928db10f31c886c02e0246b1474fd45
7216 F20101129_AAAAXD purkerson_c_Page_61thm.jpg
eedc1e6be283f39541e94fbd49d42586
96b5a4d685b8a57d97818bc2b11cad580b13107c
7171 F20101129_AAAAWP purkerson_c_Page_50thm.jpg
3259695c65f2f8387a02a1b47b407604
e54b38e9513e2274cd5ab9b257e90ba52352bff0
26711 F20101129_AAAAXE purkerson_c_Page_62.QC.jpg
58667c555b2792f04bf105427ac4dd94
2f07b049b74bd02af5762c2b9183a32b310d9bc4
5123 F20101129_AAAAWQ purkerson_c_Page_52thm.jpg
55e23477635c6ba43a78e01e88e369d0
b0e3e17ddccd8f8c7784ed5ff1550c54fa957dd3
7351 F20101129_AAAAXF purkerson_c_Page_62thm.jpg
a39773068c70a99fbd61e18804371735
0dcbdb43c2d6b5856ad48c85c97e9301134eb06a
24430 F20101129_AAAAWR purkerson_c_Page_53.QC.jpg
1475d4d39410182f0175c333da6f64cd
c3c6cf3499657ab3ba0f3532e0e73d7ed1f9d399
28257 F20101129_AAAAXG purkerson_c_Page_63.QC.jpg
8e7e8bc19943dc3b316fe2b53db55e6c
2ca296bd0a3342dd047190e074249f60c6133d5a
26957 F20101129_AAAAWS purkerson_c_Page_54.QC.jpg
25a4cb99430a5b31abf7d17f2616498b
8c4a97e656b1f20ab3a164113f41ef3457d4a5af
7614 F20101129_AAAAXH purkerson_c_Page_63thm.jpg
8ff9c23ee1ea88de2c58096fe7233e0a
cb07940ea99e59869144693aa6a459030df4868e
7494 F20101129_AAAAWT purkerson_c_Page_54thm.jpg
f4bd93b4e3e450235bd95db73eea5d52
79ee60f90493e59df2d369c592b8520ef8b20b33
86551 F20101129_AAAAAA purkerson_c_Page_12.jpg
f1450217b51e5cbab915710d6e877362
af411ab95ee330c2e774153cd27a84cef674516d
28164 F20101129_AAAAXI purkerson_c_Page_64.QC.jpg
2f4df00bddb6a6ddd996ef5d84cdac4f
38e4092dd7e0459c4a793d2a61fa2e1b07a263f8
27911 F20101129_AAAAWU purkerson_c_Page_55.QC.jpg
08e719481e03ae678bed56c5ae8de772
6a0f075f679bc65e3b2a3d3e26ce9f02a090619e
51064 F20101129_AAAAAB purkerson_c_Page_51.pro
e4709daf9051a76f81b8064aa3b4b299
a6fc231a7ac561eff1dfe728b177b7e23413c74a
7584 F20101129_AAAAXJ purkerson_c_Page_64thm.jpg
cfe85041b66a2565b4f8c675c825a9e2
14efcaa2f497bf752a318cb3c1c84845802ad72c
7499 F20101129_AAAAWV purkerson_c_Page_55thm.jpg
9f828f53a32d058340ba36b576701494
25a10655124cc49489008503ddd0ceafea0ae354
408093 F20101129_AAAAAC purkerson_c_Page_23.jp2
d9615136dae53934074ccea17158758e
cc8c8d3fe72852a05ed21503ae55a7885bd9cef8
24762 F20101129_AAAAXK purkerson_c_Page_65.QC.jpg
62cdb01e6218d275ca4b0a3b9f07911c
9643367fa8abe9d454bb8fd40f489cecca1687d4
7664 F20101129_AAAAWW purkerson_c_Page_56thm.jpg
755a6639b41958afb09874228f91b8c0
8aeab1168069616d34b70143fe4d0f294da1d9cd
84726 F20101129_AAAAAD purkerson_c_Page_32.jpg
d3a5ebaf7843c61bdcee46e2893ee3bd
aefd960ef433c28dbdfdeec1d6dc15df26985110
22406 F20101129_AAAAYA purkerson_c_Page_74.QC.jpg
d6451724c8d990c23f8f4d9d19ca3f9c
c237f8d77c0459be6b1559fe5f6d303f3f610a42
6995 F20101129_AAAAXL purkerson_c_Page_65thm.jpg
573be7225279f19c571d8dcc9fdd7a40
ca4743fdb38d849a371094650fb568e11f9a8d64
7401 F20101129_AAAAWX purkerson_c_Page_57thm.jpg
57a752ed1920fe00d90c05394807425a
455cfb0a4ab039c3334d4dcc338ab9e757a299bd
51729 F20101129_AAAAAE purkerson_c_Page_29.pro
e036d5e0e53e9a3fec168add3236f1f4
6d245f544717a87ac63e4f2e91d09cf3b551bc7b
5635 F20101129_AAAAYB purkerson_c_Page_75thm.jpg
b32771f4fd9361978933bf1952196d82
13157ddb6b106f032e3354e0a615df38fb633e1c
26480 F20101129_AAAAXM purkerson_c_Page_66.QC.jpg
d57ab858892811af2b802ce2b9db69a7
5b7e1d963f18473f27551ed370cd03356b89e540
26757 F20101129_AAAAWY purkerson_c_Page_58.QC.jpg
2d3d7b943eb65bc4bf5f2893345e8266
36c01caf03ea010ae8e3706c8a862c1db1614ab8
82817 F20101129_AAAAAF purkerson_c_Page_34.jpg
0dbb06ac5b012243a75224ec4a0fd30d
d8e5e241d57a0e620c6d57f757e713614c7e65a0
24870 F20101129_AAAAYC purkerson_c_Page_76.QC.jpg
8a588e2c360eeb322553ae411b00e02b
e5fb06d74f6a8dfd0b2a4b03da85099e8a779da7
7100 F20101129_AAAAXN purkerson_c_Page_66thm.jpg
dca902bda5775b94546c5a9349980d74
7da03b0aa4911a18b696ed93128a82a09d57542b
7341 F20101129_AAAAWZ purkerson_c_Page_58thm.jpg
9d91283e1a962e61403cbc7e378acad5
6e80fdfe51081b92bff95270a526608d6cc4d99f
27320 F20101129_AAAAAG purkerson_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
e0cc2b88774638d7219e361ec2f6682f
6b054d58869bdd87055b3cccb61f814474030089
25371 F20101129_AAAAXO purkerson_c_Page_67.QC.jpg
ba558ebdf409145ea31db32067862820
cd01f4a3f046a8fc6e1591393ad15d6ec15d4415
84762 F20101129_AAAAAH purkerson_c_Page_28.jpg
faa6f2ddf6d0d415ed9d98751647e2d0
e19a681c306b8412c1812dbbc1fc35bbb482a345
22727 F20101129_AAAAYD purkerson_c_Page_77.QC.jpg
54101a52d99219fdeab263f1b39b81b8
90ee51c1556536651cf7dbecfea22c611a74e270
6982 F20101129_AAAAXP purkerson_c_Page_67thm.jpg
1b3c150f57a0b88f94ba3d3a51a6a549
d34f5af7ed8ce2332449c27348960bdd266a0495
1332 F20101129_AAAAAI purkerson_c_Page_02thm.jpg
5fb335eb045e72f30265ef86812e5d2f
6cef4ab3b835606532c5002aada8d395de292c87
6025 F20101129_AAAAYE purkerson_c_Page_77thm.jpg
f79068987e73161eaa917f2c11730e5d
1544a3579df8337ce0fbcf23e778dbaf927d44a4
26869 F20101129_AAAAXQ purkerson_c_Page_68.QC.jpg
f31eca107841e61618751f655b1b8337
f454bd09171695cadd328fafbb23d8feef659087
1949 F20101129_AAAAAJ purkerson_c_Page_33.txt
bc559f0b0c74dedad1226d20f9613b2a
be7fc920df610ab209c0d662422d847b91323131
16163 F20101129_AAAAYF purkerson_c_Page_78.QC.jpg
bff8329402426f5ee2b4a2cf51715c72
99063794ae2456d2c253f7004ec294fa0753bb26
7264 F20101129_AAAAXR purkerson_c_Page_68thm.jpg
657b9a75550aab4e996d7426e1a6f467
b71f816c384065a8aa429b337e507ea10fe4d309
83177 F20101129_AAAAAK purkerson_c_Page_27.jpg
9dea707892332a373a0a7d8a1357e979
f02415d1715e461796afcdcfb2d902cbcff2c23d
4369 F20101129_AAAAYG purkerson_c_Page_78thm.jpg
f33586cd22f7e43e31afa82d3d3fc072
c30521fd5e7721abacd55a1cc538471fe99e96fe
25858 F20101129_AAAAXS purkerson_c_Page_69.QC.jpg
1089242df2b3abc006b7de5c97761252
533b6114aca01a21de7311ec2f927013ad53a0e4
27806 F20101129_AAAAYH purkerson_c_Page_79.QC.jpg
39e9a658e0928dd08dab6095d9ac7b66
0b0aa246807385edf6b7970678174487b3adbe7d
7137 F20101129_AAAAXT purkerson_c_Page_69thm.jpg
c9d5247e092aa13deb533c0b48ecec32
9ccc717b1ef1087fd8b3341571b92d00fc328881
2218 F20101129_AAAABA purkerson_c_Page_70.txt
b20abd78e9d9b93ef5daade6f8f9f88f
6710b45426bff26f044cfa57e673014e7cd8fcc8
54002 F20101129_AAAAAL purkerson_c_Page_54.pro
b02d313f8db7c6cbc79e34a64095e36e
b66bf17e4e9628dbb97c6f8cb2479a4d09c16689
7055 F20101129_AAAAYI purkerson_c_Page_79thm.jpg
0023e537065322c18ad9eaba3476a623
800586c17ba0186c2169e7fa0acf4c19bcfbda4d
27239 F20101129_AAAAXU purkerson_c_Page_70.QC.jpg
b773515705369460aaefeb0815f95f81
084100be71fdf79baf0e9f8b16fb26cd44974739
791234 F20101129_AAAABB purkerson_c_Page_71.jp2
ebcf893a2300503c9783e977819627da
9fce80a8452d56ac700adbc14dbac3bd677aecaa
2276 F20101129_AAAAAM purkerson_c_Page_90.txt
163069934567e6e9bb7b224e8fdce918
09160ad14d1b3afceca649a8355c1c037dbad457
33723 F20101129_AAAAYJ purkerson_c_Page_80.QC.jpg
a9b185ffe3d62aa5c630558e1cd9e031
9679642f59b1c793674fcae9b2ae08ba32d67de7
7632 F20101129_AAAAXV purkerson_c_Page_70thm.jpg
ee2afd2ebd98a288f00bd3e566690416
86b4a75acbb071b5822d55ed2fc3470bff7cb6a4
84801 F20101129_AAAABC purkerson_c_Page_56.jpg
a734ab12841f48556162d06c60170160
2f942410be48b3a1602b3793056fa602bb146bad
297549 F20101129_AAAAAN purkerson_c_Page_88.jp2
930cdcc5fec664ce4b47cd7a0b9efcb0
c9396a38050f9e2ca69803b38cb0fbbebb95d0c5
8186 F20101129_AAAAYK purkerson_c_Page_80thm.jpg
aad00de1e7ff8180f701750169419714
f221864d2c889242b73fac52b93c8df3fdf3f5d2
18858 F20101129_AAAAXW purkerson_c_Page_71.QC.jpg
2f1527722989ad417e86dca08a08dda1
d5470e4f546d3f31d1939c3bc659f9dfdbb9229f
2279 F20101129_AAAABD purkerson_c_Page_76.txt
aca1be5483306083a6f934c5d4030966
e30e49d7d68a207c1c5e79026437223355412651
82644 F20101129_AAAAAO purkerson_c_Page_21.jpg
852a4cc52e7791fa5f0a6c855427da9a
055e284e5931acdab9dd5b17065a30846e061a78
34111 F20101129_AAAAYL purkerson_c_Page_81.QC.jpg
e1e24bd30d2becd244ceb3b78d0202d5
4942d0156372c9711f350dfa79ecc0d5afbc3de3
5390 F20101129_AAAAXX purkerson_c_Page_71thm.jpg
24489bf4b932984b9ec0c582c5b3efff
96d6ddbc5eb0f62f77673bfb89d156a9f2bf526d
60181 F20101129_AAAABE purkerson_c_Page_84.pro
50c02d75bfe6615e2d06082225499a7e
fd35f464274b61e11609fc9c0a5bcea7d2c8c024
26062 F20101129_AAAAAP purkerson_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
1a027da3eaad000f03cdfde50dc7a012
40c77f25b5d2da82bc7216add1380a20fe3f928d
26699 F20101129_AAAAZA purkerson_c_Page_90.QC.jpg
b59e4e6ff568caf15aaf055fb581fffa
6d66c9054e0fca577624ab2cd087b7d9722858f3
8524 F20101129_AAAAYM purkerson_c_Page_81thm.jpg
41c9971a929e56fe7b90b3ca7bf506bd
bbafc1aa709c5249ede5813c887c6e1a92dcd2d4
6968 F20101129_AAAAXY purkerson_c_Page_72thm.jpg
5a7818ba16c7302a70fc71369c627342
307eff99e91bef67e64436771bb814aa2a30f218
1051941 F20101129_AAAABF purkerson_c_Page_57.jp2
c45b4d25f41c74b93a6ea395e193490d
f8f76111ced32514f5b8861d91c777a2d9217e0a
7036 F20101129_AAAAAQ purkerson_c_Page_91thm.jpg
979b115ef953bd8d5b662cc65852f30a
780e84c9999673210563dd8742d23db0c36dda14
7308 F20101129_AAAAZB purkerson_c_Page_90thm.jpg
775bc757bde60b14ca2ffac22c939988
bf54e0a10fbd90ba138a570f9c79d4fa2d72d661
33477 F20101129_AAAAYN purkerson_c_Page_82.QC.jpg
74b7d87b50973074840d32361642dc0e
466d4cefb7246eef285678a17e35c279dec8acc8
7056 F20101129_AAAAXZ purkerson_c_Page_73thm.jpg
66918910516300824db2e63f1d988b08
d9b5f1300d5359d15f16c75010afbb35543041ff
28050 F20101129_AAAABG purkerson_c_Page_88.jpg
b56cea61e6c943cd54377aebd2a8a44a
59a6b9b5d3f2ec9395ca98b239d9a51217382cff
93848 F20101129_AAAAAR purkerson_c_Page_89.jpg
fd82ca6bfdd8ab4ea21dd2d5d3a56b13
e6951dd4920821653c3cb9bbd3ee63a22620e46a
25734 F20101129_AAAAZC purkerson_c_Page_91.QC.jpg
667864e6323dbbdfc777222b94580976
cd69ead8185ec6d2356658e4aa1943cc1d980089
8383 F20101129_AAAAYO purkerson_c_Page_82thm.jpg
0592b51547923786cb8d2f7a2f25678e
b21df57a28f0640b604b9b76762e73197348de35
25932 F20101129_AAAABH purkerson_c_Page_73.QC.jpg
14626d4abaa86db439ea8ad506517006
9f5fed710cba453e738e71ed81547fc55b689a2b
147216 F20101129_AAAAAS purkerson_c_Page_60.jp2
ca9b7f2bbb0c924d6792c67d3fedd0f0
4766b204c7efa3551533cf1b7d49626e196a592e
5311 F20101129_AAAAZD purkerson_c_Page_92thm.jpg
3117bc1bb4c44e79ef65556d2a68d1da
ff2dfda307973e097f5136097b4ce32a540ba9de
29951 F20101129_AAAAYP purkerson_c_Page_83.QC.jpg
c1acd513c8baf0afe1321327a5ef7923
0d2755dabaeae05fdc3ffcce88c4f4f53be2989c
2121 F20101129_AAAABI purkerson_c_Page_28.txt
aadc30a1df8a090aa3ce96cbeb495eee
7964caa63a3e74eadc9de9f397746d58e148b01c
73868 F20101129_AAAAAT purkerson_c_Page_75.jpg
69aa511fbc1806d8500fc48d46c71879
1974be5ba8c7fd6275a1ab05738cedad1d5e26f6
7521 F20101129_AAAAYQ purkerson_c_Page_83thm.jpg
5121d8557e962b0a56adc1738cfc49f8
c91a5201834872228a8cd2b760d72e94971c861c
1051973 F20101129_AAAABJ purkerson_c_Page_48.jp2
724347dfc6def2a2ef9fc91750d5eac6
ed9c63a8027f84c17a831def58aef026bfa93c47
2012 F20101129_AAAAAU purkerson_c_Page_09.txt
b9e5f4d0b44b4572070a9eea20c60cf5
e6a8a97f8e5cab45b45f29738e2ed683b6331d0b
4628 F20101129_AAAAZE purkerson_c_Page_93thm.jpg
adcd33f829fc6361c58f36b2d3f99d61
714ad7fbad18d5bccde28c71d89c0373ce765197
7539 F20101129_AAAABK purkerson_c_Page_89thm.jpg
663d7bbfcf2b08d84c7537e7e91d7f35
6bae28c03a6e7149bfe41fecf24985aee6f18fd1
25271604 F20101129_AAAAAV purkerson_c_Page_81.tif
5096531e1cf2cf460710c6f7bf4e7852
7549b2edf4beb9438586921ac9f3d76eb0696fe4
109627 F20101129_AAAAZF UFE0021079_00001.mets FULL
be7dc13cfdf6ece5d095f4ec0f24c30b
85d072a15cedb8c124ab9faa874a29754924b3b8
25365 F20101129_AAAAYR purkerson_c_Page_84.QC.jpg
49481349b4a9fbccbfa754dc7f35b0b3
6c4de6d0840e51e2611358ddf7b37d9ed5654a92
53278 F20101129_AAAABL purkerson_c_Page_56.pro
4e73967f5275a8336a315b9c8c21011e
f5661371f61e1a517f1ccc4b9f705f1c6bbb4c9f
59052 F20101129_AAAAAW purkerson_c_Page_71.jpg
189795a5d4c4027b24e8f2c71b11e426
c672bd43d7eedbb5055924c4f2cd2c237503bcfd
7121 F20101129_AAAAYS purkerson_c_Page_84thm.jpg
fc5699d42fc81da45ceee51d2e7fc03b
6dc50220e89b89fd28e6f7fc03b49107be34b472
84076 F20101129_AAAACA purkerson_c_Page_58.jpg
fb4bd7761654e603d0d287191d60fbd6
c4b8e5e43f2ef11bca77bb6b405c97465f69fd79
F20101129_AAAAAX purkerson_c_Page_01.tif
9a7ab55643fce4511baf3537b1c7dbc6
a3695588899bdcb6b6e9885c282cbdfa0ca93832
15571 F20101129_AAAAYT purkerson_c_Page_85.QC.jpg
3738c65436886066cb1ff2855ec6c95d
6d588bb96644e4c450f18abe2ae8a0536fc7e627
50004 F20101129_AAAACB purkerson_c_Page_68.pro
432156721c7f6cf0cc77b04147b942d3
96b6e67d5d66372e58fdac1261ed0113111f5d97
8140 F20101129_AAAABM purkerson_c_Page_88.QC.jpg
5ce6f3129d108e6393b2fd0b7d574701
efb2e7a6dd87d556af5cef78c3921dc72e55cf8e
23093 F20101129_AAAAAY purkerson_c_Page_03.jp2
2b9556ad438f557a0c7723a4580775ed
b705a18c31e2460872693a80f6b615e0091640c9
4187 F20101129_AAAAYU purkerson_c_Page_85thm.jpg
fad94df2f58225495be53d00148f279c
2e7c0c0bbb86d7d6c9b4526633a58318b44a4288
1051981 F20101129_AAAACC purkerson_c_Page_74.jp2
e65386ab214529e358c6ebe9025024c9
efb448b314ab2ad341b6ae0469a128a95d783448
80823 F20101129_AAAABN purkerson_c_Page_73.jpg
36de6c5757aabfd34c5f636be9d6891b
db35605cae2f3127bd9db4313b931499f414be5e
83169 F20101129_AAAAAZ purkerson_c_Page_62.jpg
3b92781a767aee4b4c362337db276686
9c090d5a7d5e87ad73c79758ef2d95728ffd282b
16402 F20101129_AAAAYV purkerson_c_Page_86.QC.jpg
ea15ceec89004d70d47ce36eedefee8a
027ffde108be019064287329386a478a04becfed
15623 F20101129_AAAACD purkerson_c_Page_08.jpg
2cab1abf1a12c6d823e14fe8f7790e7f
5a5355b8964fa8f2e12f55a53292db2fa3996ecf
51949 F20101129_AAAABO purkerson_c_Page_37.pro
227c38f9a7e226f86b91d73d27e9dada
5ec36a40350dde69516df3fc1ad4de8933f63b7c
4415 F20101129_AAAAYW purkerson_c_Page_86thm.jpg
541aa74f3096db04da12d0fc8dc436d1
94e3fda3d09262f4079734d6e1e4fdad38f4cbe2
27622 F20101129_AAAABP purkerson_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
06047d40047d9c4f9a8277e33276c017
2613c34f946ee3df19f705c83387cde0c704f7cd
4601 F20101129_AAAAYX purkerson_c_Page_87thm.jpg
51b39e82f74932d97bb46cbbbf3f3949
44c43b716580bca3eed2b539dbb06c4aaa606baa
200 F20101129_AAAACE purkerson_c_Page_08.txt
129c00842b9ab4f22b7b31b9fce990b5
a1b458e89c33d3b9dbce1cc82ae5a16cf018ad8b
88218 F20101129_AAAABQ purkerson_c_Page_19.jpg
86b7460ca30dd7f4766b3a1e0fc880b5
1d7d911b295144c48f76a91fd52520b7f15d1a72
2369 F20101129_AAAAYY purkerson_c_Page_88thm.jpg
852619eb64d75740879fdfe063d725a8
233d4b3d99038c47bd75b229e1240e83433906ff
60914 F20101129_AAAACF purkerson_c_Page_86.jpg
75b0528406075d26d48bc7157919dac8
8bfa5465cd247aed6a4d61977c206f0629aad8b8
52106 F20101129_AAAABR purkerson_c_Page_31.pro
7a4a52e45612e0afc945f5f2c26723b9
1eeac23762f4dcfbf287f30b2de5eaff0ece6cc5
26427 F20101129_AAAAYZ purkerson_c_Page_89.QC.jpg
4592344be7671cf29ed1e1eeced9cf48
07f1a96f8b5e8964559873d9a8cfe7f6076d97de
2166 F20101129_AAAACG purkerson_c_Page_63.txt
722e20904de9eba0404d704f033aa48d
f2ead464ae7dfa6f6b558892a653a01d780c8edb
13716 F20101129_AAAABS purkerson_c_Page_04.pro
3bba18ce1a8737c7d6e2c00261426d50
3face23a281f3c099bc16bae96e870ecbe2e0ab7
F20101129_AAAACH purkerson_c_Page_89.tif
9a0074d5bb686dec1cbaa0e8e788c9c9
8b33c67627c12cb2b904616c7a9f36e0ef5fd515
2211 F20101129_AAAABT purkerson_c_Page_19.txt
e37fc92cda0443937fba252fba0336b3
c93a7881f5ede52f42009123573dcd2019630416
10068 F20101129_AAAACI purkerson_c_Page_02.jpg
cc3e4bbb0493f1f8020492abb201deb9
e39c50ef30da3a5d85b3c313a12677267732d9d2
F20101129_AAAABU purkerson_c_Page_04.tif
dbcfb9bca395a562e253065f6d882d0d
562ab9b82cf7412673691344f22061fd553017ad
3016 F20101129_AAAACJ purkerson_c_Page_83.txt
57184ceded6815648c1b5cadc18f2b39
624eb3ac5201078d68c9ec408fd59f6411a3d62f
12921 F20101129_AAAABV purkerson_c_Page_13.pro
15c1a461070ba0c3638dd0208e3cced9
f6cbc1c004463478182984bc7e50fef60ab9bb59
26752 F20101129_AAAACK purkerson_c_Page_43.QC.jpg
f039483f5887df8f198e53c3e870d80b
2c79fe0bc46eb626851aab16add51357bc98efc0
3070 F20101129_AAAABW purkerson_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
3d099c5e90d18f8defcce9482a2ce035
47347fc927f6e52ec3ee3ab3b4a7ba27d19fb5a7
904735 F20101129_AAAACL purkerson_c_Page_40.jp2
743a247446af4e62b368b9393d1433a2
dbf12db948ec059652d24427a06ddb04d694c549
10677 F20101129_AAAABX purkerson_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
adc721035ea0ff711bc6e6cc8eb41757
de97b11bc1b98e0698ca6f7c766d589fe7d20aec
18075 F20101129_AAAADA purkerson_c_Page_52.QC.jpg
14c8c224ab63f3abf300003dcbd6cba7
5420633a924e816522e2537eef10ae931b69887c
52990 F20101129_AAAACM purkerson_c_Page_64.pro
5d54fad8defcf4201fd9042c8fa9f8be
877794f2e9ebb8170e27fd7b193421dcde43aead
89066 F20101129_AAAABY purkerson_c_Page_44.jpg
845ab408a6427cd1e0102429f2038bad
db1b77fc327b945690bca4203bbc5ebdc49a7cf4
7237 F20101129_AAAADB purkerson_c_Page_45thm.jpg
e943b08b754fd49a93223bf861355454
53c5be887cff168e46353d1eaa263426f94709b6
1649 F20101129_AAAABZ purkerson_c_Page_92.txt
063c5262cbe1244d239dbcca3fffb469
f4aaeab1b1e4161253c6145963daee3ac93045cd
56233 F20101129_AAAADC purkerson_c_Page_90.pro
6969e0959bc42479ab8902b2d3bd9fac
43b45051741ec0f6fefa2a78153ffd541540cf8e
50105 F20101129_AAAACN purkerson_c_Page_72.pro
b040c30c8670712757e289caa199bdd1
5897fd98a79b0aa3c9bafbc407f993c8154aa43e
42637 F20101129_AAAADD purkerson_c_Page_10.pro
45411efbe625426590393192bf123511
1cd17627706181b2a773f9775daa1585ad5fe380
1051980 F20101129_AAAACO purkerson_c_Page_58.jp2
7096420522dd54107c42ed6ff218e432
a7de7a8294855e94a1b1adc6934e589a6d1c3a4e
85478 F20101129_AAAADE purkerson_c_Page_69.jpg
3b70fa0a0a7adac3eb9bca0988703134
9a46aa043281cafb1409e1642061fbff4cb2242e
27076 F20101129_AAAACP purkerson_c_Page_57.QC.jpg
8fe5b2fcccc044928d4b81e61010f7ee
6116138cd71ac39be8f7e8fb76288c5766e312a4
19609 F20101129_AAAADF purkerson_c_Page_92.QC.jpg
2cbb5916a73d30e5052d75e70f7a0dd9
dd795db45679431504c7e338d91c7af011106ea0
1051968 F20101129_AAAACQ purkerson_c_Page_22.jp2
de55e9bc97f983ef6de09a92efe0fb71
7e151ab2c745f598e7cf902ebbce11d2e68d238f
77249 F20101129_AAAADG purkerson_c_Page_09.jpg
6bb5b3b2aa3414934bed6a7f88bfca56
e91d582a16b4f5600863c6ebd01c1b5f911051ff
F20101129_AAAACR purkerson_c_Page_40.tif
8e647ee0d8dde434bb493a4e48908c46
e660951b09e06b14cd4861ee82b0a2ed9ed194a6
85409 F20101129_AAAADH purkerson_c_Page_80.pro
85e954c179ff7acf414559748aaadd5e
d5f4d88a7c16c0a3cdbc67720f31edb15da9fc79
52361 F20101129_AAAACS purkerson_c_Page_32.pro
7207e325132868ffb5bda0e438b7dc9b
7bc1afb374678bbacc0c7f83a8dcf6022397556a
1051969 F20101129_AAAADI purkerson_c_Page_84.jp2
6711707c5df997ba88f0d5b9fb981f1a
981cb0780ba4f84fa1e9ba03a5c605eead4e0b26
17014 F20101129_AAAACT purkerson_c_Page_87.QC.jpg
36fe63171847be3375926cf570c48801
9a229691cae77484746aeeeb2928a2d69bd43369
27095 F20101129_AAAADJ purkerson_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
8e6aa3e80bd170bf33507e803f0676eb
1c8342a8443ef8ec6d21c14ac46172d3b1e2c335
1051907 F20101129_AAAACU purkerson_c_Page_89.jp2
b9686c7133a6364b7e7d6969f28d699f
6908ff2c04ae1754f42e16a66e5898392680f95a
95734 F20101129_AAAADK purkerson_c_Page_84.jpg
312205c5c001c15200dc89bc285d9089
183e75c41cb6c5e6c727c930b4058234d26b8509
F20101129_AAAACV purkerson_c_Page_78.txt
4ef667112c790e37a7ec7d9974bf6770
e1fd997a435ead1195d54181aac2454216878aa2
6142 F20101129_AAAADL purkerson_c_Page_74thm.jpg
e0b81090e486bfcca609a202c1e4c496
b91959fe305c5770cf83ad84b4856fb5faa6b13c
F20101129_AAAACW purkerson_c_Page_52.tif
d5692d26aa94a9d2b92dc3931e2402da
a7ec05fc4c501e8c5932bd5b0e925873d61a8306
26467 F20101129_AAAAEA purkerson_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
96e710b3bf845818fe12fb77ca700e6b
63d9ac21cba5e85c952a6545b0ccf39accef6990
34678 F20101129_AAAADM purkerson_c_Page_71.pro
d9d60a6ac3c94cd4e1d7e0c36070da63
6d6b0fc8da8cb65ab267b7af40be88a4becb35c9
32548 F20101129_AAAACX purkerson_c_Page_87.pro
931df7f9a20dea1af14abd90b4082283
7e86fd30c6bbb4ea2a16edd5800449fc1284763e
1051933 F20101129_AAAAEB purkerson_c_Page_12.jp2
f352d6e308284ba9b1c6a7ad6524d2ce
72f84ad9ce79d9a6d88fe1baf28f384d9ad1060c
7372 F20101129_AAAADN purkerson_c_Page_28thm.jpg
feed8185491df11676d1c0c525343f88
88ca1ee0c59c946846d04e2ad9dc1dc8ee01b2be
26132 F20101129_AAAACY purkerson_c_Page_72.QC.jpg
689c43d72d53abab78e20c3056d314f6
645e62abba2a8116a87db131d3cb77c2740e0055
F20101129_AAAAEC purkerson_c_Page_33.tif
9f438b724d77791a44664a160913c83d
2b5c3567507338780c21600be4fd7f7650659b48
26513 F20101129_AAAACZ purkerson_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
fa6b7d630a576c76f512b8b617c5d733
aa5f63adf4ab80977a9703152ef4278a0f1adc97
7175 F20101129_AAAAED purkerson_c_Page_39thm.jpg
2e269a88144f526989bc7012b6e7985d
73d906b23b04b9b39bbf2621662e067dddc33e88
2103 F20101129_AAAADO purkerson_c_Page_37.txt
0752a5f91b9a7b8dd16103987ac26c6a
624b0c52dd213ba8f8584db488100671d310bfeb
2086 F20101129_AAAAEE purkerson_c_Page_27.txt
60c2a7f439f6c3d9a4bcab60be87bfda
d58c26589a2bebf322bae478bc07e358597f8634
27205 F20101129_AAAADP purkerson_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
fcf49feeb403285e14f013d7c3941bb0
d7e205fc127cae128858fe381a345d22acd078e1
1895 F20101129_AAAAEF purkerson_c_Page_18.txt
1cf5dd9b24f6e704ce29edd35173f975
518d221f78e70c0d808b9686ab3edfdec6eeb487
44951 F20101129_AAAADQ purkerson_c_Page_07.pro
1e6e046476655282fce7d3091d27eb29
06b01962a52405bfb2c8361f4c60d6dcda51b7f9
26703 F20101129_AAAAEG purkerson_c_Page_49.QC.jpg
f839725e6280fecfbd34193dd46d97a8
dded4a1ab879ea760b3292b8f7182f1a877a16eb
5502 F20101129_AAAADR purkerson_c_Page_05thm.jpg
412936e8854109041ce9ea3931c2669d
08194ae701362ed326e61bec7073e24506e18bb3
50278 F20101129_AAAAEH purkerson_c_Page_93.jpg
57c0e7408d6acd79d4973467ec07b23e
6f5b8d323782be91bb59cac0ea2ba59e3c9adac5
1051896 F20101129_AAAADS purkerson_c_Page_17.jp2
4e60a6e1c3e74e479cff4c860326ad18
30c04bb189e83c18438b8a1f67b30d1157b2f56b
51764 F20101129_AAAAEI purkerson_c_Page_62.pro
febe5da804b3f634a64c897d1f65be7d
7c92cd2fdfd98122c209175e5f7533f7376754b6
27179 F20101129_AAAADT purkerson_c_Page_56.QC.jpg
44b26ca216ef4c0f78da36c36ce50f7e
c393531dd7e564233e15b38eee663ee816640b35
F20101129_AAAAEJ purkerson_c_Page_53.tif
ff7b4dd9a53ee2e1fcf166cc5b6b3642
96e456f12635ce9d34c37afd922c1d4e6f94f548
81293 F20101129_AAAADU purkerson_c_Page_66.jpg
24c66b065175791ab1b27d1211a64932
3dc134bd67aa5af9b2f21d9adfaa93778556dd75
7415 F20101129_AAAAEK purkerson_c_Page_16thm.jpg
aca24785eed67e39e2477e0e50124cb8
4b37e09793cc1148df12819938d3d1d8d26aad5d
5593 F20101129_AAAADV purkerson_c_Page_06thm.jpg
87a9a105af4ff178a494d7bc20be85a0
7c042448d5996ff0dbef9893d2d08178d4e05722
76831 F20101129_AAAAEL purkerson_c_Page_47.jpg
d8f504f081d24ebeec61b25c569833fb
ced40900cc956eef3bfeda14106d22bf4c66d2c2
1051918 F20101129_AAAADW purkerson_c_Page_55.jp2
224a1f6532f85382017768f8bfc14e54
8d08719125d765d1715c2cc10b9d6f5af2ae314c
2165 F20101129_AAAAEM purkerson_c_Page_50.txt
65e27717bbab8c6bc838915915751f8b
5b4998513eca3f9ca660a6099a5d3fcdd87b0091
1051960 F20101129_AAAADX purkerson_c_Page_79.jp2
bfb896e26a4f93f1943b5add83346459
b22ea6e0e24da58ce5eaead00865173addd18e74
507 F20101129_AAAAFA purkerson_c_Page_01.txt
5234627d5933d2a1ba60f33261f95479
d4dbd8655180283b23b4687a7cce1777ff16996f
47948 F20101129_AAAAEN purkerson_c_Page_09.pro
451357015e43e97e197f7003b975b81d
31718beac382159ca3a69a17586e7c4d2b8e4ff9
3222 F20101129_AAAADY purkerson_c_Page_06.txt
6c62e23e3ed9350252bc9237033caf12
53e55f13b3f7d62c27a49ca75c6a87cbe9330757
15552 F20101129_AAAAFB purkerson_c_Page_93.QC.jpg
b3ad05bc421404082b246d8abd59b4d2
8423bf024d46f919a8d2444d4a27b6ea4019c94f
79803 F20101129_AAAAEO purkerson_c_Page_15.jpg
1729040edd6bf18235e8c6ad6e998dd8
fc43f4a5cca4d3c47f2879305cd7be51176fd107
F20101129_AAAADZ purkerson_c_Page_92.tif
6a86ad72446061c0c5ff9f77945a2855
dfec366ad355a2338cdca4e7ad5923b3949c3e40
2432 F20101129_AAAAFC purkerson_c_Page_01thm.jpg
946e6130c5196660682e5629c27dd613
b85aec2645429cc9e120d9420fc01a02ca219e49
55117 F20101129_AAAAFD purkerson_c_Page_50.pro
ddbb516b771b68881c145f51c58d982e
aa451c20e284305370105a4f4496f0491f918bb3
89606 F20101129_AAAAEP purkerson_c_Page_70.jpg
58ed1db76c7815c877e2bc5dbef66d39
b847fe392d81cf871999d2d9e9a64acf1591a4be
52454 F20101129_AAAAFE purkerson_c_Page_16.pro
65777f58938260058dad96a7bcbf959f
4e231bc10a4b0d0720a1d5eb90921a23e370efa6
51980 F20101129_AAAAEQ purkerson_c_Page_58.pro
682c13b22695b0cb23e5ed50a4377e94
d319c657fc493195f4c10c403218fbc8e4ac4bfb
6345 F20101129_AAAAFF purkerson_c_Page_07thm.jpg
c7be5f9ce3ccde176f60c70d5e9aca8f
2ed29f40e3fc45bb0e38a6ba6ca59488532e3646
7113 F20101129_AAAAER purkerson_c_Page_41thm.jpg
a51c39af5540cecc63ad00a5d3688184
a27c89d4651ba111daa13f6887a150331379925f
56004 F20101129_AAAAFG purkerson_c_Page_85.jpg
f048e90cccbee314b8fbfd89fb9b603e
195d05cf993bcec5a12b8615d5258650731e647b
44941 F20101129_AAAAES purkerson_c_Page_42.pro
3935810775eff9a67b26d6b7ce50ea5f
07b1f39c5adeebc111d3ded92f1d7bcba8dae8b7
F20101129_AAAAFH purkerson_c_Page_29.jp2
d4bfb6fa1e6b75ea98bf807decf3ce8f
085a2f5ce051819d25a000b80f23cab260602388
5884 F20101129_AAAAET purkerson_c_Page_60.QC.jpg
5e2648f0764012af5009c2ca10b26e2d
09a854201f6cc834f9b942bc19b17a1c6cb7def6
F20101129_AAAAFI purkerson_c_Page_23.tif
09636440f8903e8046b0729b556c7ae3
10a1d06559b280a27b37d94fece7cee29ea7bb20
1051967 F20101129_AAAAEU purkerson_c_Page_45.jp2
109b65869cf3d2fb824a0b0d61479a48
5bfeee5d9d037d57cad84703597d3eacab01e416
52306 F20101129_AAAAFJ purkerson_c_Page_14.pro
2d963161b5ef5a9f2c83080d992bcc0f
4564c5c0956178a3b9c25581415403a25cea52bd
7220 F20101129_AAAAEV purkerson_c_Page_21thm.jpg
9b97a1f44642d543d0899da96cd283c9
cb12b6fb49ec1a030ce897c53d423bc269e09e95
791275 F20101129_AAAAFK purkerson_c_Page_87.jp2
763ea7f888d8efd1eba214f2cac6fe0d
34a9f877ed750a9158cf0d1c97d7506f519953a3
28793 F20101129_AAAAEW purkerson_c_Page_44.QC.jpg
86d0d3a89a5975a501a6af4eb8ca886e
7d5409d100ef075f06255169146cc800d924db7f
67668 F20101129_AAAAFL purkerson_c_Page_92.jpg
5da175ca5a43d009154c59318e200302
aeff992be9b9fc129675d45409add0a23e74eb11
86149 F20101129_AAAAEX purkerson_c_Page_22.jpg
f50069475377f962b8a94f48e293ec87
8ddfd2bd283bbdcb3930d1b03356353245e9d6d0
129278 F20101129_AAAAGA purkerson_c_Page_80.jpg
bac9eb5f81ae7da4af166bf7146331a8
080b374a9d0c2267a81f56d732b2af33f40e6bea
8428 F20101129_AAAAFM purkerson_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
e8c6a9ce14a8e2ab52fc2fc043f455fa
4b3aeb113cf9e6804e7c35e90cf9842889df0125
257 F20101129_AAAAEY purkerson_c_Page_60.txt
f25215022d6f0d677ac374e983fa2abe
d3834d256b2f7bf944762eb30d081abaf2a2217f
F20101129_AAAAGB purkerson_c_Page_44.jp2
69d1a061fb2dc908ebb3358eb176e681
3cf1149e5ded3d703df79557ab6af5b8aafa3c7d
51388 F20101129_AAAAFN purkerson_c_Page_73.pro
f12c5bb8f3d7234c74a3313a566838d1
8e9201dfae13de7a61f2878e098bf5adef072759
F20101129_AAAAEZ purkerson_c_Page_66.tif
d7f0dcf6c019f230d6af5551d4e1cd7d
a698c979305be87a32e960308a48c334d5ae773e
F20101129_AAAAGC purkerson_c_Page_16.tif
e55d66494416f7a474ac68380f8d7d29
36dbca682038cdfe46ea4b4ff8ea5422231ca183
F20101129_AAAAFO purkerson_c_Page_14.txt
117c480f8c6c1d3fe671a95161dde836
2b6a949b8aa10c18e117de868fe7eb2177e7181f
47917 F20101129_AAAAGD purkerson_c_Page_53.pro
b3a45de16dd65a6fb5df2a46cca85d2a
eeee21d32507b11d498eab8962e6851518a7e967
1737 F20101129_AAAAFP purkerson_c_Page_40.txt
43248d2672d3dd98df3da17334191bdd
6e951d65e5ddcaa64951b7cd54553b88807f8ba6
1051963 F20101129_AAAAGE purkerson_c_Page_30.jp2
f3903251a6ead79a485a6a0e4458b3a6
7d2aab63267e9ed7c7a0c0f26cc65d3bc7821f41
479 F20101129_AAAAGF purkerson_c_Page_36.txt
a7982074e3aaa6922776b178eaeab8b0
db8379e76dc03b44929d53ed9d2de547fb9f7921
20887 F20101129_AAAAFQ purkerson_c_Page_75.QC.jpg
2e6b0d6f44c9c15cb2637f904fbb3866
6211b53f177a0f789454f0e7cd190e7855b58ebe
F20101129_AAAAGG purkerson_c_Page_86.tif
33c26c92741463554a1bd9d7ca7ed60c
f0f5aacb8f8c4ed447956093d59e750dae1f0cad
22943 F20101129_AAAAFR purkerson_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
0197991693835e55b0f38f0b90c65d29
4fa4a5e73da13aabbe27a195e75db4a900aa9e4e
9034 F20101129_AAAAGH purkerson_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
107da0601051a0101834e05f2ce4d936
a0ba0da8ea6b4283cebf048aad3f488df66d6905
F20101129_AAAAFS purkerson_c_Page_63.tif
13842d40e1fa558abf4ab06b5b919e66
f2fdee59fe80eae9fdbf7ad782c9ebc8473b299b
51874 F20101129_AAAAGI purkerson_c_Page_34.pro
8fb7e493ec7df3b53a09b2b6be4b1562
a08e8cc6008e5f7952326af84f6bc00bcee866db
86286 F20101129_AAAAFT purkerson_c_Page_64.jpg
ce67a9e6492ba2ab51bc95502c961543
d72d7ce8621ee9569af51bb67262474d8d0fbf2e
F20101129_AAAAGJ purkerson_c_Page_80.jp2
d3ea770fc7554ec0aa4829339fd3ebc4
fa2f8086756d51b407e56e865c5402c011f7b804
F20101129_AAAAFU purkerson_c_Page_11.jp2
c4b8b62cc0b63c37c6381509990781b9
8017eafc0598b7dcd982cf90aa8b8332781ba7d3
6461 F20101129_AAAAGK purkerson_c_Page_76thm.jpg
9e5b464d12ac44cbe196e45f1c9e6877
242dad2f173fa6c8903b1709f28ad96418da024f
1051971 F20101129_AAAAFV purkerson_c_Page_06.jp2
088f79a5eed6b086e813feef4a513430
5312a74eca32d1f5a6633011ad0a62964c17ed54
84834 F20101129_AAAAGL purkerson_c_Page_54.jpg
793b1e29150e42058bd9fb3eabc47171
d3adc6a4253bc8b517b1457f54c357fa52d9eccb
F20101129_AAAAFW purkerson_c_Page_65.tif
b958522b019b6be9f1598292ad1a5170
b30ea0a33145c1099bbe4f85cac4b2d6015aeeb1
53662 F20101129_AAAAHA purkerson_c_Page_57.pro
7b15c6a2bdb55bcb61398c58ac231cd4
cbaf7dfabdaa04f50167aa23d6a50be8e470e9fc
F20101129_AAAAGM purkerson_c_Page_60thm.jpg
eca857366af4c936673c68fd161b397a
b082854e2ac52f2236fea0a9c91edfa6a8c831da
2069 F20101129_AAAAFX purkerson_c_Page_29.txt
5d145c00a0326d73ec738a5a3a3d7225
9561b7595971c09934e28b9d0994ca1de3a7c87c
1051983 F20101129_AAAAGN purkerson_c_Page_32.jp2
58a64180aa3e19142585b1fd62eb04e8
1b529272c0eb3c1f73cd4f88fd7c89ab6e84e611
2308 F20101129_AAAAFY purkerson_c_Page_91.txt
9e2b5ce02fc1898fa6c26c3b65f99cec
baae04e4b7d4e026af74e080d38051d83fc5fd36
F20101129_AAAAHB purkerson_c_Page_03thm.jpg
0f4eb47b54097ce5baedef5f48ee784c
b4ac4fe8e8954b38a2ac920d390a6ae057376077
1841 F20101129_AAAAGO purkerson_c_Page_75.txt
4a857f4685fc729576b8ad8dbc2e92b1
a5ac8088096d28daf27475cce527bdeac86e7c9b
135714 F20101129_AAAAFZ purkerson_c_Page_81.jpg
155927b9a0927b31f17b95a17ec270c5
9c69c3c204c4329fc0c21db230c08a73293c6eb5
F20101129_AAAAHC purkerson_c_Page_51thm.jpg
8aa480febca41649538be31fe485bfad
d8fa370afec1b4094d4583a78ef62b66af702e82
6896 F20101129_AAAAGP purkerson_c_Page_53thm.jpg
5f9ec741ae8d759741c11fd7657ed917
dea1f845c18d3f5aeddf34f2c69c1f985a63d665
53922 F20101129_AAAAHD purkerson_c_Page_59.pro
5b592b98b5c804bb0eaa8335a9aa8770
ff2380fef8d00fa68e45d89f812a070c7b9d5fcb
3299 F20101129_AAAAGQ purkerson_c_Page_80.txt
febea3e6facc0ed0979a26ee11842d4d
1c1c50dce471d815d313077b7ce7b7e10e4c0adf
F20101129_AAAAHE purkerson_c_Page_54.tif
77277388c198eb125d1a53ea26c64801
53a1972982dcb4fe4ab49f48ea5e906f902a992b
F20101129_AAAAHF purkerson_c_Page_93.tif
dd1d397c5a31937f2376d23a4de99935
9e04860f6b09ba76c5a256f4dcb5e0b7162fda65
28870 F20101129_AAAAGR purkerson_c_Page_01.jpg
01fa4a960693b932856e592aa42d48b5
40e6ece4645ce2448a5050f2cddf089c40eed850
25239 F20101129_AAAAHG purkerson_c_Page_51.QC.jpg
2b6477375a8102d878fb07282f7ec23a
320f81f824c019ecf95225feb65e156c59044e66
F20101129_AAAAGS purkerson_c_Page_50.jp2
0d5acaa90908d620e3b21bde2ffaace6
fada4e322c45dcd9a3baf7c5ab61ae86ae0cb08c
1051949 F20101129_AAAAHH purkerson_c_Page_73.jp2
ad4dc82a51c67253dc15047854d7d00d
c78202f34502332839d1be7102cd2ae4f814a448
24261 F20101129_AAAAGT purkerson_c_Page_47.QC.jpg
62f1bb629dc6f4a2f1b9fc971331d5e5
2c3ff1433a92991d14e81845d831897a28f2f63e
84867 F20101129_AAAAHI purkerson_c_Page_30.jpg
0741cceb66b78ae2a24123eaa301c3dc
8043feb18ff31fb0844321698377b525f10e41c8
2089 F20101129_AAAAGU purkerson_c_Page_31.txt
a809d7c22adbcf484fa7f6e0a1a8b706
2cb401a649147928b2a54c20c3e7f775b7637d51
F20101129_AAAAHJ purkerson_c_Page_70.tif
d524104b52da2d8a266924f9f0459bf9
0b5fe09dc343532b67981b3d17d583c373582e25
17698 F20101129_AAAAGV purkerson_c_Page_23.pro
2d7541bdc86ccb34f0dbfcab6d601cb1
b1f5bc889d7def00db540c4a407a45fc2a96d698
F20101129_AAAAHK purkerson_c_Page_29.tif
fb0d9b6bbc64960730b2e6fa0742a90d
4955f28684bb4ee34aada56d4f06a745e1946dab
92 F20101129_AAAAGW purkerson_c_Page_02.txt
8b27a00b33e7f6a007f63e2726586717
af30d8ba33cd861dc6a67d39b0941fb71fa39b5f
76651 F20101129_AAAAHL purkerson_c_Page_18.jpg
9a25d727deae07eb96fcd0a4f410a588
e0f2db33bbf22d063242ac4b099d673a6ea3b48f
F20101129_AAAAGX purkerson_c_Page_43.tif
b226faecaf5a434ad22dbadfd04e65f1
e5bfacaf225368c24488c8802b059201452e7a5a
70291 F20101129_AAAAIA purkerson_c_Page_10.jpg
1f20a9cac58490f0fdf0712298b6582c
59afb3fe6d8904cda45d6f26b628575080fe77d1
1051951 F20101129_AAAAHM purkerson_c_Page_67.jp2
447c55b4da90545c7a2e4d4d5f86b0ac
0bc745bab520f96bc1d43ab3707bf59e60f1e03d
1051919 F20101129_AAAAGY purkerson_c_Page_14.jp2
f1dd749615e0f07f9291569b78b1b076
d88b46d1ee1b37f2602341291e68526dc2f7cdac
79923 F20101129_AAAAIB purkerson_c_Page_11.jpg
52b43a0703a35c620e17ed19cdf3afca
634966404fdb3644ca6f5a4b76c7ca3f480313a6
27216 F20101129_AAAAHN purkerson_c_Page_48.QC.jpg
eb53ecba3e34869835d191e9bd2f8797
2856a1d3e2440989fd8c887b97bfff8d2bb4dac8
96202 F20101129_AAAAGZ purkerson_c_Page_05.pro
0fbbb6ac26fe1743a2eece41b0632187
0f37d3bc659d5315b735c058dc94e32ad664e933
26643 F20101129_AAAAIC purkerson_c_Page_13.jpg
ca5c6eb1fa2ba7e208bcdff4483e9842
ede44f59baa084579878cb8ded34e8b259c418de
27601 F20101129_AAAAHO purkerson_c_Page_50.QC.jpg
1a6e7a6a7353e5194db4a46e4855c59f
8d8dd5d3e75719e250b2353d784f1e19591fd32b
84469 F20101129_AAAAID purkerson_c_Page_14.jpg
6c90e7f20b8a087df3baa1b8d2681a44
f040af27f028975168cc20881f2c159c7fc27b85
26438 F20101129_AAAAHP purkerson_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
e1ff5c5facc909ba0066422fb2367fa0
fbc549c0eec11413843bd05bf53a08af575ee04c
82219 F20101129_AAAAIE purkerson_c_Page_16.jpg
3021cd55276b70dceb76bfde453553d5
ab701defa403f0cd70e2fff6427bd86bb20761ca
F20101129_AAAAHQ purkerson_c_Page_45.tif
74e95d2f64f1e1566cfbc1a9c890c33e
71881f6214a1a644b7815bb282ec8843bacad86c
81938 F20101129_AAAAIF purkerson_c_Page_17.jpg
d6e64645066df7491533450c4387189b
987dce3031c9e554cc27875c8c11ce6618fc4c44
84980 F20101129_AAAAHR purkerson_c_Page_82.pro
000b4a7dc710b6e719222d6fa9fe5f9f
bac3228357982e5e1d61b861800a77fea449a6b3
84603 F20101129_AAAAIG purkerson_c_Page_20.jpg
b10a7a753ad1680baabc59f2e5f0a1a4
618d77abde8881f3a75f68b63f87b51f481a8504
34113 F20101129_AAAAIH purkerson_c_Page_23.jpg
d76dc0a6b38c2af17f27db5e3295ccc3
956b9e25c5593d5dc2a1f530500882a08c08c1f6
142032 F20101129_AAAAHS UFE0021079_00001.xml
319bb945640b51d2fe5bc69441728124
86a768d32e02dbe1feea465c32b148fce4ddb83c
85849 F20101129_AAAAII purkerson_c_Page_24.jpg
bd284e3cd6a4fe66c3de49212b6e6129
e86fd30175c4f201db51e123345bdeac2f91c06c
87185 F20101129_AAAAIJ purkerson_c_Page_25.jpg
cb62736339d7964218ec99d9cccda220
e61c5713b63b2d067c5935925d86b9ce4967a152
88285 F20101129_AAAAIK purkerson_c_Page_26.jpg
2ddd7efad12cd96cef1e08d1c2c9d2c2
6c3045802bde9627aefc60700af2fb929ef5787f
9955 F20101129_AAAAHV purkerson_c_Page_03.jpg
42605cf8ebe98c8c2194030cee4ec506
6d27f8aae3fd6288fcc35185825c4784ba92be81
83965 F20101129_AAAAIL purkerson_c_Page_29.jpg
5844c75fbcd2902423f6a912ea6abd7b
58459737f25068742ed76adfeb14a42096aa9f39
28690 F20101129_AAAAHW purkerson_c_Page_04.jpg
6da1816c10b4c5b17f8e75166d58bcbb
e39bbe2327300b225087a083071006f9124881b5
83831 F20101129_AAAAJA purkerson_c_Page_49.jpg
7d08c85d5caae0662ca81fad08a3584b
b67f4eb7ec1f767873b6977f1259a0dd421699b4
82326 F20101129_AAAAIM purkerson_c_Page_31.jpg
c1051c5248767b0a3d5cf10ab0e9f0f4
ae8caab4cb638d70f0dcf69f87d02999b539ce16
79974 F20101129_AAAAHX purkerson_c_Page_05.jpg
e8f5a01f275d781681d8ab7a3d44cb11
efe32965cbcd1f71eca0edf20f4f371a823cc8e0
85237 F20101129_AAAAJB purkerson_c_Page_50.jpg
75c69bae6edd5582362b1139e1f598d4
951ffe1c6ff51a8840cb52a9dabc71b57f3561cc
80254 F20101129_AAAAIN purkerson_c_Page_33.jpg
9c80abcc3d41cc15c80ad1cf962bb4f7
65eea0ef1e3eb1e2c44a88d4741cf908465e8e3b
81539 F20101129_AAAAHY purkerson_c_Page_06.jpg
c33388ac656e4f5d35be313d94ce7ad1
8543d40764f44d2c9e9b63a1ddf682440e5227be
81159 F20101129_AAAAJC purkerson_c_Page_51.jpg
c438fd7ae180cdebd69e51b1e61fe0f0
b013a214f943fda5a025f3248ab4fef54684617a
79845 F20101129_AAAAIO purkerson_c_Page_35.jpg
114ae1b24d4c41582bd045f25679dc2b
d03ae3757b110c3b13bece07b79cac70ff9251bb
75711 F20101129_AAAAHZ purkerson_c_Page_07.jpg
ddeab05bb2bb3438331975101efa6264
b6396b2de47fc62a9eb898698af41a93777ccc73
56678 F20101129_AAAAJD purkerson_c_Page_52.jpg
c3eb66ff6fd07781bfd7299b70a95def
50e29fd92315d82a65b7340236bec6d12609bf8d
26001 F20101129_AAAAIP purkerson_c_Page_36.jpg
1e0d34bf863f621a4715b4d1d3c5dd95
7f3e566fc14d58a21c3c051cc10662bf97d18423
77660 F20101129_AAAAJE purkerson_c_Page_53.jpg
d57f722d2a534977da5a1f2daacca912
ce3e90962dd696edae185ee0d7307047bc1867b5
84274 F20101129_AAAAIQ purkerson_c_Page_37.jpg
9e11f1d209ddafb8dd07b566ae4103f3
1f2a557f1c24b3bd1c8f7a13e351ff5abf1ba4b8
86275 F20101129_AAAAJF purkerson_c_Page_55.jpg
aabb1d2118bd0601d3818d6fb261809d
7d087b24946b1fe9061cbb0531962170706c927a
82228 F20101129_AAAAIR purkerson_c_Page_38.jpg
fd3e5ee834c0d2eeffbcad4082f319ec
2a64a185b2c4cadb0f31c6e360cd7a8c2596f01f
84874 F20101129_AAAAJG purkerson_c_Page_57.jpg
05e7eadb550c0a6ad22fca8214519880
e790122e7a318dab8881c224ceb29ce6f2ded669
83313 F20101129_AAAAIS purkerson_c_Page_39.jpg
bd4cac5d95840fdbf6a92fb2e9168e5f
06e940e468985f5f555c9599d93df05043592461
87394 F20101129_AAAAJH purkerson_c_Page_59.jpg
25bfbfe2d1eadc203f3bee7a167c1635
807793f02853f50e2805695265c4adf55890576e
17402 F20101129_AAAAJI purkerson_c_Page_60.jpg
89e92de47540276619b7426208d78046
57731ce69e19fa0607cc4f4ff0b58e67a51e8405
64208 F20101129_AAAAIT purkerson_c_Page_40.jpg
f70609d3e885c36082c08a1065887dd1
8e08745b11a0e2f65022039e19b7362d20358a27
83868 F20101129_AAAAJJ purkerson_c_Page_61.jpg
1f1404c215f29223a43e12bd05669903
68559b3e8d8a0a4d9fb4934d8c13bbfdb0443574
79617 F20101129_AAAAIU purkerson_c_Page_41.jpg
6e0ae3f960a1c4ce44c11f0a409fdb9e
d1aceac2696803fb50322a029363259376fa7c1b
87899 F20101129_AAAAJK purkerson_c_Page_63.jpg
e1faf7cae9e56c363ffd0ca2e8fb8c96
f9ac5991a46e17b7879ab9356bdfa4602158b540
72433 F20101129_AAAAIV purkerson_c_Page_42.jpg
7f46174e0ee6d440d22c4db638fc546e
c107e401bd41d48def0e0b2f5ab86c26fad1db9d
77695 F20101129_AAAAJL purkerson_c_Page_65.jpg
e4fd0b4307f59adf92c7e3975a36ac57
66de32f66d363acb0d31df0a0db338a0396acfe7
84577 F20101129_AAAAIW purkerson_c_Page_43.jpg
58cd3d26f0d690d78b0a3fb5c06b2d69
2367106a503614c7148c5cce7b878218c3b08c27
81110 F20101129_AAAAJM purkerson_c_Page_67.jpg
af472e272b2956b84ace86437626287a
5cbf71003cf247a118e76373ea203641fd44cbda
80599 F20101129_AAAAIX purkerson_c_Page_45.jpg
3d1a43850f242f34d1f3cffc5a81164d
16367ec036650f86c7587540bd3f433fd7f8d782
24996 F20101129_AAAAKA purkerson_c_Page_02.jp2
4b527690bbc222d34368a468899c70f8
c948de937150ec4400b18304396f49d8b63be74c
84330 F20101129_AAAAJN purkerson_c_Page_68.jpg
eb8d359c69838496a5d1d6c0751639a2
b11c357d0ab54516fd652f1a84ae139eb5464a2b
84959 F20101129_AAAAIY purkerson_c_Page_46.jpg
c3022a0d7830fad201fa7c23c537d16d
955d8a848d9d7eeafe32e3b5685ec09281a7a5dd
319743 F20101129_AAAAKB purkerson_c_Page_04.jp2
054a5a59004490901fc78a0d6806b5c2
43e2243e89c273a99e19bc90e9670c78c37dd4a4
81965 F20101129_AAAAJO purkerson_c_Page_72.jpg
39784528e64f072fad3f4c03ed078f9c
708ff4086af7d83f1011d2dee8a0e914144ec081
87513 F20101129_AAAAIZ purkerson_c_Page_48.jpg
7bb22a5184b440994fa1a27334d535c9
a8aaaf8e249a5c4482b071ce966ac62787540d79
1051986 F20101129_AAAAKC purkerson_c_Page_05.jp2
1bc4cf8698562b1ea2f1eca029b07891
902cc3638834b7d53d14dbd384140b5d8b0ac7d7
79427 F20101129_AAAAJP purkerson_c_Page_74.jpg
e4995ca65f89b20af8e414d6fa2224c2
b41018fa6ed4a9c400c93557219d719f2e9690b6
1030683 F20101129_AAAAKD purkerson_c_Page_07.jp2
ca3e2b1d8b997d5899d0af56258ba594
d8dbc2818699cc4e92ed0e487cde77082952b2d3
87837 F20101129_AAAAJQ purkerson_c_Page_76.jpg
1ce5bd1d2ba704d75c4d1c3e0b6e1329
cd1d79942cf638ca51f66b63aa59b818b87f89d1
118269 F20101129_AAAAKE purkerson_c_Page_08.jp2
084bde3057d1cb86b4e483260a8d8b8d
8a54501f8cd241a9befc9e753c4d0e284d2e6b35
79109 F20101129_AAAAJR purkerson_c_Page_77.jpg
ac3b5d0122afec215584a1a394a1f6af
cda82bd64073ac3446ab6ac7657993786ed8b613
F20101129_AAAAKF purkerson_c_Page_09.jp2
19540d0b6ac331b4ece3b42ab1d6e1cc
311feb6e8b84a101420d9ecd02781013e776efb9
56245 F20101129_AAAAJS purkerson_c_Page_78.jpg
55aab28d9a0f5421d4438a9b12168cc0
e2a6be98b4f6721dc37f01b181d4ba16b5a0b25d
966470 F20101129_AAAAKG purkerson_c_Page_10.jp2
cb2be6f6198605bbfe992453034c7472
9aeb1cf4d90f4aea4b3153b11ed473661ec259bd
106725 F20101129_AAAAJT purkerson_c_Page_79.jpg
5c27f2a6a4581da633bf952f7c5fd1db
2fbd16432655c51b6c4869ef873fd448ca9392ec
291232 F20101129_AAAAKH purkerson_c_Page_13.jp2
3a1851c227e7e4c466e46462551096fd
5497add218bae54b997ee7d1620bf193ef1bdf7b
1051944 F20101129_AAAAKI purkerson_c_Page_15.jp2
0bc12ea008e51f607238986090c65c04
c8f587f037eab872117d8d6eca6ad742621d5746
128201 F20101129_AAAAJU purkerson_c_Page_82.jpg
1075a5afdbf140cc0fa8674643a2524f
08acc1e77be98926e69189ac39bfde6f8883017a
1051957 F20101129_AAAAKJ purkerson_c_Page_16.jp2
07bf590d65379607f72d44173230e451
5053c38084cae1e944a703ddefa2dee4b8ae8010
116805 F20101129_AAAAJV purkerson_c_Page_83.jpg
6b80153d71ae99231e80e04c6d1715b0
1f5d1d0ebd97ebb424405eb968f18f09744a33d6
1051954 F20101129_AAAAKK purkerson_c_Page_18.jp2
2ef0e17e4662b32e4fd10ed588d6fefb
cd616f289ab58aa137c1e7bb2ce577a93f80e1b1
61293 F20101129_AAAAJW purkerson_c_Page_87.jpg
9efaa6f302e934fb131756773aff79aa
fae045ac30e660e415d1f17a13b7d9dd58ce0580
1051974 F20101129_AAAAKL purkerson_c_Page_19.jp2
c373e08b671c3589a975a954f13a936d
ce896222a5ac44dccd9083e43a75eb37e710a7aa
89418 F20101129_AAAAJX purkerson_c_Page_90.jpg
c43ace9bf7a0eb3ca5846fd88ff2a727
4353cb5a5c9ca517288031257f50686a5f014070
1051975 F20101129_AAAALA purkerson_c_Page_39.jp2
be2469e82b86e0a6776114a5a6e97ff7
358b68c9b119daeb135a6a16e3eeb1085e25edfb
1051984 F20101129_AAAAKM purkerson_c_Page_20.jp2
fc9f410a592cb668ee11b23eb6543bbd
1715a471f6ce4bd061f5a394ef239d6642376a39
91266 F20101129_AAAAJY purkerson_c_Page_91.jpg
5f967da04a9f6604d9e0219e08ad2509
4c660a054cdf4d2d154501305146951fa92461c4
1051947 F20101129_AAAALB purkerson_c_Page_41.jp2
950be5c4d07448fbdfbf6d59e31e2a34
c25e3512275f37cb611b8cf7432cdf80b6aeb289
F20101129_AAAAKN purkerson_c_Page_21.jp2
d688eec09185873910d3a0775a67a0e8
3d249cab01ceafb39e97612b37324e5ae17b29a6
993218 F20101129_AAAALC purkerson_c_Page_42.jp2
76081efcf2f31291bc0da30a178efb07
c0eecd6e68b8e8c8eb2bdf1d5d7119ceab2209fe
F20101129_AAAAKO purkerson_c_Page_24.jp2
9ccb3af5702c2120c38c7deab9d3d37d
b2401f9b1ce54b7146c934c98f803961603986c4
278197 F20101129_AAAAJZ purkerson_c_Page_01.jp2
4775b00797e64c826758eabcd15ddf3f
0a87efff14dd63a905d5929a828191c4b17fe0e5
1051966 F20101129_AAAALD purkerson_c_Page_43.jp2
e72739c089a1c8760c04c7113f4359e1
87ae1cdce92b63eb7ea49410cc0bbcf0f61935da
1051952 F20101129_AAAAKP purkerson_c_Page_25.jp2
62e1cc7d95297c33453ba145176b0370
c63851a7b33596e05a711d2c8196f121321d3348
F20101129_AAAALE purkerson_c_Page_46.jp2
9c991509685809ab2f68644a0a187c70
64a58116142d5bb5c04800e5acde9110397f621a
1051926 F20101129_AAAAKQ purkerson_c_Page_26.jp2
2e1b56f38dab0494316d0cf5340cba88
9eae785519aa441c186095320b89485883c2cca5
F20101129_AAAALF purkerson_c_Page_47.jp2
d7ddcdf0131da12c60148bf019f4513b
4deb239a650f0a2c50d0ea28a8936f19ddbe7d84
1051977 F20101129_AAAAKR purkerson_c_Page_27.jp2
1c4cf5548b610e5f4e64c7c73c0cc372
ed9062116a6e7709009f1d6217cf297ae6065435
1051929 F20101129_AAAALG purkerson_c_Page_49.jp2
e07a365b64414140d7f6d49bebe0c305
adfb71d0870040f5cf82dbe8167cf70f17399e29
F20101129_AAAAKS purkerson_c_Page_28.jp2
e82341d38eaadee53476083c41b70a0a
a72faa71c203376b777a2eed1b07fb2cdaa7a6c7
F20101129_AAAALH purkerson_c_Page_51.jp2
2206b799f6054002ff95a353605c3cd9
5688f48ef3d37e185a0e1609f8e056e41caa9e4c
F20101129_AAAAKT purkerson_c_Page_31.jp2
d94a37cf7281a004cc0f37401b910822
d8f6c45cc43b00319de29cd0afdaf94da920b700
765328 F20101129_AAAALI purkerson_c_Page_52.jp2
7da2b7a282a55ffd5433e5cc474679b3
4fdb35983573bbe97b2965c891e76c6230a93e10
1051955 F20101129_AAAAKU purkerson_c_Page_33.jp2
b9f2d43fa3aa82e1418b476794063cb8
b30a65ca80a7742fccb89cc5336647a106f743c1
1051956 F20101129_AAAALJ purkerson_c_Page_53.jp2
6ae02a21e8d0de25a44a9fc85b1ce6d8
04b67e0aea9a069cbc57d99cdb944780e84c1761
F20101129_AAAALK purkerson_c_Page_54.jp2
f83fd14f5ad971459d13794931d594c6
9c894aebb3a1c258ee546b3c60516e7b4f46e66b
1051959 F20101129_AAAAKV purkerson_c_Page_34.jp2
56b118f4050e36a62d4201ca52f718a1
8ab5c5f7616baa6efe409cef89fb29383716af5d
1051962 F20101129_AAAALL purkerson_c_Page_56.jp2
582649ba0f40f8fdae8d438c152fc5f2
23a38354c4dfecef7b79b0ee90843e9600fd857e
F20101129_AAAAKW purkerson_c_Page_35.jp2
2ea7f68b1c1c626926667f43463ac8ed
bc70db12decc831420010654da90aad5987cb1ab
1051946 F20101129_AAAALM purkerson_c_Page_59.jp2
51284dc6791a403a024f48b26c06adb3
1edb34cfae61587c32cd2edff749d59b36766ad3
281290 F20101129_AAAAKX purkerson_c_Page_36.jp2
b24583fbb3fcd52098d637b0941edd31
8f35f070a6d96f0d5f6ee1764c1eb31bd7698551
746398 F20101129_AAAAMA purkerson_c_Page_78.jp2
6f590917b5952112628a2d238dd3c07c
c6a5540e275342cc619e263dd0aa87c2eba76cd0
1051978 F20101129_AAAALN purkerson_c_Page_61.jp2
5eac6984693a5cc8416a7b655ad36ae0
302fa5b0bc7fc868f516a695dd89c2b512b48534
1051964 F20101129_AAAAKY purkerson_c_Page_37.jp2
e251020d1d439d5cbc9a95e05fc64dd2
935bd96b189834a054b944273d8da73c914d0b3d
1051979 F20101129_AAAAMB purkerson_c_Page_81.jp2
93116732b8a4f0cc0f25dfb3d6c4b7b8
f4bc796f4d66e5062583a26cea6c7a17348054d9
F20101129_AAAALO purkerson_c_Page_62.jp2
1005f7c09e2d12804bd1882784253c71
ed4f07b68186bfa03ade6b98442ea5ff15327b5c
F20101129_AAAAKZ purkerson_c_Page_38.jp2
13b1c2b0da3f9c0aeef6a2e334292aeb
3ccf8cf06fb566a35d973411e843234943512750
F20101129_AAAAMC purkerson_c_Page_82.jp2
08a238c2771c5f45795923785b0b0a55
507539042d1f05bb3dc23242e8caf9a8f7ae1347
1051953 F20101129_AAAALP purkerson_c_Page_63.jp2
7b36f26305d7a5c1bd336820e0761bb6
abff3aa2c9cd3710e1b0297fb995ec01f07eec19
F20101129_AAAAMD purkerson_c_Page_83.jp2
45437c813c0158060745a252a5223c56
a47fbd6a7d87cab3a3a958c500502cfb83f764ea
F20101129_AAAALQ purkerson_c_Page_64.jp2
ae7f4d150adc7a161f43f4e13cda6a07
c879e9a2eda0829a4bf60a5778a7130e54c58054
709611 F20101129_AAAAME purkerson_c_Page_85.jp2
c821fc6a8a90a1df559d273c931c960c
02c8ce5a542918fcd779ac7dbc702db944e788a2
F20101129_AAAALR purkerson_c_Page_65.jp2
5b2f034e97bb8a3d9200f6e86204b476
485e25b9e7831db16b0d60da6a83443b39006b89
776105 F20101129_AAAAMF purkerson_c_Page_86.jp2
94793b1300b2cafc1b1f33857e6fbfa2
4ec250105d09f44a893331ab134f31b63d003cc0
F20101129_AAAALS purkerson_c_Page_66.jp2
06f19fbc6b46f2d823b22ab9385e469a
aef4f1b0a0cbc2443aedd4cb66563f7afdc932b8
F20101129_AAAAMG purkerson_c_Page_90.jp2
af48ddbe7ca38b8aefd1a311318724bb
fe00bc5ac34832ba81f4685f6628cfa0649a3dcc
F20101129_AAAALT purkerson_c_Page_68.jp2
105cb33bcbe22c8470c3ae63ed74c353
ceeb969f8df2569d160719c0202256aefa91f43f
1051873 F20101129_AAAAMH purkerson_c_Page_91.jp2
b363d4c5eb102595c2f89b27ce27d866
17531b42ca4ea8b7c05d69dd39d466a5e7f87ef9
F20101129_AAAALU purkerson_c_Page_69.jp2
e59fac676840671904022d7ead1e80a7
fea904721e4efb5c5a57cd9feb16f855f7f8b98e
954561 F20101129_AAAAMI purkerson_c_Page_92.jp2
44059517203467e08b9ed3e6314617b7
1b27d4ff39caba62caa9e8f180782e866ee7cff3
F20101129_AAAALV purkerson_c_Page_70.jp2
d39eb685ae9c3db7bb6b25b854c3a969
dded4828d9e377707a61de20bc684a6f693e44db
655345 F20101129_AAAAMJ purkerson_c_Page_93.jp2
b981cdadfd0db0e908b74af8cc6d756e
35990666bcad72c1152d92f4f7a56541203f54a2
F20101129_AAAAMK purkerson_c_Page_02.tif
5d9b7a4cf89a329e10d5e55a3dafd2e8
a4d8593a142da7abb7f6ecfe622686adec18b9db
1051881 F20101129_AAAALW purkerson_c_Page_72.jp2
2833a1b4da36bf23e52c8dd9b9d62377
e62dfae112e1d68539a539acda6488ff02377cbb
F20101129_AAAAML purkerson_c_Page_03.tif
42f077af6ab9c47e5f0eeb69cd7341e1
9cc85a006c3d150e9d76f16542549f0ee3c69ece
1011441 F20101129_AAAALX purkerson_c_Page_75.jp2
b1d5d12433f454fef1dfa770fc34174c
17e73017e8e136cd26e65b2bbe52319330426110
F20101129_AAAANA purkerson_c_Page_20.tif
838b9f9b3b4c71ba08a862cb7fbc27f5
631f1bada241bf2ae3871229a7e999a3731e698e
F20101129_AAAAMM purkerson_c_Page_05.tif
b4f7cf60e54bad28c1a6fa069cb03ede
f061c8c8cf9768b0558a3474b2f7ade0452bef56
F20101129_AAAALY purkerson_c_Page_76.jp2
df5cdefd97d0da26d711c75791924347
caebab15b67ea4ccc4c3fd5354aea7c7e4a52aa6
F20101129_AAAANB purkerson_c_Page_21.tif
29046d7804484897afe57bb9d5b54214
eddd09aeaa21cfa215ef589ad9e291589ff8f36c
F20101129_AAAAMN purkerson_c_Page_06.tif
eabf47010031e544186ab3b496307afa
2607d487876c1c114654df99e636377053347257
1051934 F20101129_AAAALZ purkerson_c_Page_77.jp2
d098174b13e7cf2e504aedfa6e65bb5c
ff47fbcf2220057e941eeb0d1b1334df6ab10662
F20101129_AAAANC purkerson_c_Page_22.tif
6e92ee12006ed324e5e35eb986f3cba1
8e7e650f4aea535320dfd07c98cfa8f3ba1bfd89
F20101129_AAAAMO purkerson_c_Page_07.tif
493626ff4eed2ce56edea52e244b956b
8247f4d0bc7ff87cb387946b5311e0c23a608deb
F20101129_AAAAND purkerson_c_Page_24.tif
6ef7e1118e0445177e51bcef1b306422
a1cfffad66c422e299758d010c8a598a01405d5a
F20101129_AAAAMP purkerson_c_Page_08.tif
9374efb71ce20d4d62517eab3710e70c
e0d62a89f290109701c975c553f055f84b860e35
F20101129_AAAANE purkerson_c_Page_25.tif
b8be403a1a0a4351eaf0281ebad05b11
99b733dd322002f0968c46ffd839ad75e8d83cd9
F20101129_AAAAMQ purkerson_c_Page_09.tif
42d86c8fa9d029de72c77dfca009e4ba
bdf9235ede7a158f05dfff3b08c1e7ae787ba958
F20101129_AAAANF purkerson_c_Page_26.tif
819ddc78b033055b71cc08d5fbb36d79
232949a05678bd12fb3f377e181450850d57a557
F20101129_AAAAMR purkerson_c_Page_10.tif
e39efd8d8dba28fa0b179b89128399fa
cb0ecff74208665872cf1913a64ce4c930cd9139
F20101129_AAAANG purkerson_c_Page_27.tif
051040ffbc9d47fd6a8beac1d60ec4f5
13571d5a2a8e95bb998330a0844680fae540d2a6
F20101129_AAAAMS purkerson_c_Page_11.tif
cddbf5fb912aabfe6184fb2bd343312c
8795031bac1fc9cf518eb295b88738ec064517e4
F20101129_AAAANH purkerson_c_Page_28.tif
a58ee9e21e232f4e300d6df358ca5360
82d649e257fb8f706d0cf3e2a77886064ae2d58e
F20101129_AAAAMT purkerson_c_Page_12.tif
5012fc58510f40ea8ed94e42aac7a990
6b2e463a0a5bd1eea0df569c8281c49b75a14640
F20101129_AAAANI purkerson_c_Page_30.tif
713abed344521e111df13aeb730468b4
1b7b72f6cf080f754bd449ce0035d883500d7f74
F20101129_AAAAMU purkerson_c_Page_13.tif
a50b4afeb80b620a3d1e9651ddd7afd4
ad932526a8f3348b9ec5f152620813d35c96216d
F20101129_AAAANJ purkerson_c_Page_31.tif
693ba5d8e3c1836115ddfbd3758d5095
4a2b9a45627b36c565169e2f999d94ab521d0dd6
F20101129_AAAAMV purkerson_c_Page_14.tif
f8dc7d9295fbd2fbb27272e7cde7dbaf
97cc3f3fe21179967d2f2c8e7699d2bb7dff0a08
F20101129_AAAANK purkerson_c_Page_32.tif
ba06f3e0531a7998063044d345ea2bbe
b0f12768121d640d08c8405e051b12c48cfa2b55
F20101129_AAAAMW purkerson_c_Page_15.tif
adfd1c5ea71ad3061d5016a346f9993d
ee30b6e173c771fd673d78467cb0c83387735bb8
F20101129_AAAANL purkerson_c_Page_34.tif
97d3db00be04977b29dc7afa399362de
559b0fe35076cc375defc8c4f9528a877e7296df
F20101129_AAAAOA purkerson_c_Page_55.tif
7e16f42059c698a11a943dda5e9a22d2
dde7f9ec6b54d1a8493b0c51ba85adb51b94f30a
F20101129_AAAANM purkerson_c_Page_35.tif
fe7524459b13207da12ecf64075414fe
a153b7c091f81a68d1196e7f6fa253b4428bcc4c
F20101129_AAAAMX purkerson_c_Page_17.tif
a75d35ff2e6573540da8fdb92ebd75c3
0e59fe3119601b1d2a0e912c6627924a06c6ab01
F20101129_AAAAOB purkerson_c_Page_56.tif
17613b7fe6ddf37ed75db1c14506a9e3
010f2df20ef5a04c6fb734f102c222c3144fa5f4
F20101129_AAAANN purkerson_c_Page_36.tif
97f85e3254b351388c335ceeb66df72c
50e0c81037a22002434ce36039515e2f94bf6026
F20101129_AAAAMY purkerson_c_Page_18.tif
41f703638df932cf90594725e618189a
1a793999a19f256903c22a79927dd52cfe1418c4
F20101129_AAAAOC purkerson_c_Page_57.tif
2a9591046ffc70ee633082062e5bbb77
fa34841e1b1936b76f749d83f674bf165d6d10f7
F20101129_AAAANO purkerson_c_Page_37.tif
c12e2557e059e929cd5b0c0f5f40a955
b9ea0711f7024d7deabf94bdca2b5866ab3c15c5
F20101129_AAAAMZ purkerson_c_Page_19.tif
5106eaee2f9ad1fcb89b4126054ee6da
6cdfd6276d4905b8b859a0c32267872e55edaf62
F20101129_AAAAOD purkerson_c_Page_58.tif
ca448c9cecdda9d3e4fe8e6ffbeb8d54
128439e14d378045598f356a6c7428feca964fe2
F20101129_AAAANP purkerson_c_Page_38.tif
50c17105cd249ecef970acec29330986
2b0babf4d810bfc1a7c4f8781cec42162fe98bdc
F20101129_AAAAOE purkerson_c_Page_59.tif
6dde8ae883a31e02490d2daf548f9c31
bf02f41a16e34722b7c0d38a0161589b1a209b3a
F20101129_AAAANQ purkerson_c_Page_39.tif
5ea0fc8d8a3cb37144f7d0fa32c457be
61e9a7b4b4e012f0e0169a85aa2a2f32701f2ee7
F20101129_AAAAOF purkerson_c_Page_60.tif
55bb5119254e0dd0343eff93ce180e6e
1724505325fa4e02bb5ff5c33c4aaa46b0a8c0aa
F20101129_AAAANR purkerson_c_Page_41.tif
4aa8c5dc716263ab3d5eec7788c872f9
d3793df43a39673d5595f2754c36addcd82e44c3
F20101129_AAAAOG purkerson_c_Page_61.tif
236a84f1053d3a5b2b404bdeb23911f9
a5d15e0b07595feb396fd13d4f0f5e3cbf81e92a
F20101129_AAAANS purkerson_c_Page_42.tif
c4e72571a5744ea23a5f449b13a01a22
eb4b512a709dac38cad8c94004c3f106cfb6c666
F20101129_AAAAOH purkerson_c_Page_62.tif
455e715d74fb40da3279a7a72cc80e6c
7bd9e564fbb9c2a4b6cf3a3c14ed0e88f724c4b8
F20101129_AAAANT purkerson_c_Page_44.tif
cafbfa0c09782bf7cbcdc994152fbcdc
f0358a2c3f7aa8fd56e6e65977db29919fbfb09c
F20101129_AAAAOI purkerson_c_Page_64.tif
79fe4eadde2ac420f8303d93ce362b63
cfecdc5777fc7924b8f9521382ea7aee1dbacf68
F20101129_AAAANU purkerson_c_Page_46.tif
82cff1c9022704b0a127dd9ce4e587b7
0ceb8aacbffe19f966aed5d88bad86b454f0bdcb
F20101129_AAAAOJ purkerson_c_Page_67.tif
2a7258b09ca891288dee1033e2324b93
e1908ee4664b6dbe705bd3d68f14505a87eda5ca
F20101129_AAAANV purkerson_c_Page_47.tif
d6ff21519fac53ae99c6e93ad1ac44f0
4a407f39073a1d8b8717e382af4929989e1924e3
F20101129_AAAAOK purkerson_c_Page_68.tif
6a72bb153be7e25d6da087e8d7721402
0e19473284b93df837768f20dc14aff6337d276f
F20101129_AAAANW purkerson_c_Page_48.tif
97c9f6c3f003148e4879d48c759ca64c
5140489f35928d2eaa7a1800bb531b673efa6bb2
F20101129_AAAAOL purkerson_c_Page_69.tif
2ca68f9bf74c3eeda7b5b6f07af01b7e
285757ff5c1f0362237e916ceb49cabd51df94db
F20101129_AAAANX purkerson_c_Page_49.tif
a698c1efca396edf0af5787fb5199c20
0bd942a12948a0ab09d5e15d3c393e7cd804c52b
F20101129_AAAAOM purkerson_c_Page_71.tif
e1cc2a3d8b65d9c8614f46fff80b4858
e527c0506061e27099f8b33258c07c0b9573a021
F20101129_AAAAPA purkerson_c_Page_87.tif
87c0a16d25a428fc48f99633b2e6f29a
3167eab24cfe2d1b63d6e9b8c857e245efff4348
F20101129_AAAAON purkerson_c_Page_72.tif
57911023d6f4237260c0b28f8e7c9092
b3cc82af885aa17f6c106efa45d2abc82e683171
F20101129_AAAANY purkerson_c_Page_50.tif
826e5540b86f6122dfb40a31b7be27a0
d96b22ac50ab90069c66b66be26cd83fae2cb1f4
F20101129_AAAAPB purkerson_c_Page_88.tif
93178a6acd7d026d3f42d21bbcde1d50
41111278f91e2861e1db80a68849e6fe2314a73a
F20101129_AAAAOO purkerson_c_Page_73.tif
e356c7fed058f8f545741a2ac6ca4482
4e6dddc2a46c38c703971883863089eef4537d7d
F20101129_AAAANZ purkerson_c_Page_51.tif
fca3306fe3acddd6d5438f46cdc77721
167a20776b1a933e2ff6b22462a9bb40ecf8425c
F20101129_AAAAPC purkerson_c_Page_90.tif
ebd54f2f70448d4e606db69d1c93058d
2c6af5f1d420d14d4770453ee55692b4f29beabe
F20101129_AAAAOP purkerson_c_Page_74.tif
714b3e6b7663d684207c3af8560a490e
73e39178e477e6eb154f245b3bc338e3d886e9ce
F20101129_AAAAPD purkerson_c_Page_91.tif
7bd2d44ebe2097c6d67f6eafb2cf4719
6f84dcf3c67c72afdeb0e7403da45869ba88593c
F20101129_AAAAOQ purkerson_c_Page_75.tif
ebafd4b378b2a4ea4e8fabe0c0a4904b
e30bd91378665ce0fdf243c4daec3754f3629e7e
9043 F20101129_AAAAPE purkerson_c_Page_01.pro
6037284023c6bc97fd5f135e7e9f1c44
769063074f335d34339bb9b729aba132f27de26b
F20101129_AAAAOR purkerson_c_Page_76.tif
ad822f44dce01724e8a94abf2abaade7
af1efb863978c325c79a55ea7bdf47bf2ee459ea
888 F20101129_AAAAPF purkerson_c_Page_02.pro
0fc1269e293bd31dd4fc5f8d34ae08ca
01a8b93cfdcd0e2dc64e103e0d258bc4a2d79627
F20101129_AAAAOS purkerson_c_Page_77.tif
2d0344493bdabcaf8956c068eaf2f78d
28cb2311f96d2726dfdbe50d868d7440d7937195
808 F20101129_AAAAPG purkerson_c_Page_03.pro
92b786530c8ca9a363dbdc1e7a60064c
215d5a1d9d3007086728ef7a8b16227655e13428
F20101129_AAAAOT purkerson_c_Page_78.tif
e4ae7b36f3391a9f5955055d3878977e
7dee6738dbe7dfb92cf548345ea47578e8021a81
79469 F20101129_AAAAPH purkerson_c_Page_06.pro
e4a41be1465b339a5c5ef1f3fde0de4a
dd8e0b686f18abaf17f8522cfb684649eee3cac2
F20101129_AAAAOU purkerson_c_Page_79.tif
f36e411a73067a3b5561d7714108c228
d87848114286269b8bd720e337e7bdaaefcbba2b
4983 F20101129_AAAAPI purkerson_c_Page_08.pro
eea999ca57e3b36a92af001141d972a7
57001a252e0b1a94ad02e9b5dfe502cc55a00747
F20101129_AAAAOV purkerson_c_Page_80.tif
6cecd469ad96ee06a3d562c8c2d47b52
2e8016e2a63b3fee9e7f9836c3aec8dbfb86f27b
49971 F20101129_AAAAPJ purkerson_c_Page_11.pro
06369928d886b6b0c2e128c6f03185cc
52ee3c16b3fa0dd9747dd4a0d0ed2d645dd6264c
F20101129_AAAAOW purkerson_c_Page_82.tif
52d0d89bb26b0e0079c320e3ba803cc4
5383196afa25c5e1c7e27ffee0c63ab139ffdf63
52822 F20101129_AAAAPK purkerson_c_Page_12.pro
b0906555ba4c8f9ce42600707ba74850
6449069e0c74ad421d70c09fb1a331a7c8c6f1ee
49738 F20101129_AAAAPL purkerson_c_Page_15.pro
f19c5ea14238e543d33500cadfcc8d8e
d25a8cfec18ce06e6c9dd8099b14d9ba4bff781d
F20101129_AAAAOX purkerson_c_Page_83.tif
456de81bb48aa8b782f6876696253ac0
bb418ef99f481d14c6869217d5326b077bcd10f0
12048 F20101129_AAAAQA purkerson_c_Page_36.pro
72bf7bfa7673fa035d38948ee9fd2302
b51a2b4bd193960914db882c7feb7b491d92de76
51544 F20101129_AAAAPM purkerson_c_Page_17.pro
eff9b2de5798f6876df48580cd650ce2
911d05a886765e8740def344eb06acf3e25f91f7
F20101129_AAAAOY purkerson_c_Page_84.tif
a1fdbc443a953a1b38453a8e9c0a0534
60332fabc493f7e3ed085ffd9dfa356c9b5140c3
51746 F20101129_AAAAQB purkerson_c_Page_38.pro
a1599dcbec1bf99af0eaeb44654488d1
00533bf6f5d04a3ec795927b6b29dcbbfc6cc9b6
47810 F20101129_AAAAPN purkerson_c_Page_18.pro
9821d6c17995361a26d884734e0455be
0ce18ad9502583c68b2adc7bb10a518f238f3185
52172 F20101129_AAAAQC purkerson_c_Page_39.pro
7faf7b809a3f8dcede4785c1a679aef1
2752df189520fc71a16c41c871d70438497e6f26
55577 F20101129_AAAAPO purkerson_c_Page_19.pro
841550c1da706711b0eda0178f8e7792
efb9b970004ae039c729b996677e671c546d3ee7
F20101129_AAAAOZ purkerson_c_Page_85.tif
a5a3e557436c4c8165325c3c68531ad1
fcd5c6308892bf9770ca8eae8bc5cc3cb2516f7b
41409 F20101129_AAAAQD purkerson_c_Page_40.pro
f5920dca4a6df059784ce889d81d3608
6ef0f6c76e4d814b8bb8ec1d457fd0db89dc65e1
53979 F20101129_AAAAPP purkerson_c_Page_20.pro
ede2ff119abf06788e8a00233e5ded0a
21055ea7e0f65e13a6f5ab0d906908ae3fadd727
51445 F20101129_AAAAQE purkerson_c_Page_41.pro
4e9b789fe0f0c14600304ba081735ba0
3013cf621dc3c3b51a654f5f0623cd35ae7015e2
51613 F20101129_AAAAPQ purkerson_c_Page_21.pro
c8e0c84e2ed8271cd5e5b2caa4d99bf5
969266a8e199f3eab646ef6a0d383bd15831dbee
54146 F20101129_AAAAQF purkerson_c_Page_43.pro
7fd37fa3f2270ab12b2924752ee3b229
738cc9960de3450ea4973cc55518c834b3023675
55787 F20101129_AAAAPR purkerson_c_Page_22.pro
19f07fbf6b50a0833b9e0dbabca5e15c
bf315486be4991c6f518a368c905635db89b2724
56580 F20101129_AAAAQG purkerson_c_Page_44.pro
b973467757e329ba47535bfbe66dd401
6e8f96f0b1e39ffffd438a55df71f3e9fc74f4da
52581 F20101129_AAAAPS purkerson_c_Page_24.pro
ef9561af70a9d162eb8f72703e532e8c
4d78e7129f1e517028ca315a91fb2ffaef85bc11
50487 F20101129_AAAAQH purkerson_c_Page_45.pro
4df3ac1c5a98e26ca58f4c28096b4cb7
7ecd42c7c81fcead862778ed22376316ef426734
54684 F20101129_AAAAPT purkerson_c_Page_25.pro
bca3abaf17ce1c6dc7e5a821973b392c
2553077502ab86167ac10103412f59c200379be3
53728 F20101129_AAAAQI purkerson_c_Page_46.pro
6df9df34a01657b9059fbddcee961858
a4f5379eda3470834502902bf3f28b6fd05323fb
54446 F20101129_AAAAPU purkerson_c_Page_26.pro
386880de95b3273983e735c54022b328
74e15969a4b502de03ab1d215d04176435c9989d
48247 F20101129_AAAAQJ purkerson_c_Page_47.pro
aad3316a4347bf5ed20d6c17e890d178
03a960cbe93a8b0a6748e6e68791363b32a6a04a
52889 F20101129_AAAAPV purkerson_c_Page_27.pro
80b5ee3f9c5b356b37ea3fbe3348c52a
6257399742c96a22cc10a7fc7ac74007c03ad94f
56470 F20101129_AAAAQK purkerson_c_Page_48.pro
8c125a96c20561c4e80cb93464f339f7
c478de00b4fd67bd98dc300aec0bbf4366cae9e3
52992 F20101129_AAAAPW purkerson_c_Page_28.pro
e533dea97bf7e9052b49e59703886a1c
ece3959dc4db7768977e886794d619968d44dd3f
53848 F20101129_AAAAQL purkerson_c_Page_49.pro
31ed12d4a11f6af308fc98a9983393b5
ca5acc7959ee3865a9fe2872c8f50ad09c75823c
52387 F20101129_AAAAPX purkerson_c_Page_30.pro
5b902a8edc3f97d2b64f6bfce3b2eb50
1017bfe00ce9ea8938f57344ca5f332bb58e36ad
33909 F20101129_AAAAQM purkerson_c_Page_52.pro
94d074cc25110b9f5c7c3d6ea6bb97d7
d9de5de3936b94d3d3b68bc89e4f24143f6292ea
49302 F20101129_AAAAPY purkerson_c_Page_33.pro
249ae6ac91ff6b9310017bcbbb759c26
429c207542e7ac7c694c626402f6a5b329be4099
34511 F20101129_AAAARA purkerson_c_Page_78.pro
dfe54aceef2567c4bfc2782a0e93067d
90ec565b72ad91e41edeaf2bc3eef1968d8cff66
54658 F20101129_AAAAQN purkerson_c_Page_55.pro
3d2a135f6618a1e79b76c437144fc64a
4af3fcc46d9be1303bd2b35f1d83a88cedbb0c38
48435 F20101129_AAAAPZ purkerson_c_Page_35.pro
26a11ffc5c83189da6968e04dd5cf7fc
5f516815e6556dd218d92f58dbc95e82e45bc910
64943 F20101129_AAAARB purkerson_c_Page_79.pro
2454847f4dfc4342e8e55ad76547b9cd
1600d8615928ca239576577c34dead8a3b9401ef
6402 F20101129_AAAAQO purkerson_c_Page_60.pro
4718b52915a2188b729b1834b8ad6113
ac746c3874b7dd9bfb6c66abb7df8f2bcfcbbc02
86792 F20101129_AAAARC purkerson_c_Page_81.pro
4d6eeb5a01344ea0308225735d44b617
e9a8a5fc3692b94a70b97947c2ed8c2a3d5f24f1
49571 F20101129_AAAAQP purkerson_c_Page_61.pro
c87a1191eab3d7a34e600f82592f7bf1
17ee89a21e5a195e66c86a17bbbfc123a98d654a
74534 F20101129_AAAARD purkerson_c_Page_83.pro
b101a479c0cc86b8aa42b7951ad821d5
c5a49f91d4055b71551f969758d8290c32146a74
53975 F20101129_AAAAQQ purkerson_c_Page_63.pro
9a2b29bf777f70c62c3a33eccf23d7e7
7ef62c034e92618bee5a96b5f2a9b4592a660dae
29369 F20101129_AAAARE purkerson_c_Page_85.pro
d08861fe0b5f0a7139dc8e9cef155e84
d90231c3f34e95b333b07fc7005ac3622edfc47b
47814 F20101129_AAAAQR purkerson_c_Page_65.pro
04177225455875a1e56496d6c11b126f
52b7e569a1ee2e0a22dd2d9289a01d068a7eaf90
32694 F20101129_AAAARF purkerson_c_Page_86.pro
c89a94695b5c7b4e8de8a6711cbd762d
26e69efc63b852fee146b0db782fde130b55af2d
49748 F20101129_AAAAQS purkerson_c_Page_66.pro
6392dc9a722982ded05bd96450d88fca
9a0e9e0c8194caf8863bf0ab9bd25a15ca6f3180
12476 F20101129_AAAARG purkerson_c_Page_88.pro
d667e59140146756756aa521de068294
0c0367089c7cdcdc1f8a228154381dc2518642d0
48426 F20101129_AAAAQT purkerson_c_Page_67.pro
8a89491a72f4d1d17144aa0148d6d451
53df999454a6d6d6ca156040b28c9b39e6ddcc50
58729 F20101129_AAAARH purkerson_c_Page_89.pro
462d5d4a676859793784c2cabcae00e0
d880cdd317167402611527ff8ce34b921169fb53
49792 F20101129_AAAAQU purkerson_c_Page_69.pro
7f88377e46047887688aabbee9c565e8
7a801b523fe7bfcae28c8fed51bf8c4e13c06417
56065 F20101129_AAAARI purkerson_c_Page_91.pro
dd851a37d324a8718efc7e239d56a2f8
8203d1793a02c9f1b054eb74031f40812dd85891
54007 F20101129_AAAAQV purkerson_c_Page_70.pro
911669942fada54085e3332f5b927e61
81d766600be314c1d76c337d4212a02269ab83c1
40031 F20101129_AAAARJ purkerson_c_Page_92.pro
fdb8b26e6676c7afea3575bed3eccc1e
df3129344665a3fc2904b6abcbb094b239fdddbd
49165 F20101129_AAAAQW purkerson_c_Page_74.pro
49ece7db63650d8f8104e2a546ae6fb9
2861007a2388c9889f1d11b6391e4d21e449791f
28850 F20101129_AAAARK purkerson_c_Page_93.pro
49288ddd2ca0153b1ce47114bbf6e0b2
215b5964cbd737591c0303b6f8ea49489a115291
47096 F20101129_AAAAQX purkerson_c_Page_75.pro
d3626fb7d651a0edb17e8ad75081a671
d82167a6dfeaf74e766b76028e6e807d16e55b6a
85 F20101129_AAAARL purkerson_c_Page_03.txt
5f64ca64195d0817fa92792bfe1a5e71
2bfed165da4f692a378cbbd81fec53645de46817
58336 F20101129_AAAAQY purkerson_c_Page_76.pro
7b5d0d9f1863087e170be37e04cf8440
b3fd8d59051634fc94a853d2fd8aedecf656dd51
2154 F20101129_AAAASA purkerson_c_Page_24.txt
cc0d791f221bfbbce4c411f700a1bd04
3632318df5ac8317547c7779c663f14271392b2b
585 F20101129_AAAARM purkerson_c_Page_04.txt
95b22f54ec6e7f84c64f97db2f3ea6b1
64c7dfc25c7f8fe1b4c4a8d30ac116e0fc003abc
52118 F20101129_AAAAQZ purkerson_c_Page_77.pro
4eaad4ec0615dc859ca9a95169dcf706
a73e729d84e48f0795c45313a4c10b952e9cde4b
2151 F20101129_AAAASB purkerson_c_Page_25.txt
5d8e18782f496c8bf9efaad84c5c6af7
94e773a1897ef04d9192b05b1640aaa4e0a7a94b
3949 F20101129_AAAARN purkerson_c_Page_05.txt
97ee2a19086af2ed5d3438f127b38f11
85e94395cc39e2d3844330b3397d4c2c37c40b3d







HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE RECENT PAST: CHALLENGES FACING THE
PRESERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE




















By

CARRIE ANN PURKERSON


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Carrie Purkerson

































To my amazing family









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I thank my husband, Shane, for being incredibly patient with me throughout the

thesis research and writing process. I thank my parents for always supporting me, not matter

what endeavor I choose to undertake. I thank Professor Peter Prugh and Professor Roy Graham,

for fostering my interest in preservation and motivating me throughout my studies at the

University of Florida. I thank Professor Charles Hailey, for taking me in at the last minute and

helping me create this finished thesis.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

ABSTRAC T ........................................................................... 7

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................................................9

Statement of the Problem ................................. .................................... .9
Purpose and Significance of the Study ...........................................................................10

2 R E SE A R C H M E TH O D S ............................................................................ ..................... 11

3 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 14

P reserving the R recent P ast 2 ......................................................................... .......... .......... 14
M odem M ovem ent H eritage........................................................................................17
C onjectures and R efutations............................................................................ ........ 17
Strategies and Policies ................................................ ....... ............... 18
C a se S tu d ie s....................................................18
The Theory and Practice of Impermanence............................................................ .......... 19
H ow Buildings Learn ....................................................... ... ........ .. ....... ...... 20
The Old Way of Seeing ...................... ........................... .......21
F failure of M odern A architecture ................................................................................... ... 2 1
When the Present Becomes the Past and Mid-Century Modernism at Risk...........................22

4 THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE............................ ...............24

M o d em B eg in n in g s ....................................... .............................................. .... ..............2 4
E early E uropean M odernism .......................................................... ................ ....................26
T h e B au h au s ..................................................................................................................... 2 8
E early M odernism in A m erica ....................................................................... ....................29
P o st-W ar M odern ............................................. .............. ..................... 1
M mission 66 ................ .. ...............................................................34
T he D decline of M odernism .............................................................................. ............... 35

5 PROBLEMS WITH MODERN BUILDING ENVELOPES .............................................37

C u rtain W alls ...................................... ................................................... .. 3 8
M o istu re .................. ............................................................ ................4 1
Therm al D iscom fort .................................. .. .......... .. ............41
Excessive M ovem ent .................................................... ........ .. ...... ... 42
Material Failures.......... ........ .......... ... .. ... ... ...................42
M onolithic Structures .................................. .. ... .... ...... .. ............45









Thin-Shell Structures ...................... ........ .......................... ... 45
Concrete .............. ....... ..................................45
S to n e ......... ................................................................................................4 7
B ric k .............. .... ...............................................................4 8
F lat R oofs ......... ......... ... ..... .............................................49
L e C orbusier's V illa Savoye ........................................................................................... 50
Frank Lloyd Wright-Water Everywhere ................................................................51
Im p lic atio n s .........................................................................5 1

6 THE AESTHETICS OF MODERNISM ....................................... ..........................53

Le Corbusier's Workers Housing Project ................................ ............................55
The H historic Preservation M ovem ent .................................................................. 55
Richard Neutra's Cyclorama Building ................................................. 58
Im p licatio n s .........................................................................5 9

7 ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING TO SAVE MODERN ARCHITECTURE ........................61

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) ......................61
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and The
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
P ro p erty (IC C R O M ) ..................................................................................................... 6 3
W orld M onuments Fund (W M F) .............................................................................. 64
Modernism at Risk .......................................................... ........ 65
M odem Buildings on the W M F W watch List......................... ... .......................... ..... .66
Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the
M odem M ovem ent (D O C O M O M O ) ................................................................................. 68
Recent Past Preservation N network (RPPN) .................................................................... 71

8 O B SER V A TIO N S ........................................................................................................72

APPENDIX

A THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS ...............................................74

B M IA M I SU M M A RY REPOR T ................................................................ .....................79

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... .................................. ......... ........................................89

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH .............................................................................................93









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE RECENT PAST: CHALLENGES FACING THE
PRESERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE

By

Carrie Ann Purkerson

August 2007

Chair: Peter Prugh
Cochair: Roy E. Graham
Major: Architecture

Over the past two decades, the recent past has become an increasingly critical topic for

preservationists. As Modern buildings pass the fifty-year mark, or rapidly approach it, differing

views arise about the need to preserve these buildings. Most Modern buildings have been

disliked or misunderstood since the beginning of the Modem Movement, and the surmounting

technical problems faced by these buildings only fuel the conflicting opinions on how to deal

with these aging structures.

My study first looks briefly at the history of Modern architecture to provide a foundation

for the ideas, architects, and buildings behind the movement. Next, the technical issues

encountered in Modern building envelopes are discussed. Then, the negative views of the

aesthetics of Modern design and the presence of aesthetic preferences in decision making are

discussed. Essays, journal articles, and case studies were utilized for information on the

connection between preservation and Modernism. This data helped to define some of the

important challenges of preserving Modern architecture and led to the examination of groups that

promote and protect many of these important historic resources from the recent past. The

observations section of my study addresses the need for educational reform to make









preservationists and the general public aware of the importance of Modernist buildings in our

place in history, and discusses some of the other obstacles faced by Modern buildings.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

In the blink of an eye, the present has become the past. Buildings that were erected in the

lifetime of many Americans are now up for consideration as historic properties. The buildings

themselves do not seem "old" to most people, let alone historic or even significant. Included in

the "old" new buildings of the recent past are works of Modern Movement architecture, a period

of design which lasted roughly from the 1920s to the 1970s.

For the most part, Modem architecture was never fully appreciated or understood. While

some enlightened people may have understood the significance of European-style white-box

Modem structures and the glass-and-steel skyscrapers of the postwar era, even fewer grasped the

importance of Modernist industrial buildings, suburbs, and roadside architecture. How should

we expect these buildings to now be saved if they were never appreciated in the first place?

Aesthetic barriers are a considerable obstacle plaguing architecture from the Modem

Movement, but the short lifespan of most Modern architecture is an even greater challenge for

preservationists. Building materials and construction techniques in Modern design were often

experimental. Designers did not intend for their buildings to last for eternity-an idea that went

hand-in-hand with the dismissal of historical reference from Modern design. While Modernists

certainly did not want their buildings to fail, they were primarily concerned with building

efficiently for the present and often did not take into consideration how well their buildings

would stand up over time. Many Modem structures are now in disrepair due to material or

system failures or blatant neglect. This raises an important issue in the preservation of Modem

architecture: authenticity.









If Modem buildings face detrimental structural and material failures, is it against

preservation values, specifically the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Appendix A), to try

and preserve them? According to the Standards, properties should only be minimally changed or

altered, and the materials and spaces that make the building significant should be left alone.

Many of the experimental techniques and materials used in Modern design are now obsolete,

rendering them irreplaceable. Does substituting a new material for the original mar the

authenticity of the structure, making it undeserving of preservation?

Despite the dilemmas involved in saving the Modern buildings, many preservationists and

organizations are finally beginning to devote time and attention to documenting and preserving

Modern structures. Others still remain ambivalent toward Modern heritage. If Modern

architecture is treated as an impermanent piece of our history, then that is what it will become-

and it will not have the chance to leave a permanent mark on the future (Longstreth "Critique"

2000).

Purpose and Significance of the Study

My study ties together the technological limitations of Modem buildings, the issue of

aesthetics and its relation to preservation, and the organizations that are looking beyond the

challenges of preserving Modern architecture and taking action to save Modem buildings. My

study makes use of journals, books, and the Internet to provide a history of the movement,

discuss the preservation failures and triumphs, and examine some of the future challenges to the

preservation of Modern buildings.









CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODS

The first approach taken for this thesis was to review the existing literature on the Modern

architecture and historic preservation. Since the idea of preserving Modern architecture is a

relatively new concept, the main sources of information regarding Modernism and preservation

are located in journals and publications from conferences. In addition to the fundamental pieces

collected in Preserving the Recent Past 2 and Modern Movement Heritage, journals in the design

field have included articles about the attitudes toward recent past preservation, as well as

technical limitations of Modern buildings, over the past few decades.

For the background of the architectural history featured in this study, books were the

most beneficial source of information. General architectural history books provided a foundation

for the historical summary, while more specified books filled in the gaps, detailing the particulars

of the Modern Movement. These books provided the necessary background information for a

background summary of the people, locations, buildings, and ideas behind the Modern

Movement.

After the Modern Movement was summarized, the problems of Modern buildings were

examined. The technological challenges of preserving Modern buildings are numerous, and

some of the most pertinent issues with curtain walls, monolithic structures, thin-shell structures,

and flat roofs are outlined in this study. The challenges are addressed more specifically through

various case studies on important examples of buildings from the Modern Movement. It is

important to realize the difficulties with Modem buildings in order to address preservation issues

pertaining to them.

Technical issues are not the only barrier for the preservation of Modern buildings.

Cultural aspects and aesthetics also play a vital role in preservation and Modernism. The









Modem Movement was highly misunderstood by the general public. The burgeoning historic

preservation movement in the 1960's itself was in some ways fueled by a distain for the current

architecture of the day. Case studies provide support on how aesthetics has affected people's

judgment of Modern architecture. This especially apparent in the battle over Richard Neutra's

Cyclorama Building at Gettysburg National Park.

Though Modern buildings face many obstacles, several organizations are working to

promote the preservation of Modernism. The interest is the most critical source of information to

help identify these organizations. The websites for the International Council on Monuments and

Sites (ICOMOS), the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of

Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO), the World

Monuments Fund (WMF), the Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN), UNESCO's World

Heritage Centre (WHC), and ICCROM outline current initiatives to help save and raise

awareness of Modern buildings. The sites are updated regularly so they provide the most recent

information available on the subject.

My research approach led to the discovery of another underlying barrier to the

preservation of Modem architecture-lack of education and information. People do not know

the important ways Modern design and planning changed building types and cities everywhere.

People let their aesthetic preferences control the way they feel about Modernism without

knowing the reasons why buildings look the way they do. Of almost equal importance is the lack

of education about how to preserve these Moder buildings when the technologies implemented

were new and experimental. This leads to another dilemma in preserving Modern buildings-

authenticity. When materials perform poorly or altogether fail, it can be difficult to know how to

address the possible solutions. How much of a building can you repair or replace while still









maintaining the authenticity of the original structure? In traditional structures that implemented

traditional materials, it was often easy to replace or repair any materials that had failed. In

Modem buildings, you often find materials that are no longer produced. Is it against

preservation standards to implement new materials if they make up a significant portion of a

structure? The dilemmas discussed in my thesis outline many of the obstacles to preserving

Modem architecture.









CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Interest in preserving buildings and sites from the Modern Movement is a relatively new

phenomenon. An increased interest in saving Modem buildings sparked in 1988 with the

formation of an International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of

Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modem Movement (DOCOMOMO), an organization

solely based on documenting and conserving buildings from the Modem Movement. And as the

famous and not-so-famous Modern icons are disappearing at an alarming rate, people are

increasing their interest in these often misunderstood pieces of architectural history. While it is

possible to find written works on the issue of preservation and Modem architecture, the

published pieces are few in number, and are often found in journals. Both Preserving the Recent

Past 2 and Modern Movement Heritage contain a series of papers, covering topics such as the

Modem Movement in general, the significance of the movement, its shortcomings, and strategies

for conserving this crucial part of American history. Edward Ford discusses the technical

problems with constructing impermanent buildings in "The Theory and Practice of

Impermanence." In How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand discusses maintenance concerns of

Modem Buildings, and discusses how buildings grow and evolve with time. Hale discusses the

failures of Modernism to beautify the world in The Old Way of Seeing. Brent Brolin considers

Modemism a complete failure and talks about alternatives to Modern design in Failure of

Modern Architecture. Finally, Richard Longstreth tackles recent past preservation issues and

barriers in both "When the Present Becomes the Past" and "Critique: What to save? Mid-century

Modemism at risk."

Preserving the Recent Past 2

Over the past several years, preservationists have finally begun to devote serious attention
to the immense challenge of documenting, evaluating, and conserving cultural resources









from the twentieth century. This attention occurs not a moment too soon: it is clear that
these are the issues that preservation professionals will be grappling with for the remainder
of this century and well into the next millennia.

-Ward Jandl, 1995.


The publication Preserving the Recent Past 2 is a collection of papers from the Preserving

the Recent Past 2 Conference that took place in 2000 in Philadelphia. The first conference on

"Preserving the Recent Past" had been in 1995 and stirred public and professional interest in

recent past architecture. It seemed that in five years, the need to address Modernism had become

even more urgent for preservationists and design professionals.

The publication is divided into three major sections. First are the papers that examine the

recent past from an international perspective. Introductory topics include an examination of

Canada's Modern heritage, which is often overlooked when dealing with Modern architecture

and development. Specific preservation topics about England and Scotland are also addressed.

The inclusion of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

outlines standards for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration.

The second section of the publication focuses on evaluation, planning, and preservation

strategies. Here, there are papers on Puerto Rican public housing, low-income housing in

Chicago, supermarkets in New Jersey, modern banks and storefronts, Cuban Modernism,

landscape design in Maryland, a prototypical Modernist subdivision in Colorado, and highway

bridges, just to name a few. This section serves to show the diversity of places and building

types affected by the Modem era. The Modern Movement was not limited to residences in Los

Angeles or skyscrapers in Chicago and New York. Modernism infiltrated all building types

around the world.









The final section provides the most information on the technical aspects of the Modern

Movement, and it scratches the surface of the issue of preservation. Modernism was a time for

experimenting with new materials. Buckminster Fuller was a proponent of using new materials

and forms in his designs. His 1945 Dymaxion House challenged the notion of what was

considered "home" with its basic metal cylindrical form and domed roof. The structure was easy

to move, erect, and take apart. Today, conservation efforts for the Dymaxion have been difficult

as it has suffered from serious deterioration over time, but it an important piece of Modern

history (Ashby 2000). Included in the arena of new materials, the emergence of Formica has a

place in Modern architectural history. After WWII, the use of Formica and other plastics grew in

popularity, but many of these early synthetic materials are now facing degradation problems

(Stull 2000).

Thomas Boothby and Charlene Roise discuss the challenges specific to thin-shell concrete

structural forms that became so popular for sports arenas and conference centers in the 1960s and

1970s in the article "Soaring or Crashing? The Challenge of Preserving Thin-Shell Concrete

Structures." Boothby and Roise (2000) use case studies, such the Kingdome in Seattle and

Hershey Sports Arena, to illustrate the successes and failures of these thin-shell concrete

structures.

Finally, the six essays discussing curtain walls provide an enormous amount of information

on the history, construction, and ultimate failures and limitations of the curtain wall. David

Yeomans gives an overview of the pioneers of curtain-walling in his paper, "The Arrival of the

Curtain Wall," as well as the technical development of the building system. Dennis Johnson

discusses "Modern Thin Cladding Considerations" such as thin stone, thin precast concrete, resin

panels, composite aluminum panels, and solid aluminum panels. Johnson also discusses the









failures of using thin-cladding system instead of thicker units. Don Erwin's "Principles of

Curtain Wall Performance Affecting Assessment and Repair" sheds light on the problems of

movement and water infiltration faced by curtain walls.

The last chapter of Preserving the Recent Past 2 mainly focuses on the issues faced by

commercial architecture. It does not specifically address the problems faced by Modern

residential or vernacular structures.

Modern Movement Heritage

Modern Movement Heritage is a compilation of nineteen essays by authors around the

world. In the introduction, editor Allen Cunningham provides an overview of the Modern

Movement, its shortcomings, and its significance. Much like Preserving the Recent Past 2, this

collection is divided into three sections: Conjectures and Refutations, Strategies and Policies, and

Case Studies. Over 150 images support the written works included in this book.

Conjectures and Refutations

In "The Icon and the Ordinary," Hubert-Jan Henket discusses the paradox of preserving

"throw away" buildings, and what preservation approaches should be taken for the Modern

buildings that were built with a limited lifespan. Henket recognized that it is critical to be

selective when preserving Modem structures because not all them can (or should) be saved.

Modernity is a difficult term to define, and Henket determines that it means "that which is

innovative in its social, technical and aesthetic intentions" (1998:15).

Hilde Heynen's essay, "Transitoriness of Modem Architecture (1998)," discusses the

inherent temporariness of Modernism, and how that affects how we should treat it today. It is

often argued that Modem architecture should be left to decay on its own. Heynen writes about

the voices behind those opinions, such as Tschumi, Ruskin, and Sant'Elia. On the other hand,

Torres and Berman argue the opposite, expressing that Modem architecture should be protected









and conserved. When preservation is enacted, however, sometimes the result is a life-less,

frozen-in-time building which is far from the Modernist vision. Heynen concludes by stating the

importance of protecting Modernism in order to legitimize the significance of the movement.

Strategies and Policies

Part II contrasts preservation policies and attitudes regarding Modernism in five different

locations-Latin America, Hungary, the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. Since the

focus of this study was primarily on American modernism and preservation, Nina Rappaport's

"Preserving Modern Architecture in the US" (1998) contains important data about preservation

efforts in America. Rappaport discusses the ways information on preservation and Modernism

are disseminated in this country and touches on the organizations and individuals that have

protected important works of Modernism.

Case Studies

"The Metal and glass curtain wall: The History and Diagnostics" (1998) is both a history

of the curtain wall, and a listing of its failures. Kelley and Johnson point out the main problems

with curtain walls-water penetration, air leakage and thermal discomfort, material failures, and

structural failures. They also discuss the imperfections of common repair scenarios for curtain

walls.

The remainder of Part III focuses on specific structural and material concerns of several

different Modern buildings. Two New York curtain wall structures, the Woolworth Building and

Lever House, are contrasted in "Great Expectations." Several European structures, such as the

House of Culture, Sant'Elia Infant School, Villa Noailles and Villa Cavrois, De Lar Warr

Pavilion, Masion Prouve, Zonnestraal Sanatorium, and Villa E-1027, are all examined in further

detail with a chapter devoted to each.









The Theory and Practice of Impermanence

Edward Ford discusses the inherent flaws in Modem construction. Ford outlines numerous

case studies, such as Peter Eisenman's House VI and Rogers and Piano's Pompidou Center, that

are experiencing severe and expensive problems although they are relatively young buildings

(just over 30 years old). Although these buildings are not strict examples of International Style

Modernism, they represent the unfortunate fate of many innovative buildings from the past

eighty years. In some cases, the fault of poorly constructed building lies with the builder, but in

other cases it is the fault of poor detailing by the architect. All Modern building types are subject

to technical challenges-residences, institutional buildings-not just curtain wall skyscrapers.

Problems with Modern buildings cannot be attributed to one common denominator. Ford brings

up the important point that all buildings have problems, not just Modern ones, and discusses the

many problems with traditional buildings by citing specific examples. According to Ford, the

issues with Modern structures are often just more publicized because people have are critical of

Modem buildings in the first place. The main difference with durability issues with traditional

and Modem structures is that traditional buildings were meant to last, while Modern buildings

were considered more temporary (Ford 1997).

While minimalism allowed for Modern buildings to achieve their sleek appearances and

effective use of materials, it is the very minimalism that causes so many problems. Dome

structures are full of problems. Early Modern steel curtain walls by Le Corbusier and Walter

Gropius failed within twenty years. Thin-stone clad buildings are incredibly expensive to

maintain. Even monolithic Modem structures, such as the Hilversum Town Hall and Louis

Kahn's Exeter Library, have their own share of problems.

Ford concludes that Modem buildings must be treated like the complex structures that they

are. Architects, contractors, and occupants must all work together to maintain Modem









structures. The biggest role is ascribed to the architect, who must keep the user in mind when

designing and detailing buildings.

How Buildings Learn

In How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand examines buildings as a whole-not just whole in

space, but also in time. Brand argues that the uses of buildings and their surroundings are

constantly changing. Buildings are always being driven to change by technology, money, and

fashion. Brand states that commercial buildings adapt quickly, domestic buildings steadily

adapt, and institutional buildings are resistant to change.

Brand discusses three types of buildings, what he calls "low road," "high road," and "no

road" buildings. The "low road" buildings are cheap, lacking in style, and have a high turnover

rate of occupancy. Most buildings fall into this category. Although these buildings may not

appear desirable at first, according to Brand, they allow for tremendous amounts of creativity

from the occupier. "High road" buildings, in contrast, are the elite buildings that were intended

to last, such as the residences of United States presidents. They are considered significant to

most people, but they are not open to change. They can be improved, but not drastically altered.

The "no road" buildings are famous new buildings, would-be famous buildings, and imitation

famous buildings. These buildings are featured in sleek architectural magazines and are an

expression of the artistic side of architecture. According to Brand, the notion of "art" as

architecture started in the mid-1800s, and it still thriving today. Brand notes that the main

problems with art functioning as architecture are that art is non-functional and impractical, it

revels in the new and despises the old, and architectural art only sells at a distance. These "no

road buildings" are driven by architectural fads.

Brand specifically mentions buildings from the Modem Movement when talking about

how these buildings could be built cheaply, but were flashy. The architects received praise by









using less money, but the users ultimately were the losers in this scheme because they were stuck

with cheap buildings plagued with problems. Brand also discussed maintenance of buildings,

and addresses many areas specific to Modern buildings, such as flat roofs, faulty domes, new

materials, thin brick walls, and concrete.

The Old Way of Seeing

Jonathan Hale devotes a chapter to "The Life and Death of Modernism" in his book, The

Old Way of Seeing. Hale points out that Modernists had high hopes of beautifying the world

through Modem architecture, but their goal was never realized. In the beginning, Modernism's

simplicity may have been refreshing and shocking, but after short while it became boring to both

architects and users. Hale discusses how Modernism was an elitist style, and those who were

good were successful, but those who were not as good, failed miserably. While Gropius had

intended to teach a vision, he instead gave the world a style. It was not the intention of

Modernists to provide style guidelines.

Hale also brings up the point of Modern city planning. Architects such as Le Corbusier

had far-reaching plans for entire towns and housing complexes, but the ideas behind some of

those plans led to disastrous public housing projects like Cabrini Green in Chicago, and Pruitt-

Igoe in St. Louis. Lastly, Hale talks about the theoretical end of Modernism, brought about by

Robert Venturi and Post-Modernism.

Failure of Modern Architecture

Brent Brolin's 1976 book, Failure of Modern Architecture, is a rejection of the Modem

design principles and ideas that were still being taught in design schools at the time. Brolin

points out that Modernism never gained the mass acceptance that was intended. Modernism, to

Brolin, is not only visually imposing, but it also disregards the social and aesthetic values of

users. Brolin feels that Modernists forced their views on unwelcoming recipients, and stripped









them of their traditions when designing their buildings. The Modernists veiled their aesthetic

preferences under moral pretenses. The rejection of ornament led to boring buildings.

Standardization and mass production produced monotonous cityscapes. Brolin concludes with

case studies of Chandigarh and Yemen as failures of Modern design and planning because he

feels that they show how designers imposed their sterile aesthetics on groups of people who rely

on historicism in their buildings as an important piece of their culture.

When the Present Becomes the Past and Mid-Century Modernism at Risk

Richard Longstreth, former president of the Society of Architectural Historians, has

written several articles on preserving the recent past. His 1992 essay, "When the Present

Becomes the Past," Longstreth discusses how the 1966 preservation legislature was fueled by the

notion that the buildings of the present were inferior. The National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) protected the buildings that stood in the way of "progress." The increasing interest in

preserving the recent past is often fueled by nostalgia for the buildings that people grew up

around.

Longstreth talks about how most people will be reluctant to accept preservation of the

recent past. In history, people have generally hated the recent past and adored the distant past.

According to Longstreth, this is a never-ending cycle. Too often, aesthetics fuel decision-

making in preservation, and people, in general, dislike the aesthetics of Modernism. They view

the recent past as an alien environment. The recent past is also viewed as too young to be

historic and worthy of saving. Ultimately, Longstreth calls for an improvement in education of

buildings of the recent past in order to make people think it is worthy of preservation.

In 2000, Longstreth revisits the recent past and focuses on the troubles facing Modern

architecture. Much of Modernism is either deteriorating or being forgotten altogether. While

many of the icons of Modernism have been lovingly saved, this gives a false sense of security for









Modernism as a whole. Works by lesser known Modern architects are disappearing at an

alarming rate, and no one seems to notice. Since Modern houses often are sited on expensive

pieces of land, they are viewed more as real estate and are not appreciated for their historic

value. Developers buy up these properties, only to demolish and reuse the land for something

more profitable.

Longstreth discusses how preservationists are nervous about Modern architecture, and

may not fully see the significance of Modernism. Architects tend to understand the importance

of the Modern Movement, and it is up to them to promote education of the buildings from our

recent past.









CHAPTER 4
THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE

First, what makes a building Modern? The Organization for the Documentation and

Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement, DOCOMOMO,

states that Modem buildings are those constructed roughly between the 1920s and 1970s that

"emphasized expression of functional, technical or spatial properties rather than reliance on

decoration" (DOCOMOMO-US). Moffett defines many of the characteristics of Modern

architecture-admiration of industrial materials and products, straightforward architectural

expression with no applied ornament, and an interest in pure geometric forms and planar surfaces

(2004: 518). Tom Wolfe in From the Bauhaus to Our House, describes it as the "whiteness and

lightness and leanness and cleanness and bareness and spareness of it all" (Strickland 2001: 120).

Strickland defines Modernism as a "socially progressive movement in the early twentieth century

that championed undecorated, cubic, functional architecture" (2001: 169). An exact, all-

encompassing definition of Modernism would be nearly impossible to formulate. For this study,

the DOCOMOMO definition is most appropriate. In order to begin to understand the meaning of

Modernism, however, a background of the movement is critical.

Modern Beginnings

The machine age at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century

brought with it steel, concrete, curtain walls, and, of course, the emergence of the great American

skyscraper. The new buildings of this era reveled in their nakedness and their lack of historic

ornament (Glancey 2000: 158). The great fire of 1873 all but destroyed the city of Chicago,

sparking a tremendous building boom and economic revitalization (159). Prior to the fire, most

of the buildings packed into the downtown area of Chicago were constructed of wood. The new,

replacement buildings erected in Chicago were made of steel and could be much taller than their









earlier counterparts, thus making Chicago the birthplace of the skyscraper. Charles Atwood's

1895 Reliance building is one of the purest examples of these first skyscrapers (159).

Architect Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) moved to Chicago after the Great Fire. Sullivan was

responsible for the critical theory behind early skyscraper technology, and helped popularize the

building form. The Wainright Building in St. Louis, Carson Pirie Scott in Chicago, and the

Guaranty Building in Buffalo are some of Sullivan's best works. Sullivan abandoned ornament

in the traditional sense in his designs, but he advocated for a type of ornament (generally derived

from plant-like forms) that was integral to a building instead of applied for decoration (Moffett

2004: 469). Sullivan authored the phrase "forms follows function," a key underlying concept of

modern design. Louis Sullivan and his work were critical to the career of one of the masters of

twentieth-century architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright (Pehnt 1963).

Frank Lloyd Wright was not purely a Modernist architect. In fact, he did not like to

consider himself a Modernist at all. Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture was more rooted in the

Arts and Crafts movements, and then to a more organic way of building. Wright's signature

Prairie houses took on the form of the rolling prairie lands of the Midwest. The homes were

built close to the ground and were deeply connected to the landscape. Wright paid careful

attention to environmental factors to provide comfort inside the homes. Free-flowing floor plans

allowed for ease of movement and cross-ventilation. European Modernists were most influenced

by the openness of the interiors in Wright's prairie houses (Moffett 2004: 482). In fact, Wright

influenced many of the great European architects and Modernists of the twentieth century.

Wright's popularity was marginal in the United States at the beginning of his career, when he

gained notoriety in Europe in 1910-11 when a German publisher showed his portfolio to the

European avant-garde (Kostof 1995: 685).









Early European Modernism

Even before the European's fascination with Wright, Sullivan and his famous skyscrapers

made an enormous impression on their designs. Simultaneously, European architects, such as

Adolf Loos in Vienna, August Perret in France, and Peter Behrens in Germany, were planting the

roots of European Modernism. In Loos's 1908 book, Ornament and Crime, the architect took

Sullivan's notion to abandon ornament a step further, claiming that decorating a building was

primitive. Loos's writings led people to admire both vernacular, undecorated peasant

architecture and engineering structures (Moffett 2004: 477-78). Perret made concrete a

commonplace building material (Kostof 1995: 689). Although builders had begun to reinforce

concrete with metal in the late 1800s, the idea was not extensively used until the twentieth-

century. The development of reinforced concrete was critical to the development of the open

plan in Modem architecture (Moffett 2004: 503). Behrens designed the first modem factory in

1909-the AEG Turbine Factory. The Turbine Factory had no applied ornament and the

materials clearly express their function. After his work with AEG, Behrens's office became one

of the most progressive in Europe, attracting architectural giants-to-be Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe, Le Corbusier, and Walter Gropius (Moffett 2004: 487-488).

The Deutscher-Werkbund, a German center for connecting craft and industry, opened in

1907. By 1910, Werkbund had over 700 members, including 360 artists and 276 industrialists.

Top German architects, including Peter Behrens and the young Walter Gropius, supported the

Werkbund. No specific artistic style was supported by the Werkbund, only the reformation of

the link between art and industry (Tafuri 1976: 93).

On the art and design front, the De Stijl movement in Holland was taking form around

1917. The De Stijl movement produced artist Piet Mondrian, who is best known for his use of

geometric shapes and primary colors, and designer Gerrit Rietveld. Rietveld's Schroder House









(1924) in Utrecht, is a series of white cubes that interlock in a three-dimensional manner. The

De Stijl had a substantial influence on German and Russian avant-garde (Kostof 1995: 702).

Early in his career, Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, later known as Le Corbusier, learned about

using reinforced concrete from working with August Perret, and learned about industrial design

from Peter Behrens. The Dom-ino house plan was a direct result from these two experiences.

The Dom-ino project (1914) was a mass-produced house plan that took advantage of minimal

components-floor slabs, piers spaced for vertical support, and stairs connecting the floors. The

components could easily be produced at a site nearby, and erected quickly on site (Moffett 2004:

508). This early idea of mass-produced housing gained popularity in America after World War

II.

In 1926, Le Corbusier formulated his "Five Points Toward a New Architecture," which

included: pilots (stilts) to lift the first floor of a building off the damp ground, flat roofs for

gardens or leisure, free-flowing interior plans, horizontal windows to allow for maximum

illumination, and freely designed facades. Le Corbusier followed his points in nearly all of his

projects until the mid-1950s (Moffett 2004: 511).

Le Corbusier was fascinated by man-made objects and technology, and felt like historic

architecture was obsolete. He though the house should be a "machine for living," devoid of any

historical antecedents. He even believed that architecture could improve human nature. Logical,

functional, and efficient dwellings could lead to rational and enlightened inhabitants (Strickland

135). The Villa Savoye, built in 1931 in Poissy France, is one ofLe Corbusier's first

masterpieces (Glancey 1998: 161). It features Le Corbusier's pilots, or stilts, roof spaces,

ribbons of glass windows, a clean, white facade. This home is an example of the clean, white

box modernism that would be put into practice by many architects to come.









Modem architecture emerged at a time when Western civilization was in upheaval from

the First World War and a revolution in Russia. At the same time, art and science were

transforming the way people thought about space and time. Young designers felt that European

culture had failed them, and should be replaced by a completely new way of thinking. They

thought that architecture would fuel that transformation. They put their faith in rationality,

functionality, economy, and mechanization. They wanted their building to teach and express

these new ideals (Moffett 2004: 475-476).

The Bauhaus

Germany soon became the European leader of the new direction of architecture. In 1919,

the Bauhaus opened in Weimar. The school, directed by Walter Gropius, was aimed to bridge

the gap between art and industry, much the same as the Werkbund a few years earlier. The

Bauhaus forever changed the way art and design were taught (Whitford 1984: 7). If Louis

Sullivan was famous for the expression "form follows function," then the Bauhaus movement

was famous for putting that expression into use aesthetically (Brand 1994: 55). Originally, the

Bauhaus philosophy was to liberate mankind from a class system via a machine-age environment

(Strickland 2001: 133).

In 1925, the Bauhaus was forced to leave Weimar due to lack of financial support, and the

school relocated to Dessau. Walter Gropius stepped down as director in 1928, and Hannes

Meyer became the new director. Germany was becoming very volatile at this time, and politics

forced Meyer to leave the school in 1930. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe became the new director,

and the school once again relocated, this time to Berlin. The Bauhaus was shut down by the

German government in 1933, but the legacy it left behind can still be seen in schools

everywhere. According to Wolf von Eckardt, "the Bauhaus 'created the patterns and set the

standards of present-day industrial design; it helped to invent modern architecture; it altered the









look of everything from the chair you are sitting in to the page you are reading now"' (Whitford

1984: 10).

Though Mies van der Rohe is most noted for his Post-World War II American skyscrapers,

as early as the 1920's he was designing glass skyscrapers (they were never built) that were the

predecessors of his Lakeshore Drive Apartments and the Seagram Building (Moffett 2004: 515).

His German Pavilion for the 1929 Barcelona World's Exposition is a hallmark of modernism

with its simple, yet luxurious structure features a concrete slab roof, steel columns, sheets of

glass, and polished travertine panels (Glancey 1998: 152). Mies's German Pavilion combined

Schinkel's formality of composition, Wright's free plan and broad horizontal roof, and the De

Stijl's abstract forms (Moffett 2004: 515). The structure was temporary, but the building was

reconstructed on the original site in 1986.

Early Modernism in America

Early modernism in America was more than just skyscrapers. In California, brave new

architects were breaking away from the mainstream architectural designs of their era. Irving

Gill, who trained in Louis Sullivan's studio, began to experiment with new materials and more

basic forms. Gill designed several homes in around southern California in the early 1900s that

exemplify the Modern Movement-flat roofs, white exteriors, geometric forms, no decoration.

The Dodge House, built from 1914-16 in Los Angeles, is a prime example of Gill's work (Tafuri

1976: 82). Gill laid the foundation for other California modernists, such as Richard Neutra and

Rudolph Schindler.

Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler met in Vienna in 1911. They both admired the

architecture of fellow Austrian Adolf Loos, and Frank Lloyd Wright. Schindler came to the

United States in 1914, and Neutra arrived in 1923. Neutra and Schindler renewed their

friendship in Los Angeles in 1925 and briefly became partners (Lamprecht 2004: 8-9). Although









their friendship dissolved, Schindler and Neutra shared many of the same characteristics in their

designs. Schindler designed houses with open floor plans and he carefully connected indoor and

outdoor spaces. Neutra stressed the importance of flowing spaces, natural light, lots of glass, and

indoor and outdoor connections in his homes, as well (Strickland 2001: 132).

Phillip and Lea Lovell commissioned Schindler to design their beach house in 1922. The

Lovell Beach House, one of the icons of American modernism, was completed in 1926. The

same family commissioned Neutra to design their Health House in 1927 (Lamprecht 2004: 23-

24). These two homes put California Modernists on the map and attracted worldwide attention.

Schindler and Neutra both stressed that "the merit of such architects of European background lies

in their having singled out in American architecture precisely those technological and structural

potentialities of the new multipurpose building types that the Beaux-Arts tradition had done its

best to camouflage" (Tafuri 1976: 238).

In 1932, architectural historian Henry Russell Hitchcock and a young Phillip Johnson

published a book entitled, The International Style: Architecture Since 1922 (Tafuri 1976: 238).

In the book, Hitchcock and Johnson discussed the "new" style of European Modernism, and

called it international because it has already spread from Europe to the United States, and they

prophesized that it would become global (Moffett 2004: 476). That same year Alfred Barr,

Hitchcock, and Johnson organized an exhibition at The Museum of Moder Art in New York

City entitled International Style (Tafuri 1976: 238). Included in the exhibit were famous

European works by Reitveld, Mies, Gropius, and Le Corbusier, as well as a few American public

buildings and Neutra's Lovell House. The International Style of architecture featured in the

exhibit emphasized volumes rather than masses, regularity rather than symmetry, and materials









rather than ornament. The MOMA exhibit showcased European Modernism and raised public

awareness about this "new" style in America (Moffett 2004: 520).

The Stock Market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression of the 1930s put a

damper on the building boom in the United States. While there were some important public

buildings constructed during this time, residential construction was put on hold. Prior to World

War II, most Americans did not support or understand Modem architecture, and little

International Style architecture was constructed in the United States in the 1930's. However, one

of the most famous buildings of all times was built during this decade-Fallingwater. Frank

Lloyd Wright designed this modem masterpiece in 1936 in Bear Run, Pennsylvania for the

Kaufmann family (Glancey 1998: 176). This home is a fusion of both modem and organic

styles. Modern in its geometric forms and use of concrete, glass, and steel, but organic in the

way it fits seamlessly into the surroundings and integrates natural woods and stones into both the

interior and exterior.

Post-War Modern

After World War II, Americans were ready to forget about the sacrifices of the Great

Depression and the sorrows of the war. They were optimistic about the future, and were ready

for a fresh start (Hochstim 2004: 13). A massive building boom started up after the war. Land

and construction costs were low (Webb 2001: 11). Architects and homeowners alike were more

open to new ideas and the use of new materials. Architectural journals, advertisements, and

consumer-oriented pamphlets all claimed that Modernism would become the cultural norm after

the war (Reed 1995: 3).

World War II led many important European architects to flee to America. In 1937, Walter

Groupis and Mies van der Rohe arrived in the United States. Gropius took a teaching position at

Harvard Design School (Kostof 1995: 724) and Mies became director of the Illinois Institute of









Technology. Here, Mies designed the new campus for the university (Tafuri 1976: 336). Mies

designed the Famsworth House in Piano, Illinois in 1951-an extraordinary glass box. In 1951,

he also designed the Lake Shore Drive Apartments in Chicago. The perfect execution of the

glass and metal curtain wall influenced skyscrapers to come (Glancey 1998: 186-187). Mies van

der Rohe and Phillip Johnson designed the Seagram Building in New York, completed in 1958.

The Seagram Building is one of the finest examples of an International Style skyscraper

(Strickland 2001: 135). The Lever House by SOM Architects (1951-52), just across Park

Avenue, was the first curtain wall in New York City and is often considered the epitome of the

glass box.

Phillip Johnson's Glass House (1949) in New Canaan, Connecticut was clearly inspired by

Mies's plan for the Famsworth House (which was completed after the Glass House), Johnson

may have even perfected the glass box more than Mies (Glancey 1998: 185).

Le Corbusier continued to work in France in the 1950s, where he produced famous

monolithic structures like the 18-story housing block, Unite d'Habitation in Marseilles, and the

Chapel of Notre Dame-du-Haut pilgrimage church in Ronchamp (Strickland 2001: 136). In the

United States, Corbusier designed The Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at Harvard in 1961,

and collaborated on the United Nations Building in New York City.

Most of the architecture of the Post-War era, often referred to as Mid-Century Modern,

was less formal and less serious than International Style architecture. Florida and California

were two hot-beds of Mid-Century Modem architecture. Many young families settled Florida

and California because of economics, warm climates, and the functional demands of their new

lifestyles. The younger generations seemed more open to experimentation, and therefore the

development of the Modern house (Hochstim 2004: 13). But postwar architecture was not about









creating a new style of Modernism. Instead, the postwar Modem designers relied less on the

proscribed characteristics of Modernism, and focused instead of the changing family life and the

specific climatic requirements in addition to new construction techniques and technologies

(Hochstim 2004: 17).

In Florida, several architects in Sarasota were creating a Modem Movement of their own.

Ralph Twitchell and Paul Rudolph began to design contemporary architecture in Florida that

responded to Florida's unique climate and lifestyle. Twitchell and Rudolph were the foundation

for what came to be known as the Sarasota School. The Sarasota Modern designers used

efficient design principles to adequately cool their houses even before the arrival of air

conditioning (Hochstim 2004: 23-28). The Sarasota School architects implemented vernacular

Florida architectural ideas into their work-patios, open plans, courtyards, screened porches,

lightweight frames, indoor/outdoor living spaces (Howey 1995: 4). The success of the Sarasota

School brought worldwide acclaim to Florida architecture (Hochstim 2004: 142). Today,

however, many of the Sarasota School buildings have either been demolished or are facing

demolition. Paul Rudolph's first commission, Riverview High School built in 1957, is one of the

buildings involved in a heated preservation debate (DOCOMOMO-US).

The Case Study Program launched by Arts & Architecture magazine in 1945 utilized the

talents of several emerging architects in California, such as Pierre Koenig, Craig Ellwood, Eero

Saarinen, Richard Neutra, and Charles and Ray Eames. The Case Study Program was intended

to showcase affordable modem architecture. Case Study House #8, the Eames House (1949) had

a steel frame that was erected in only sixteen hours. Their residence was industrial, cost

effective, and modern (Reed 1995: 32).









Even real estate developers were going Modem. Merchant builder Joseph Eichler put over

11,000 modernist tract homes on the map in California, and three in New York, from the 1940's

to the 1960's. Not only did the homes feature modern design, they were also affordable and

were built from high-quality materials. Eichler collaborated with progressive architects who

were in line with his modernist vision. Eichler's homes were far ahead of their time, utilizing

indoor-outdoor living, glass walls, atriums, and radiant heating (Eichler Network).

For the most part, postwar Modem houses were only commissioned by more eccentric

clients who did not care what their neighbors thought. They were interested in living in a space

that suited their specific needs and desires (Webb 2001: 8). Historian Esther McCoy observed

that "modem houses were a badge of intellectual emancipation; the less venturesome and more

domestic women preferred a Cape Cod or a ranch house" (10). Although Modernism was clearly

the taste of the minority, there was enough interest in the movement to keep Modernist architects

in business (11).

Mission 66

The National Park Service caught on to Modernism starting in 1956 with its Mission 66

Program. Mission 66, a ten year improvement program, was the largest improvement program

ever initiated by the NPS (French "Mission 66" 2002). To accommodate the influx of drastically

increased visitor counts (from 3.5 million visitors in 1931 to 50 million in 1955), 114 visitor

centers were proposed for parks across the nation. The visitor center was an entirely new

concept for the Park Service. The style of the new facilities, later known as Park Service

Modem, blended into the landscape because of their stripped-down functionalist appearances.

Cecil Doty, park service architect, designed many of the modern Mission 66 buildings, including

the Grand Canyon Visitor Center (Frankeberger 2002). Richard Neutra's 1961 Cyclorama









Building at Gettysburg is one of the most notable, yet controversial, products of the Mission 66

program.

The Decline of Modernism

In the 1960s Sigfried Giedion became the "voice" of the Modem Movement. His 1967

book, Space, Time, and Architecture, was part of the curriculum for nearly every architecture

student. But even Giedion could sense that the Modernism was on its way out in 1967, when he

admitted that the movement was "tired" and "unsure" (Hale 1994: 136).

The abandonment of the ideas behind the Modern Movement came from two major

sources. First, postwar architecture had failed to meet political, social, and technical

expectations. Second, Modernism had been too specific to suit a broad range of cultural interests

(Cunningham 1998: 3).

During the unofficial ending of the Modem Movement, the original masters of Modernism

were still producing great pieces of Modern architecture. But Modernism never quite revived the

world like its practitioners had hoped. When most of the great Modernists died in the late 1960s,

so, too, died Modernism (Hale 1994: 136).

Although Robert Venturi had been a pupil of Louis Kahn and had praised both Alvar Aalto

and Le Corbusier, he wrote two books that theoretically brought Modernism to an end in

America-Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966) and Learning from Las Vegas.

These two books also served as the springboard for the next big architectural movement, Post-

Modernism (Hale 1994: 136).

Postmodernism was the complete polar opposite of Modernism. "Less is a bore" was

Venturi's take on Mies' famous quote. The Postmodem movement was an "anything goes"

movement. At its best, Postmodernism broke up the monotony that had been plaguing the late

Modern buildings. At its worst, Postmodernism was a huge game where pastel-colored buildings









with pieces of historical ornament thrown on filled the landscape (Glancey 2000: 198-199).

Postmodernism did not end all Modernism, however. After the arrival of Postmodernism, the

Modem Movement continued to find its place in society with the help of architects such as

Richard Meier, Tadao Ando, and I.M. Pei who continued to design traditional modernist

buildings with International Style surfaces and pure spaces and forms (Strickland 2001: 151).









CHAPTER 5
PROBLEMS WITH MODERN BUILDING ENVELOPES

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, architects commonly built for permanence-the

buildings were planned to last. After the Industrial Revolution, however, most buildings became

less permanent and therefore more disposable (Henket 1998: 14). That is to say, that once the

building has completed its function for a particular amount of time, it becomes obsolete. In fact,

people are often emotionally attached to a building long after it is functionally or even

financially viable. The question then arises if it even makes sense to try and preserve these

"throw away" buildings if they were specifically designed to only last a short while (Henket

1998: 14). Are the Modern masters rolling over in their graves at the thought of someone trying

to preserve their works for posterity?

The lifespan of Modern architecture, in particular, was inherently limited. Most Modern

architects wanted to break all ties to historicism. The age of Modernism was a time for new and

experimental technologies, and it was unclear how the new methods and materials would hold up

over time. At the time, many of these new materials fared well, but presently either do not

perform well, or have failed completely (Prudon 1998: 90).

Repairing or replacing materials or systems on Modern structures often does not make

financial sense, and brings up the dilemma of authenticity. Problems with modem buildings are

rarely minor. These relatively "new" buildings now need serious attention, while most

traditional buildings do not require large-scale intervention but every 100 or more years

(Macdonald 2000). As early as the 1940s, designers were learning about the technical failures of

early modern buildings, and began to try to improve their own building details to promote

improved performance (Macdonald 2000). Although some improvements were made in modem

design, many of these buildings now need major intervention.









Even the icons of modern design, products of the modern masters themselves, were not

immune to architectural defects. In many cases, they were the worst when it came to structural

defects and imperfections. For example, Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House (1951), a pure,

pristine glass-and-steel box, had at least one major flaw-no operable windows. Dr. Edith

Farnsworth thought the house was too expensive, too public, and absolutely unlivable (Strickland

2001: 135). In fact, the she sued Mies "on the grounds that the house was uninhabitable" (Hale

1994: 130).

Concrete walls became a very critical part of many Modern structures. A four-inch thick

concrete wall may have been very strong structurally, however, it was inefficient when it came to

sound insulation, surface decoration, energy protection, and weather protection (Maxwell 1998).

Modern architecture is full of technical limitations and failures.

Curtain Walls

A curtain wall is "an exterior building wall made of non-load bearing panels that are

supported on a structural frame. The curtain wall spans between floors and transfers lateral

loads, such as those produced by winds, to the structural frame, while the structural frame alone

carries these horizontal as well as all gravity loads" (Kelley 1998: 77).

Before the arrival of the curtain wall, the exterior walls served as the structural support of

the entire building-they were load-bearing walls. With the arrival of the curtain wall, however,

the structural frame became a separate entity from the skin of the building. Some of the early

curtain walls implemented traditional brick masonry walls that were narrowed to single-wythe

thickness to act as the skin of the building. Other early curtain wall designs involved thin stone

panels for building exteriors (Johnson 2000). The first true glass curtain wall came in San

Francisco in 1917-18-the Hallidie Building by Willis Polk (Great Buildings 2007). Polk's









building paved the way for the modern glass curtain wall buildings that would come in the

following decades.

Between the two World Wars, architects conducted several experiments that ultimately led

to perfecting of various aspects of curtain walls. Modem industrial production was the source of

the success (Pehnt 1963: 79). During this time, the theories behind curtain walling were studied

at the Bauhaus via educational experiments, through the writings of Le Corbusier, and by the

projects of Mies van der Rohe and other German designers. It wasn't until after World War II

that these experiments were put into practice on a large scale (80).

The 13-story Equitable Building (1944-48) in Portland, Oregon by Pietro Belluschi was

one of the first glass and aluminum curtain wall buildings. Glass, aluminum, and concrete were

also the favored materials for the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. The UN

Secretariat building was designed by a team of architects from around the world, including Le

Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, and Sir Howard Robertson, and the team was headed by Wallace K.

Harrison. The UN Headquarters was completed in 1953 (Great Buildings 2007).

Acclaimed Modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe implemented glass and steel curtain

walls in his Lake Shore Drive Apartments (1951) in Chicago, and in the Seagram Building in

New York City (1958). The Lake Shore Drive apartments were some of the first American

residential structures to be covered in glass (Kelley 1998). Gordon Bunshaft of SOM Architects

designed the Lever House in 1950-the first curtain wall building in New York City (Moffett

2004: 515). Unfortunately, the technical guidance for architects in the 1950's designing these

curtain walls was practically non-existent (Kelley 1998).

In contrast to traditional building methods, the construction of a curtain wall is quite

flexible. A curtain wall can be built from the bottom up, from the top down, or from the center









out (Erwin 2000: 3-160). Loads are always concentrated at a certain point, so any damage to the

point of the load is detrimental to the building (3-161).

As is the case with modem design in general, the new materials used in curtain walls were

not completely understood at the time of their implementation. Some curtain wall failures can be

attributed to materials, but other failures are a direct result of the curtain wall design itself

(Johnson 2000).

The curtain wall, which acts as the skin of the building, has to perform many functions in

the overall performance of the building. The curtain wall must:

* Resist water penetration and air filtration

* Accommodate thermal movements and volume changes

* Provide thermal insulation

* Withstand direct exposure to UV radiation

* Move with the building structure as it creeps

* Sway from wind and seismic movements

* Deflect in response to internal live loads

* Provide appropriate amounts of light, ventilation, and thermal protection

(Johnson 2000: 3-152)

Since the curtain wall plays so many roles in the performance of the building, it comes as

no surprise that there are many areas of potential failure. Even though many of the components

of curtain walls may also have traditional applications, in Modem uses they fail in unusual ways.

Even the new materials can fail prematurely and unexpectedly. It is always important to address

the cause of the failure in curtain walls in order to prevent it from happening again, and to

prevent new problems from occurring (Johnson 2000).









Moisture

Water has been the enemy of all designers and buildings since the beginning of time.

Moisture is capable of destroying all types of building materials-wood, masonry, and even

steel-if proper care is not taken. Curtain walls buildings are no less susceptible to water

problems than any other building type. Since curtain walls implement thinner walls than older

building types, then essentially a large water barrier (i.e. the loadbearing wall) is lost. The

curtain wall relies strictly on seals to prevent water penetration (Johnson 2000). In order to

prevent moisture problems with curtain walls, either water must not be allowed to penetrate the

wall, or if that is not possible, then the penetrable water must be controlled (Kelley 1998).

Condensation is another water issue for curtain wall buildings. Here, water vapor can turn

into liquid, or even freeze into solid ice, on the interior surfaces of a building. Many of the older

curtain wall buildings are very susceptible to winter frost condensation because the designers did

not use thermal breaks or insulated glass (Kelley 1998).

Thermal Discomfort

Glass curtain wall buildings can obviously be very uncomfortable due their large expanses

of glass if care is not taken to allow for appropriate shading and sun control (Yeomans 2000).

According to Kaskel, the Lever House disregarded the building's orientation. There are large

panels of glass on the south, east and west sides of the building, which cause a tremendous

amount of heat and glare in the morning and afternoon. Since this is an office building, people

are at work during those times, and they have to suffer in an uncomfortable work environment

(1995).

Another cause of thermal discomfort is air infiltration. Air comes in through the walls and

causes drafts. This air can arrive through window vents, mullion joints, sealant joints, and any

location where water could also penetrate (Kelley 1998).









Excessive Movement

Mid-century curtain wall buildings move more than buildings built before or after them.

Since the steel frame is required to resist all the lateral loads of the building, it is more prone to

swaying and twisting than older masonry-framed walls. The movement of the frame causes

stress to the anchors that tie the facade to the frame, and can ultimately distort the members

themselves. In the worst situations, the anchors may even break from the constant motion

(Erwin 2000).

Material Failures

Curtain walls are normally made from the repetitive application of parts. This repetition

allows for quick and easy construction and assembly, but can be a major setback when failure

occurs. The failure will often be widespread instead of localized to a specific point. Procedures

to correct these failures are often very invasive (Johnson 2000).

Aluminum was a prime material component of curtain walls because is forms a "tough,

protective coating of aluminum oxide as it weathers. This coating arrests further oxidation of the

aluminum surface" (Kelley 1998: 83). Aluminum curtain walls from before the 1950s may lack

this protective coating or any surface treatment. These uncoated frames are vulnerable to pitting

as the oxidation occurs in an uneven manner. Fortunately, this oxidation is only an aesthetic

problem (Kelley 1998).

As durable as aluminum may be, it is also very cathodic. Aluminum easily deteriorates

when it comes in contact with anodes like lead, copper, or steel when water is also involved.

This reaction causes unsightly staining or oxidation, or even system failure if this process is not

planned for in the design of the curtain wall (Kelley 1998).









If the curtain wall is not made of aluminum, but instead made of steel, the steel corrodes

rather easily, especially in the presence of water. This corrosion can lead to glass breakage,

inoperable vents, and/or total structural failure (Kelley 1998).

Thin cladding systems are prone to problems in curtain walls, as well. These systems are

also likely to bow and crack due to thermal cycles after they are attached to the structure.

Problems result from the attempt to perfect thin cladding systems by trying to make panels

thinner, lighter, and cheaper. When thin cladding systems fail, over-cladding, re-cladding, and

replacement may be the only viable solutions for fixing the problems. Thin cladding systems

also rely more heavily on joint maintenance and back-up water-tightness than thicker cladding

systems (Johnson 2000).

Although glass walls make for an aesthetically pleasing building, impurities in glass can

result in severe problems for glass-wall buildings. Glass can obviously break or crack when it is

hit by debris such as rocks, and is especially prone to this type of damage during high winds or

other inclement weather. Even if nothing strikes the glass, it can still sometimes crack on its

own. If the glass was heat-tempered, it can spontaneously crack when the nickel sulfides in it

expand after fabrication (Kelley 1998). I.M. Pei and Henry N. Cobb's Hancock Tower in Boston

serves as a critical example of the failures of glass in Modern buildings.

The 1976 60-story glass Hancock Tower in Boston was disastrous from the beginning.

The excavation of the site caused streets to buckle, disrupted utility service, and most tragically,

damaged the adjacent Trinity Church. Upon completion, the building swayed as much as 3 feet

in either direction on the upper floors, causing occupants to feel sick and dizzy. The Hancock

Tower was not even structurally sound-in very high winds, the building was in danger of

literally falling over. Millions of dollars were spent to stabilize the building (Farragher 2006).









Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Hancock building, however, was the windows. The

Hancock Tower's windows began to fall out of the building during construction in January of

1973. 75 mile-per-hour wind gusts struck the upper floors of the building, causing at least 65 of

the 500-pound glass panels to fall off the building. In the following months, more windows fell.

The problem with the falling panels was in the window unit's design (Campbell 1995). "Each

[window] panel was a sandwich: two layers of glass with an air space between, all held in a

metal frame. To cut the glare and heat of the sun, a coat of reflective chromium was placed on

the inside surface of the outside pane of glass. (This layer of chrome was what gave the building

its mirror effect.) The window frame was bonded to the chrome with a lead solder. During the

testing, it was noticed that when a window failed, the failure began when a tiny J-shaped crack

appeared at the edge of the outside pane of glass. What was happening was this: The lead solder

was bonding too well with the chrome-so well, so rigidly, that the joint couldn't absorb any

movement. But window glass always moves. It expands and contracts with changes in

temperature, and it vibrates with the wind. So the solder would fatigue and crack. The crack

would telegraph through to the glass, and the cycle of failure would begin" (Campbell 1995).

The remaining windows were replaced with single sheets of tempered glass (Campbell 1995).

The Hancock Building was not the only famous Modern curtain wall building with glass

problems. Both the Lever House and the UN Building developed loose, leaking windows within

their first year of operation. The putty that had been used did not withstand temperature

variation, vibration, and water run-off, and it quickly dried-up and fell off (Yeomans 2000).

Failure of the structural frame in curtain walls most often occurs when connections

between components, or the connection of the curtain wall to the building frame, lose structural

integrity. Curtain wall buildings are not maintenance-free. They require routine upkeep, such as









caulking, painting, or refinishing. Sealant maintenance is vital for caring for these Modern

curtain wall structures (Kelley 1998). Organic sealants and gaskets often deteriorate over time

due to heat and ultraviolet rays from the sun (Johnson 2000).

Monolithic Structures

Contrary to popular belief, the thick monolithic brick and concrete structures implemented

by Modern architects often lacked the permanence that was expected of them. In The

Netherlands, the Hilversum Town Hall (completed in 1931) by W. M. Dudok is a very solid

structure. It consists of monolithic brick walls, a concrete frame, and concrete floors. Although

the building is still standing after seventy years, there have been numerous problems. A recent

restoration of the building resulted in replacing 75% of the exterior brick walls, 80% of the steel

windows, and all of the original utilities. Little of the original building remains. The main

causes of the problems for the Hilversum Town Hall building were rust, cheap bricks, frost, and

improperly covered rebar (Ford 1997).

Louis Kahn's 1972 monolithic Exeter Library features concrete floors, concrete columns,

and concrete beams with eighteen-inch thick brick load-bearing walls. Merely eighteen years

after its completion, the Exeter Library faced many problems. The many parts of the roof terrace

required retrofitting or replacement. The teak and oak windows needed serious repairs. Much of

the brick exterior wall had deteriorated. The Exeter Library needed substantial work after just a

short time. It cannot be determined whether the problems were due to improper detailing, poor

construction techniques, or a combination of the two (Ford 1997).

Thin-Shell Structures

Concrete

Concrete applications in Modern architecture were not limited to solid, monolithic

structures. Just as the curtain wall helped to create thinner, lighter buildings, concrete, too,









allowed for freedom and flexibility in thin-shell designs. Thin-shell concrete structures allowed

for large spans in industrial, commercial, and public buildings (Boothby 2000). The thin-shell

concrete structure originated in Europe, and came to the United States in the 1920s and 1930s.

These structures fit in well with Modernist ideals, as they allowed for the creation of geometric

forms, large spans, and exposed raw materials (Boothby 2000). The architects could have total

creativity in design because the concrete application took on an almost plastic form. The thin-

shell concrete structure became very popular for warehouses, airport terminals (Eero Saarinen's

TWA Terminal at the JFK International Airport), and sports arenas toward the end of the Modern

Movement in the 1960s and 1970s (Boothby 2000).

Most of the problems with thin-shell concrete structures occur in the concrete roofs. The

concrete develops cracks as it resists bending and compression. These inevitable cracks

ultimately allow water to penetrate the roof (Boothby 2000). Bare concrete roofs are difficult

surfaces to apply roofing materials. At the time when these structures were gaining popularity,

few people were experienced in applying roof membranes to concrete (Boothby 2000).

The Kingdome in Seattle, completed in 1975, exemplifies the numerous difficulties of

thin-shell concrete structures. The roof of the Kingdome was a scalloped concrete shell,

spanning 660 feet across. It was very difficult to place concrete in the shell portions of the roof.

This resulted in a low density and a honeycombing effect in the concrete of the roof, and the

insulation could not adequately bond to the surface (Boothby 2000). By 1994, the roof was in

terrible shape. Seattle's rainy weather soaked through the roof membrane and into the poorly

consolidated concrete. In addition, the roof membrane had been stripped in preparation for a

roof replacement, and the roof decking was insensitively washed with a high-pressure spray

(Boothby 2000).









The public always disliked the Kingdome, and in 1993 voted it Seattle's worst building

(Boothby 2000). The problems that surmounted in 1994 made the public like the building even

less. The Seattle Mariners were unable to finish their season in the dome due to maintenance

delays, and two people died trying to repair the roof. To top it off, the repairs cost over $50

million in public funds instead of the estimated $4 million. It's no surprise that the Kingdome

was demolished only six years later in March of 2000 (Boothby 2000).

Stone

Thin stone panels are prone to serious deterioration. Stone panels may suffer from

saccarification (sugaring), bowing, or overall strength loss. When sugaring occurs, weathering

and exfoliation cause the crystalline structure of the stone to break down. Stone bows as a result

of thermal and moisture cycles. When stone heats up, the interior and exterior surfaces of the

panels are at different temperatures. The crystals in the stone expand and contract, and the

crystals do not fully rebound from this process, thus leading to warping and bowing. This

bowing ultimately leads to the loss of strength in the stone panels, which necessitates their total

replacement (Johnson 2000).

Edward Durell Stone's 1974 Amoco Building in Chicago was built with 1-1/4 inch-thick

Carrara marble panels covering the surfaces. In less than 20 years, the marble had deteriorated

and bowed so badly it had to be replaced. This time, the building was clad with expensive 2-

inch-thick granite panels that cost $80 million (Ford 1997).

Alvar Aalto's Finlandia Hall, completed in 1971, experienced a similar fate. In 1998, the

Carrara marble panels were replaced with marginally thicker Carrara panels. Less than ten years

later, the new replacement panels had already begun to bow (Ford 1997).









Brick

When brick is used in modern applications, it is typically just used as a skin over cheaper

framing materials. Relying on brick solely for the outer layer of a building, and not for structural

support, eliminates some of the natural water barrier properties of monolithic brick walls. Thus,

cavity walls are implemented to keep the moisture that penetrates the outer brick from entering

the building. Cavity walls catch the water that comes through the facade and they move it to the

outside of the building through flashing and weep holes. Although the cavity wall was no new

invention, it was officially recognized in America in 1937 (Schuller 2000).

Since many of the components of contemporary cavity walls are located within the walls

themselves, maintenance or preservation efforts require at least a partial dismantling of the wall.

Rebuilding will be required when the problems are with internal components, such as flashing or

wall ties. Brick cavity walls face many of the same problems encountered with curtain wall

design, such as differential movement, water penetration, and steel corrosion (Schuller 2000).

The brick veneer on the outside of a building faces temperature extremes and moisture

issues not experienced by the structural frame. The masonry wall, in this case, is not meant to

withstand the loads of the frame. The skin of the building must be completely free-standing in

order to prevent strain from differential movement of the facade and frame. If movement joints

are not designed into the outer wall, stress will build up and can ultimately cause cracking. In

some rare cases, the load will be transferred to the brick instead of the frame, causing the veneer

to support the building (Schuller 2000).

If brick is used in conjunction with a concrete frame, other considerations need to be made.

In time, concrete frames shorten in length from applied loads, creep from sustained loads, and

material shrinkage due to moisture loss, hydration, and carbonation. Brick, in contrast, gets

larger due to thermal and moisture expansion. If the brick is rigidly connected to the concrete,









then a large amount of stress builds up in the brick and the veneer tie system could potentially

fail altogether. If the walls are bonded, then even small differential movements can fracture

header bricks (Schuller 2000).

Excessive water penetration can lead to several serious problems for brick cavity walls,

such as damage to interior finishes, deterioration of building materials, efflorescence, and

biological growth within the wall system. Solutions for attacking water penetration typically

only address the problem, not the cause. This will not provide permanent solutions. Water

repellants remove water from the surface of a building, but the do not seal cracks or separations

between the mortar and the brick. Repellants do not block the main entry for water. Sealants

and other impermeable coatings are typically not recommended because they do not allow the

wall to breathe (Schuller 2000).

The metal materials present in brick cavity walls-vertical and horizontal reinforcements,

veneer ties, anchors, lintels and shelf angles, and the structural frame itself-all are susceptible

to corrosion due to moisture penetration. The use of acid-based masonry cleaners, or high-

powered pressure washers containing chlorine, accelerates this corrosion (Schuller 2000).

According to Schuller, "Often the only reasonable approach is removal of corroding elements

followed by installation of new elements, often using stainless steel" (2000).

Flat Roofs

Flat roofs are very flexible. They can sometimes hide unsightly mechanical equipment on

the top of a building, they are safe to work on, they allow flexibility in design (in that you can

install stairs and skylights wherever desired), and they provide more living space when ground

area is limited (Brand 1994: 115). Le Corbusier, in particular, viewed the roof as another

functional space of the building design. Flat roofs tend to have one major flaw-they are

notorious for leaks. The membrane covering of the roof rarely acts as a perfect water barrier.









The BUR (built-up roof) consists of four or more layers of roofing felt and asphalt, with a

mineral layer on top (often gravel) to protect the roof from the sun. BUR technology dates back

at least a hundred years. Many of the problems with these "built-up roofs" come during the

construction phase if it is cold or rainy, or if the flashing is not properly installed. Even more

problems come from foot traffic on the roof, or when new mechanical equipment is put in place.

Common failures that happen over time include: erosion, alligatoring (sun oxidation), blisters,

splits, ridges, and punctures (Brand 1994: 115).

One of the biggest problems with leaks in flat roofs is that the source of the water is

difficult to ascertain. Moisture can travel, undetected, for long distances in the roof, ceiling, or

walls, even before the damage is noticeable (Brand 1994: 115). Initial repairs typically fail, so

new layers are subsequently added. Unfortunately, the addition of new layers adds addition

weight that may cause the roof to sag. Excess water builds up in the concave areas, and more

leaks ensue. In this case, a total rebuild would be the only option. Many owners opt for a

pitched roof at that point (Brand 1994: 115).

In cold climates, snow build-up is also a serious concern for flat-roofed buildings. The

slope in traditional peaked roofs allows snow to slide off and not be concentrated on a flat plane.

When the snow melts as the temperature rises, the melting snow again has nowhere to go.

Again, the roofs are plagued with water issues (Brolin 1976: 33).

Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye

Le Corbusier threw practicality aside in favor of aesthetics in his 1929 Moder icon, the

Villa Savoye. The walls of the house may have been "as delicate as pieces of lace" (de Botton

2006: 65), but the roof was an even bigger architectural mistake. The Savoye family initially

did not want a flat roof on their home, but Le Corbusier convinced the family that a flat roof

would be more economically and technically efficient than a traditional pitched roof. Merely









one week after the family moved into the house, however, the roof started to leak. And six years

later, the roof was still leaking. In 1936, Madame Savoye wrote a "rain-splattered" letter to Le

Corbusier about the flat roof, "It's raining in the hall, it's raining on the ramp, and the wall of

the garage is absolutely soaked. What's more, it's still raining in my bathroom, which floods in

bad weather, as the water comes in through the skylight" (de Botton 2006: 65).

Although Le Corbusier told the Madame he would take care of her leaking roof, his

trademark pompous attitude came through when he reminded her how much praise his roof

design had received worldwide (de Botton 2006: 65). In 1937, Madame Savoye declared her

house uninhabitable (66).

Frank Lloyd Wright-Water Everywhere

Frank Lloyd Wright, "the greatest American architect of all time" according to the

American Institute of Architects (AIA), was quoted as saying "If the roof doesn't leak, the

architect hasn't been creative enough" (Brand 1994: 58). Wright was notorious for his leaks, and

retorted to clients who complained of the leaks, "That's how you can tell it's a roof' (Brand

1994: 58). Wright's Fallingwater, also known as "Rising Mildew" or a "seven-bucket building"

by its owner, leaked all over. The leaks destroyed the windows, the stone walls, and structural

concrete (58).

Implications

It has been thoroughly addressed that Modern building envelopes have many problems and

failures. This, however, is not a phenomenon unique to Modernism. All building types have

their own set of problems. The key difference is that people know how to deal with and correct

problems with traditional building materials that are implemented in traditional ways.

Modernists utilized brand-new building techniques and materials, and experimented with

applying traditional materials and methods in new and different ways. They did not consider









how their experiments would turn out, or in what shape their buildings would be in the future.

To make matters even more difficult, many of the materials and techniques used in Modern

construction do not even exist anymore. Those concerned with the preservation of these

structures are often undecided about how to treat these buildings. Some materials and methods

went out of production before people even had time to consider how they would need to treat

problems that may arise in the future. Even the Modern materials and methods that have

continued to be used in building construction are often unfamiliar territory with preservationists.

Authenticity is a key component of preservation. According to the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards (Appendix A), distinctive materials must be retained for preservation

projects. Many of the "distinctive materials" used in Modem construction are the exact

components of these buildings that have failed. Replacing them with new or more reliable

materials raises doubts to maintaining the authenticity of the building. Gaining the support to

preserve a building is only the beginning step in the preservation process. Figuring out how to

treat Modem buildings effectively, while maintaining authenticity, is often an even bigger

problem.









CHAPTER 6
THE AESTHETICS OF MODERNISM

It has already been established that Modern architects designed with an idea of building for

the present. They may not have intended for their buildings to last beyond their useful life. At

the same time, Modernists also opposed historic architecture-"those old and rotting buildings

that form our snailshell" as Le Corbusier put it. (Kostof 702) This creates quite a paradox for the

preservation of Modern architecture. Should Modern architecture even be preserved since it

inherently rejected tradition and rejoiced at the end of history? Modem architecture thrived on

newness, and rejected the old. The Modernist designers did not foresee the time when their own

building would become old. (Maxwell 1998)

Modernism was destined for misunderstanding from the beginning (Cunningham 1998: 3).

The very event that publicized this new type of architecture, the 1932 MOMA exhibit, The

International Style, led to mass confusion in two important ways. The first misconception was

the notion that there was a cohesive international "movement" in the first place. The second

misconception was that modern architecture could be summed up by its physical appearance. As

outlined by the exhibit, the guidelines of International Style architecture were simple:

* Architecture is volume, not mass

* Regularity, not axial symmetry, orders design

* Applied decoration is arbitrary

(Cunningham 1998: 3)

According to Brolin, Modem architecture never gained mass acceptance (1976). Most of

the apathy, or downright hostility stemmed from aesthetics. Instead of fitting in with

neighboring buildings, the buildings from the Modern movement blatantly stuck out (Brolin

1976: 8). Brolin states that people are put off by the sterility of modernism, and they either do









not know about, or just do not care about, the rationale behind the design of the buildings (10).

Brolin further argues that Modern architecture was never intended to be beautiful, per say, but it

was meant to be functional and moral, first and foremost (15). Simplicity was bred from

functionalism. Ornament was not necessary for functionality, so it was omitted (16).

Applying ornament in a traditional sense was a criminal act for Modernists. When the past

was treated positively by Modernists, architects favored the simpler forms and processes. Le

Corbusier praised the Doric order of Classical architecture because it was the simplest and least

decorated. The lack of ornament essentially meant lack of tradition to Modernists. During the

Modem era, for the first time in the history of architecture, ornament was excluded from design

(Brolin 1976: 25).

Ornament grabs people's attention as they approach a building. Each successive layer of

ornament that is revealed as you get closer increases the intrigue. With Modern architecture this

phenomenon does not occur. The buildings are free from historic garb, so one would not find

decoration to please the eye of the curious onlooker (Brolin 1976: 25). Essentially, the only

elements that pique one's interest are basic geometric shapes and materials which are

decipherable from a distance (26). If people can read all the elements of a building from far

away, then there is no reason to look closer or even keep looking (27).

Modernists assumed, according to Brolin, that people would recognize and accept their

buildings. The fact remains that the general public, even at present, does not find Modernism

aesthetically pleasing. Modernism is viewed as an elitist movement, only appealing to a few

(Brolin 1976: 58). The modem architects took pride in their work, but the public remained

bewildered. The "City of Tomorrow" exhibit at the Osaka World's Fair showcased Modern

architecture and city planning. The exhibit was highly misunderstood, and even the tour guides









unintentionally called the exhibit "City of Sorrows" (Brolin 1976: 8). This shows how modem

architecture is often perceived as sad and cold. This was not the intention of the architects.

Le Corbusier's Workers Housing Project

Still relatively early in his career, Le Corbusier received a commission from French

industrialist Henry Fruges in 1923 to build housing complexes for his workers and their families.

The buildings, near Bordeaux, are prime examples of early Modernism, with their long strips of

windows, flat roofs, and stripped-down walls. To Le Corbusier, these complexes celebrated

industry and technology. But to the occupants, this was no cause for celebration. They worked

hard all day long in an industrial setting, and did not want to come home to one at night. In just a

few years, the tenants added the pieces of historicism they felt were missing: pitched roofs,

shutters, casement windows, wallpaper, and even picket fences, fountains, and garden gnomes

(de Botton 2006: 163-64).

The Historic Preservation Movement

The idea that Modern architecture is unpopular based on aesthetics is unfortunate in and of

itself, but it is ultimately leading to the neglect and demolition of important modern structures.

On the surface, preservation and modern architecture inherently do not go hand-in-hand.

According to Longstreth, "The federal legislation of 1966, which transformed historic

preservation into a national movement, also bore rather ominous implications for the traditional

concept of progress. Although not directly stated, an underlying rationale for the National

Historic Preservation Act was that contemporary achievements in architecture, planning, and

other fields that shaped the built environment were inferior to those of the past" (1992).

Early historic preservation efforts arose from the desire to memorialize Revolutionary War

heroes. Independence Hall was saved from demolition by a group of activists who proved the

significance of the building. The Mount Vernon Ladies Association saved George Washington's









Mount Vernon residence in 1858 and successfully turned the residence into a house museum.

House museums fueled the preservation movement for nearly a hundred years (Lea 2003).

The National Park Service (NPS) was created by the Department of the Interior in 1916 as

a means to protect the ever-increasing number of federal lands. By the early 1930s, the NPS was

the leading source of preservation expertise for the government (Lea 2004). The NPS, the

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and other federal agencies provided projects for

unemployed architects and photographers during the Great Depression. The architects and

photographers created measured drawings of significant historic buildings. During this time, the

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) emerged-the nation's first audit of historic

buildings (Lea 2004).

In 1947, a group of representatives from cultural and preservation organizations across the

country created the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings in the nation's capital. The

group felt that the current state of the country's important sites was being threatened by post-war

development and exploration. The council ultimately created the National Trust for Historic

Preservation (NTHP) which helped expand the preservation movement beyond house museums

and battlefields. The Trust was chartered by Congress on October 17, 1949, and brought historic

preservation to the public eye (Lea 2004).

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 ushered historic preservation even

further into mainstream society. Prior to the 1966 legislation, only nationally significant

buildings were protected by historic preservation activities. The NHPA made preservation

applicable to important buildings at the national, state, and local level (Lea 2004). Since the

buildings of the distant past were considered superior to those of the present, the new legislation

protected the old buildings from the contemporary architects, designers, and planners who were









creating the inferior works of the present. Preservationists (and most people in general) felt that

Modem architecture lacked character, scale, variety, and significance (Longstreth 1992).

Hating the architecture of the present, and loving the buildings of the past, was not a new

phenomenon. In fact, it has happened countless times in history. Victorian architecture was

despised starting in the late 1800s as scholars and proponents of the City Beautiful movement

felt like their work was far superior. Then the Modernists came along and declared that all the

buildings of the past were fundamentally wrong. In the 1950s and 1960s, Modernism itself came

into question as buildings beyond neo-classicism were being protected (Longstreth 1992). As we

have witnessed in recent years, many contemporary architects dislike buildings from the Post-

Modem period. This is a never-ending cycle.

The most alarming aspect of preservation, especially pertaining to Modernism, is the

presence of taste and aesthetics when it comes to decision-making. "While taste is not an official

criterion for listing historic properties," according to Longstreth, "anyone who has worked in the

preservation field knows that it is an underlying factor and may surface openly to influence the

debate... Matters of taste are usually not expressed at such; they tend to be coded in jargon or

made implicit rather than explicit in statements" (1992). The demolition of Joseph Abel's

Governor Shepherd apartment building (1939) in Washington, D.C. proves the presence of taste

in decision making. The building was "ugly" and was not a "pure" International Style building.

Although this building showcased Abel's talent as an architect and played a key role in

Modernism for public housing in the D.C. area, the building was nevertheless demolished

(Longstreth 1992).

While many preservationists today are beginning to work harder in order to protect key

buildings from the Modem movement, much of the public is still unsure about modernism, or is









blatantly hostile toward it. Lesser-known Modernist building are disappearing with few people

caring or even noticing, and even many Modern architectural gems by famous architects are

being destroyed without much protest (Longstreth "Critique" 2000). The voice of the supportive

preservationists is not enough to save Modem buildings.

Richard Neutra's Cyclorama Building

To some, Richard Neutra's 1961 Cyclorama Building at Gettysburg is the ultimate Visitor

Center of the National Park Service's Mission 66 Program. To others, the Cyclorama is an

intrusive eyesore that should be demolished (Longstreth "Integrity" 2000). For several years, it

was unclear which side would ultimately win. Unfortunately, the building will be demolished.

The Cyclorama Building is one of the few Mission 66 projects where the Park Service

commissioned an internationally renowned architect for the design (Longstreth "Integrity"

2000). While Richard Neutra is most famous for his residential works on the West coast, the

Cyclorama is special in that is showed Neutra's talent for public architecture on the other side of

the country. Neutra even considered the Cyclorama "the project closest to his heart" (French

"Mission 66" 2002). The building is Neutra's tribute to Abraham Lincoln, and it houses the 350-

foot circumference, 30-foot tall "Cyclorama" painting by Paul Phillippoteaux that depicts the

climax of the battle of Gettysburg (French "The Cyclorama Building" 2002).

Initially, the Cyclorama received praise from the architectural community and from

publications like The New York Times, which predicted it would bring much acclaim to the

National Park System. Only twelve years after it opened, however, park officials began to

complain that the Cyclorama was too small. The Park Service immediately took away the visitor

center function of the building, which sparked a 25-year period of neglect by the Park Service

(French "The Cyclorama Building" 2002).









In 1998, the Park Service declared the Cyclorama "an intrusion on the historical

landscape" and slated it for demolition (French "The Cyclorama Building" 2002). To add insult

to injury, the NPS nominated three Mission 66 Visitor Centers for National Landmark Status in

2000, but omitted both of Neutra's Mission 66 contributions (his other visitor center is at the

Petrified Forest National Park) (French "The Cyclorama Building" 2002).

In 1998, preservationists nominated the Cyclorama for the National Register of Historic

Places. That bought some time for the building. In 2000, preservationists, backed by famous

architects such as Frank Gehry and Robert A.M. Stern, tried to make the Cyclorama a historic

landmark. The National Parks Advisory Board denied the nomination on the grounds that the

building didn't have architectural merit (French "The Cyclorama Building" 2002).

In 2005, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) put the Cyclorama on its Watch List of the

100 Most Endangered Sites. The Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN), the non-profit

organization that nominated the Cyclorama for the Watch List, tried to persuade the Park Service

that the building should just be relocated, not demolished (French "Mission 66" 2002). The NPS

fought hard to get rid of this important piece of their history, and they had numerous supporters.

Those in favor of the demolition argued that "this sprawling modernist pile is an unwarranted

intrusion, standing near the high-water mark on the Confederacy, despoiling hallowed ground"

and "it is not only big but that its assertive scale and character run at odds with the setting and

detract from these historical associations that are the bedrock of the park's significance"

(Longstreth "Integrity" 2000). The NPS ultimately won out, and the battle to save the

Cyclorama is over.

Implications

It would be impossible to force people to appreciate Modern buildings, and just liking or

disliking a building is not really the issue. The important concept here is that people understand









the significance of Modernism and can appreciate Modern buildings for their innovativeness and

the ideas they represented. It is not important to think a building is attractive in order to believe

it is significant enough to preserve.









CHAPTER 7
ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING TO SAVE MODERN ARCHITECTURE

Over the past two decades, several organizations have begun to address the issue of

preserving modem architecture. In some cases, traditional groups, such as the International

Council on Monuments and Sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization, or the World Monuments Fund, began to take on Modernism as an important

cause. In other instances, groups formed solely to document and preserve works of Modernism,

such as the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings,

Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement and the Recent Past Preservation Network.

In either case, these organizations are bringing the plight of Modernism into the public domain

and are finding tremendous support for their cause.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

The International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, has over 7500 members

worldwide. The goal is ICOMOS is to conserve and protect cultural heritage sites. ICOMOS

also helps to disperse information on conservation techniques and principles, and establishes

training programs for conservation. ICOMOS bases its principles of conservation on the 1964

Venice Charter (International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and

Sites) (ICOMOS 2007).

Almost from its inception, ICOMOS has been concerned with protecting and conserving

the recent sites that were the result of "intellectual, social, technological, or artistic evolution."

ICOMOS has held several seminars and produced several publications on Modem heritage. In

1989, ICOMOS published pieces on conserving the Bauhaus in Dessau. In 1993, ICOMOS

Germany held a meeting about conserving modern architecture. ICOMOS France held a seminar

on preserving architectural concrete (ICOMOS 2007).









The 1995 ICOMOS Seminar on 20th Century Heritage in Helsinki concluded that recent

heritage should not be defined based on aesthetics, but instead on the important social, economic,

and cultural factors. The meeting also covered how even the modest examples of recent

architecture should be given consideration, including urban and rural structures, housing

complexes, industrial heritage sites, etc. Meeting attendees also stressed the importance of

researching and documenting the problems and solutions of conserving Modern heritage. They

suggested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the issues. At the conclusion of the meeting,

everyone agreed that ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, and the World Heritage Center should have an

ongoing relationship and should work together to define, identify, and document twentieth-

century heritage (ICOMOS 2007).

A follow-up seminar was held in Mexico City in 1996. The main objective of this seminar

was to discuss America's specific contribution to twentieth-century heritage. Sites were

evaluated in terms of local importance first, then regional, national, and international

significance were examined. Since many new and experimental techniques and materials had

been used during the Modem Movement, they were also taken into consideration-whether they

succeeded or failed. Economic barriers were also taken into account during this ICOMOS

seminar (ICOMOS 2007).

Throughout 2000 and 2001, ICOMOS and UNESCO's World Heritage Center collaborated

to promote the nomination of recent past properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List. A

2001 session held in Montreal proposed an international action plan and program for modern

heritage. The Montreal Action Plan was developed on the basis that: 1) Twentieth-century

heritage was very diverse, as were the issues related to identifying and protecting the resources

2) International Monuments and Sites Day 2002 should be dedicated to twentieth-century









heritage 3) The Heritage at Risk Report of 2002 should especially emphasize twentieth-century

heritage and 4) ICOMOS should coordinate with UNESCO and other organizations to develop

meetings and workshops on twentieth-century heritage.

April 18th 2002, ICOMOS's International Day for Monuments and Sites had the theme 20th

Century Heritage. ICOMOS recognized the importance of recent heritage and realized that

recent heritage is often not acknowledged or protected like older heritage (ICOMOS 2007).

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and The
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's World Heritage

Centre (WHC) was established in 1992. The WHC holds annual meetings of the World Heritage

Committee, helps State Parties nominate sites to the World Heritage List, obtains international

assistance from the World Heritage Fund, undertakes emergency actions when List sites are

threatened, organizes seminars and workshops, updates the World Heritage List, and raises

public awareness for heritage preservation (UNESCO 2007).

In 2001, UNESCO's WHC, ICOMOS, and DOCOMOMO created the Programme on

Modem Heritage-a joint program for the identifying, documenting, and promoting the built

heritage of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Programme, which receives financial support from

the Netherlands' government, helps raise awareness about the architecture, planning, and

landscapes from the Modern era. There have been five regional meetings on Modern Heritage,

including the 2004 meeting, which focused on North American Modem Heritage, in Miami

Beach and Coral Gables, FL (Appendix B).

At the Miami meeting, attendees discussed the identification, protection, conservation, and

potential nomination of properties and sites of Modern Heritage in North America. They

examined both the "architectural masterpieces" and the urban sites that were important to









modernity and modernization in North America. It was determined at this meeting that there was

a limited, but growing appreciation for Modern Heritage in America, but that there should be

new ways and means for support and public engagement for these sites. While the focus of

preservation efforts had been primarily on Modern icons, local or vernacular examples of

modernity were also important. Attendees of this meeting discussed two major threats to

Modern Heritage-continuing use and upgrading, and obsolescence. The issue of authenticity

and preservation of Modern structures was also discussed in detail.

At the UNESCO General Conference in New Delhi in 1959, a proposal was made to create

an "intergovernmental" center for the study for preservation and restoration. Soon afterwards,

ICCROM (The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural

Property), was established in Rome. ICCROM's Built Heritage Programme focuses on

education, research, and training and also features courses, seminars, and workshops. In the past

few years, ICCROM has begun to sponsor courses specifically about Moder architecture. The

first MARC, or Modern Architecture Conservation Course, was held in 1999. The course

examined both the theory and practice of conserving Modern buildings. The 2006 MARC

course focused specifically on the suburbs built in the 1960s and 1970s (ICCROM 2007).

World Monuments Fund (WMF)

The World Monuments Fund began in 1965 by James A. Gray, a retired American army

colonel. Gray turned his interest in engineering issues and monuments into a means for the

general public to support preservation for the first time in history. The WMF has proven to be a

substantial force in the preservation movement, with more than 450 projects in 80 countries

(WMF 2005).

The WMF first restored rock-hewn churches in Ethiopia, and then the monuments of

Easter Island. In 1966, the WMF stepped in to help save Venice after severe floods threatened









important Italian buildings and monuments. In 1985, the WMF aided Mexico City after a

devastating earthquake damaged the historic city center. The World Monuments Fund has

launched other programs all over the world, including Asia and the former Soviet Union (WMF

2005).

In 1995, the WMF established the World Monuments Watch program. The Watch

program chooses the 100 Most Endangered Sites from around the globe and compiles them into

a list every two years. The sites chosen are particularly threatened by neglect, vandalism, war, or

natural disaster. It is hoped that being selected as a Watch site will attract technical and financial

support for these at-risk sites. Over three-quarters of the Watch sites have been saved (WMF

2005).

Modernism at Risk

In 2006, the WMF, sponsored by Knoll (a leading manufacturer of modern office and

home furniture for nearly 70 years), launched Modernism at Risk. The Modernism at Risk

program calls attention to threatened works of Modernism across the world, and will ultimately

strengthen the World Monuments Fund's place in the preservation of Modern architecture. With

a generous grant from Knoll in the sum of $400,000, the WMF will not only be able to focus on

preserving specific sites, but will also be able to launch initiatives for public education and

advocacy, and secure media attention. A series of traveling exhibits and lectures by prominent

architects will ensue (WMF 2005).

A major initiative of the Modernism at Risk program is the awarding of the World

Monuments Knoll Modernism Prize. The award will be give to a professional or firm whose

work raises public awareness of the important role of Modernism in our heritage. The winner

will be chosen based on either a showcasing of the preservation of a modernist structure, or by









using modem design solutions for increasing the longevity of pre-modern landmarks. The first

winner will be chosen in 2008 (WMF 2005).

Modern Buildings on the WMF Watch List

Several well-known Modernist buildings have been included on past WMF Watch Lists.

In 2000, Richard Neutra's VDL Research House II made the Watch List. In 2002, two major

American Modernist structures made the Watch List-Rudolf Schindler's Kings Road House

and Studio in West Hollywood and Edward Durell Stone's A. Conger Goodyear House in Long

Island (WMF 2005).

The 2006 Watch List featured the highest number of Modem buildings ever listed at

once-nine in total. Included in the 2006 List are: Melnikov's House Studio, Asmara Historic

City Center, International Fairground at Tripoli, Ennis Brown House, Cyclorama Center, and 2

Columbus Circle (WMF 2005).

Russian architect Konstantin Melnikov's 1929 home and studio was the only single-family

dwelling built for an individual during the Soviet era. The area of town where the house is

located is undergoing massive redevelopment. An underground parking lot built next door

destroyed the drainage system in the Melnikov house and has led to water penetration.

Inadequate preservation work in 1998, in addition to the intense water damage, has led to serious

deterioration of the House Studio. Viktor, the architect's son, is currently keeping the house

alive with his own money. Viktor and other locals want to see the Melnikov House turned into a

house-museum (WMF 2005).

The Asmara City Center in Eritrea was constructed between 1936 and 1941 by Fascist

Italian colonists. The Asmara architects incorporated a variety of styles into the City Center, but

Rationalism (Italy's version of International Style Modernism) is most apparent. Again,

development in the area is threatening the City Center, including a 1919 Modernist Asmara









Theatre by Oduardo Cavagnari. In 2000, the Cultural Assets Rehabilitation Project (CARP),

supported by the World Bank, established a safe-zone around the city center where no new

construction could begin. CARP feels that by being listed on the Watch List the Eritrea

government will adopt planning guidelines that help protect other historic resources in Asmara

(WMF 2005).

Brazilian Modernist Oscar Niemeyer was commissioned in 1963 for the International

Fairground Project in Tripoli, Lebanon. Niemeyer's design features an oval-shaped fairground

with concrete forms and an open-air pavilion. The site was originally used by the military when

war broke out during construction, but it is now unoccupied. The Fairground site has been

neglected over the years, and plans to demolish the existing structures and convert the site into a

themepark are in the works. Patrimoine sans Frontieres and the Association for the Safeguarding

of the Intenational Fairgrounds of Tripoli strongly advocate the preservation of the site (WMF

2005).

Frank Lloyd Wright's 1924 textile block house in Los Angeles has experienced severe

deterioration over the years. The very materials used by Wright have been a major source of the

demise, along with the 1994 earthquake that caused structural damage to the house. Local

foundations, state funds, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have been

working hard to save this house. After a series of brutal rains further deteriorated the house in

2005, the City of Los Angeles deemed the house uninhabitable (WMF 2005).

Richard Neutra's 1963 Cyclorama Building is in serious trouble (see Chapter 6).

Organizations like DOCOMOMO and the Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN) feel that

being listed on the 2006 Watch List will demonstrate the plight of Modernist architecture. In this









case, the demolition of the Cyclorama Building has been approved by government but

vehemently opposed by preservationists (WMF 2005).

Edward Durell Stone's 1960s museum building at 2 Columbus Circle was originally a

personal art gallery for Huntington Hartford. From the very beginning, this building was

controversial. The Gallery closed in 1969 due to lack of funding, but it was purchased by the

City of New York in 1980. The Museum of Art and Design (MAD) recently purchased the

building, and plans to renovate it with a radically different design. In the new plan, the marble

exterior and ornament will be removed, and the interior will be drastically modified. Both the

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and the Preservation League of New York State

wanted to save 2 Columbus Circle, but the New York City Landmarks Commission failed to see

the significance of the building, thus rendering it a lost cause (WMF 2005).

Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern
Movement (DOCOMOMO)

An International group that specifically focused on Modernism was formed in 1988-

DOCOMOMO. DOCOMOMO is an International Working Party for the Documentation and

Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement. DOCOMOMO

has working parties in 49 countries, including the United States. DOCOMOMO hosts biannual

conferences in addition to a semi-annual journal, and published proceedings from the

conferences. DOCOMOMO also has international specialist committees (ISC) that are each

assigned a different sector-ISC/T for technology, ISC/R for registers, ICS/L for landscapes,

ISC/U for urbanism, and ISC/E for education (Bronson 2000).

Activities featured on the DOCOMOMO agenda include: identifying, inventorying, listing,

protecting, researching, and raising awareness of important modem buildings. The steps for









treating modern buildings are much the same as those for traditional buildings, but must be

tailored specifically for modern buildings when it comes to physical treatments (Bronson 2000).

Originally, DOCOMOMO was mainly concerned with 1920s and 1930s European

Modernism. More recently, however, the focus has shifted, particularly in America, because it

was determined that the post-war years showcase a significant portion of modern architectural

development (Bronson 2000).

DOCOMOMO US was formed in 1995 and now has seven local chapters-Chicago,

Georgia, New England, the New York Tri-State area, Northern California, North Texas, and

Western Washington. The chapters host walking tours and educational programs, give technical

assistance for preserving modern buildings, conduct research and surveys for the DOCOMOMO

Register, and advocate to save endangered sites (DOCOMOMO-US).

The Mission Statement of DOCOMOMO US has four key elements:

* DOCOMOMO US seeks to stimulate interest in and educate the public about Modern
buildings, sites, neighborhoods and landscapes;

* DOCOMOMO US seeks to act as a watchdog when examples of Modern buildings, sites,
neighborhoods and landscapes are in jeopardy and advocate for their appropriate protection
and preservation;

* DOCOMOMO US seeks to make a register of important Modem buildings, sites,
neighborhoods and landscapes to be preserved and documented;

* DOCOMOMO US seeks to exchange knowledge and ideas about Modern buildings, sites,
neighborhoods and landscapes and to share techniques about their documentation and
conservation

(DOCOMOMO-US 2007)

The US DOCOMOMO Register contains significant examples of Modernism in

architecture, urban design, landscapes, and gardens. In order for a site to be eligible for the

Register, it must first and foremost be a Modern site. The site must have been built during the









Modem period (approximately 1920s to 1970s). The design showcased must be consciously and

purposefully Modem (DOCOMOMO-US 2007).

DOCOMOMO outlines six criteria for evaluating the significance of a building or

landscape. Although a site does not need to meet all six qualifications, the more it meets will

further justify the significance.

* Technological merit: Does the work employ innovative modern technology to solve
structural, programmatic, or aesthetic challenges?

* Social merit: Does the design reflect the challenging social patterns of 20th century life?
Did the designer attempt to improve either living or working conditions, or human
behaviors through the work's form or function?

* Artistic or Aesthetic merit: Does the work exhibit skill at composition, handling of
proportion, scale and material and detail?

* Cannonic merit: Is the work and/or architect famous or influential? Is it exemplary work?

* Referential value: Did this work exert an influence on subsequent designers as a result of
one or more of its attributes?

* Integrity: Is the original design intent apparent? Have material changes been made which
compromise the architectural integrity of the structure or site?

(DOCOMOMO-US 2007)

Currently DOCOMOMO US and DOCOMOMO Tri-state New York are fighting hard to

save Eero Saarinen's 1962 TWA Terminal at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New

York City. The construction of new terminals right next to the TWA Terminal has been set in

place. Since TWA Airline no longer exists, the TWA Terminal is vacant and its future use has

no been reassigned. To make way for the new terminals, part of the original TWA terminal and

its gates are supposed to be demolished. DOCOMOMO US and DOCOMOMO Tri-state New

York are afraid of this demolition, and they fear that the new terminal will dwarf the TWA

terminal. Since the terminal is no longer in use, DOCOMOMO is afraid that it will further

deteriorate and ultimately be demolished entirely. DOCOMOMO members are asking for letters









of support to be sent to the Governor of New York and the head of the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey (American Institute of Architects 2001).

Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN)

The Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN) has the goal of "Promoting preservation

education and advocacy to encourage a contextual understanding of our modern built

environment." RPPN advocates the protection of many types of resources from our recent built

heritage, many of which are less than fifty years old, "out of style", or are considered "non-

contributing" in terms of local, state, or national significance. The RPPN is very active in raising

awareness about recent past heritage, and taking physical actions to save recent past structures.

RPPN goes beyond the realm of classic examples of Modernism, and further advocates for the

documentation and protection of bowling alleys, drive-in theaters, diners, domes, towers,

roadside structures, and other structures most people might find ordinary (Recent Past

Preservation Network). Although the RPPN is an invaluable source of information preserving

recent past heritage and they have been instrumental in helping to save important pieces of

Modern architecture, the group goes far beyond Modern territory and thus was not researched in

depth for this study.









CHAPTER 8
OBSERVATIONS

At this point in time, nearly all preservationists agree that there were some highly

significant buildings erected in the recent past that deserve celebrating and saving.

Organizations and individuals are constantly fighting to save an increasing number of Modem

buildings. Although more people are becoming interested in the Modern era, most people are

still indifferent toward the preservation of Modern buildings. This lack of interest in Modernism

makes it difficult to obtain public support when Modem buildings are threatened.

As addressed in previous chapters, Modern building envelopes have numerous problems,

and people do not favor Modern aesthetics. Both of these barriers create opposition for the

preservation of Modernism, but education, or lack thereof, is perhaps the basis of these

challenges to preserving Modern buildings.

Education is crucial to understanding why any building should be preserved, but it is

particularly important for Modem buildings. The Modern era was a highly misunderstood period

of our architectural history. Although most Modem buildings have distinguishing aesthetic

characteristics, such as flat roofs and simple forms, Modernism was not a movement based on

aesthetics. Building forms were a product of their functions. Modernism also demonstrated

optimism about the future and a willingness to experiment with new ideas and techniques. While

education about the Modern era might not make people favor Modern buildings, it would

certainly help raise awareness about the important mark Modernism made on the history of

design and culture.

The lack of education about Modern building materials and processes also poses serious

problems when physical preservation is enacted. Since Modernists favored experimentation,

many building materials used in their buildings were never fully tested or may be obsolete today.









Most preservationists are knowledgeable about preserving traditional buildings, but they are

unsure about preservation techniques for Modem buildings. Maintaining architectural integrity

and authenticity are monumentally important for historic preservation. Authenticity is a difficult

area for Modern buildings, in particular, because retaining the original materials used in

construction is often not an option. Insensitive changes and additions to Modern buildings also

pose problems for maintaining authenticity. Since most buildings from the Modern era are small

(but efficient), they are often subject to additions in order to increase space. In many cases, these

additions destroy the materials and spatial relationships of the original structure.

Economics is also an enormous barrier to preserving Modem buildings. Modern buildings

are expensive to repair, and the land they are located on is often considered more valuable than

the structure itself (Longstreth "Critique" 2000). People today want "McMansions," not the

modest structures from the Modern movement. Developers often buy Modern structures, only to

tear them down to build larger buildings on the same site.

During the Modem Movement, particularly in the post-war era, there was a dramatic

building boom. Not only was there an enormous increase in the number of building, but there

was also an emergence of many new building types. It is also difficult to determine which

structures are the most significant, and which are less important. To make matters even more

difficult, funds and resources for preservation are limited. People are often more likely to

support the preservation of older, sometimes inferior, buildings of the distant past. Since much

of the population still remains indifferent toward Modernism, it is hard to raise public support to

save Modern buildings. This is a great threat to the survival of Modem building-from the icons

to the ordinary.









APPENDIX A
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS

http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards_guidelines.htm
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards

ROOTED IN OVER 120 YEARS OF PRESERVATION ETHICS in both Europe and America, The
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common sense
principles in non-technical language. They were developed to help protect our nation's irreplaceable
cultural resources by promoting consistent preservation practices.

The Standards may be applied to all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts.

The Standards are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing and replacing historic materials, as
well as designing new additions or making alterations; as such, they cannot, in and of themselves, be
used to make essential decisions about which features of a historic property should be saved and which
might be changed. But once an appropriate treatment is selected, the Standards provide philosophical
consistency to the work.

There are Standards for four distinct, but interrelated, approaches to the treatment of historic properties--
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.

Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a
property's form as it has evolved over time. (Protection and Stabilization have now been consolidated
under this treatment.)

Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or
changing uses while retaining the property's historic character.

Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of
other periods.

Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.









Standards for Preservation
1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the
retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment
and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until
additional work may be undertaken.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact
or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically
and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future
research.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level
of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement
of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and
texture.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.









Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property
will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment would be unimpaired.









Standards for Restoration
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the
property's restoration period.

2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal
of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period
will not be undertaken.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be
physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented
for future research.

4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be
documented prior to their alteration or removal.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will
match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding
conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed
together historically.

8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.









Standards for Reconstruction
1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when
documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal
conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.

2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be
preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and
artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed,
mitigation measures will be undertaken.

3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features,
and spatial relationships.

4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements
substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-
create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and
texture.

5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.

6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.









APPENDIX B
MIAMI SUMMARY REPORT



____ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization o ,
II NSI Q Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'education, la science et la culture I a
Centre du patrimoine mondial
World Heritage Centre ^



Regional Meeting on Modern Heritage North America
Miami Beach & Coral Gables (Florida), USA
10 13 November 2004


FINAL VERSION


Summary Report
From 10 to 13 November 2004, forty-five experts and professionals participated in the Regional
Meeting on Modem Heritage: North America in Miami Beach and Coral Gables, USA (see
Annex 1 for the program), organised by UNESCO's World Heritage Centre (WHC) and the
University of Florida (College of Design, Construction and Planning Preservation Programs).
With the support of the Government of the Netherlands, US-ICOMOS, the Consortium for
Urban Conservation in North America (CUCINA), the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the National Park Service, The Villagers Inc., the Florida Trust for Historic
Preservation and DOCOMOMO-US, 20 experts invited by the Director of the World Heritage
Centre for their professional work and experience in the field of conservation of 19th and 20th
centuries heritage, engaged in debate to discuss identification, protection, conservation and
potential nomination of properties and sites of Modern Heritage in North America. (See Annex 2
for the list of participants)

The opening of the Regional Meeting took place on Wednesday 10 November 2004 at the
Venetian Pool in Coral Gables with opening remarks from the Mayor of Coral Gables, the
Coordinator of the Modern Heritage Programme at WHC, the Representatives of the University
of Florida, the Representative of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
Representative of the National Park Service, and the Secretary-General of ICOMOS
International.

The expert meeting started on Thursday morning 11 November at the Miami Beach Botanical
Gardens setting a broad stage with presentations on general issues, including an overview of the
Programme on Modern Heritage with results of previous Regional Meetings, ICOMOS'
involvement in the preservation of Modem Heritage, recent discussions at the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation concerning the possible listing of major US properties and sites (such as
those related to the Manhattan Project and the Interstate Highway network) and the system of









identification and listing of properties and sites, many of those related to modernity, at the US
National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. Representatives of Parks Canada,
including the Canadian Register of Historic Places introduced similar topics, while
DOCOMOMO US representatives elaborated on international connections and Modem Heritage
criteria applied to sites in the US.

In general it was established that both Canada and the United States had put in place an elaborate
system of institutions and instruments, including consultation procedures and public information
programmes. While the United States was arguably far ahead of other regions in the world with
regard to identification and listing of various heritage categories according to themes, including
Modem Heritage, Canada on the contrary had established an elaborate system regarding the
World Heritage process, including a rigorous procedure for the establishment of its Tentative
List, which had just been completed after two years of identification and consultation. In this
respect all participants appreciated the possibility offered at this expert meeting to exchange
information and experiences.

As the United States had refrained from putting forward nominations during the last decade (its
last nominations were Glacier National Park, together with Canada, and Carlsbad Caverns in
1995), allowing for other States Parties to bring nominations forward, much discussion was
focused on how the US is currently planning to get back in the process. The responsible
representative explained that at the moment much effort was put in the Periodic Reporting
process in view of the presentation of the region's report in 2005. A comprehensive revision of
the Tentative List, which was established over 20 years ago, is envisaged, although no strategy
had been developed yet. It was brought forward that the US Administration remained open to
suggestions, taking into account that the Global Strategy and local support for heritage sites
would be important aspects. A Federal Inter-Agency Panel will consider the Tentative List and
nominations, coordinated by the Secretary of the Interior. The State Department then will send
nominations to the World Heritage Centre.

Chaired by representatives of the US and Canadian Government and non-Governmental
organizations, the expert meeting further included a series of presentations on properties and
sites of Moder Heritage in North America grouped in three sessions: monuments, sites and
landscapes. These served as a basis for the discussion related to the identification and
conservation of Moder Heritage in the United States and Canada. The following properties and
sites were examined as case studies:

* The Parkway System in Minneapolis
* The Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line Station network in the Canadian Arctic
* Miami Beach Heritage & Art Deco District
* Montreal Modern Downtown
* S.R. Crown Hall and the Illinois Institute of Technology Campus, Chicago
* Habitat 67, Montreal
* Marina City, Chicago
* Grain elevators of Saskatchewan
* The former Visitor Center at Gettysburg National Military Park
* The Dal Grauer Substation and the Burrard Street Corridor, Vancouver









* The Buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright
* Three mid-twentieth century properties in Atlantic Canada
* The University of British Columbia Campus, Vancouver
* The Brazilian Pavilion, 1939-40 Worlds Fair, New York

The different cases ranged from architectural masterpieces to urban ensembles and cultural
landscapes, including cities, infrastructural works, military systems and networks of non-
contiguous sites, and represented important aspects of modernity and modernization in North
America. None of the cases had been evaluated in the context of a World Heritage nomination,
although one is in the process of preparation, being the works of Frank Lloyd Wright.

In the debate following the presentations participants agreed on a limited but growing
appreciation for modern heritage, notwithstanding the omni-presence of heritage of the recent
past in North American society, urging for a need to rethink ways and means for political support
and public engagement. The values of heritage need to be communicated and it was suggested
that perhaps three audiences need to be addressed: the general public, decision makers and
professionals of related disciplines, focusing on the lessons of history, the collective memory of
the people and heritage as important economic, cultural and social assets. It was further remarked
that "preservation needs to be pro-active and engage the public."

While both National Registers showed a broad representation of heritage sites, also on the
neighbourhood level, participants agreed that the majority of the presentations at the expert
meeting tended to focus on canonical and iconic North American architecture, triggering a
debate about internationalization versus the importance of local context, of local meaning versus
landmarks of architectural history.

The ideology of modernism created a language whose expressions became understood as a style.
The manifestations of this style have become the object of conservation. A goal of conservation
should be the interpretation and conveying of the historical context. The importance of
functional, economic, social, cultural and technological factors in shaping the character and form
of the built environment should be given greater consideration in the identification and
conservation of sites of Modern Heritage.

It was remarked that the conservation of modern monuments often entails the preservation of
photographs and images, and it was questioned whether the use of images, which were so
powerful in the spread of the modernist ideal, could be used as well to reach the public for
preservation purposes.

The grain elevators case provided for intense and stimulating debate about the heritage story
encompassing both Canada and the US relating to interconnected networks of food production
and distribution, regional planning and land management, settlement and immigration, which
offers an opportunity to describe and transmit an important part of North American history. This
in turn led to discussion of the importance of understanding many facets of modern heritage as
systems or networks into which specific sites can be more fully understood. However, the
participants realized while practical issues, such as the need for protection and conservation, and









the requirement for property-owner consent, would limit application of this concept for World
Heritage nomination, they do not preclude the need for and desirability of collaborative research.

With regard to identification, reference was made to the 1997 DOCOMOMO study
commissioned by ICOMOS suggesting properties and sites of the Modern Movement for
possible inclusion in the World Heritage List. Further discussed was the fact that the newly
established Tentative List of Canada contained no examples of the Modern Movement.

The participants observed two threats: continuing use and upgrading, and obsolescence. In
continuing use the broad public awareness of the heritage value is unrecognized and designation
is perceived as a threat to the ongoing operation and upgrading. Obsolescence's, real and
perceived, on the other hand is often accelerated by rapid technological changes leading to
unusually complex challenges in the use of certain types of properties.

The unusually short life span of modem heritage buildings is a particularly acute problem, which
is not only due to rapid obsolescence, but also due to intense pressures for greater growth
experienced in city centers, peripheral locations and formerly rural areas alike. For instance
many of the great achievements of the Chicago School of Architecture were demolished after
only 20 to 40 years.

It was put forward that planned urban renewal schemes were a truly universal phenomenon of
modernization and very significant for both the American continents, calling for coordinated
research and documentation to take a needed fresh perspective.

With regard to protection, prominent in the discussion was the US requirement for property-
owner consent in the process of designating a World Heritage site. In both countries the lack of
public appreciation was complicating protection and conservation efforts, illustrated by the
often-difficult process of getting even masterpieces of North American architecture protected. In
addition, branding for tourism and other purposes, promoting towns "where the old days still live
on", often result in destruction of modem properties and remodelling them to simulate a pre-
industrial appearance.

An important plea was made to undertake historical analyses of urban form, in addition to a
building-focused approach, in protection and conservation strategies for Modern Heritage, an
issue that had been discussed in the recent DOCOMOMO Conference in New York in
September 2004. The current threat to Place Ville Marie in Montreal highlights the value of
coordinating these two approaches.

Issues of authenticity versus the need to improve on the performance of buildings (fire safety
regulations, energy efficiency, etc.) were discussed in the context of the often painstakingly
precise process of architectural conservation, including the need for careful consideration of new
interventions. Since the materials utilized in the original construction sometimes weren't
expected to last more than 30 years, obtaining appropriate materials for the restoration process
remains another challenge. The use of economic incentives was emphasized as an important tool
to support conservation.









While preservation of authentic exteriors is currently fairly well understood, it was shown
through examples in particular in Montreal (Habitat complex) and Miami Beach (Art Deco
District) that interiors often remained seriously under threat. It was put forward that increased
efforts were needed to improve on this situation.

Regarding criteria for assessment and evaluation, the case of the works of Frank Lloyd Wright
was discussed extensively. Reviewing the proposed serial nomination to recognize significant
contributions to the development of modern architecture represented by the buildings of FLW,
the participants suggested that a proper statement of significance could provide for insights into
the number of properties to be included in the nomination proposal. Review of the 1991
ICOMOS recommendations confirmed that the current process of reviewing a significant number
of FLW's works would lead to an informed decision regarding the selection of buildings. This
would facilitate ICOMOS' task of advising the World Heritage Committee, and the Committee's
task of deciding on the Outstanding Universal Value of the works.


Recommendations

1) Concept
While the important contribution of architects and architecture was acknowledged, the
participants agreed that for identification purposes the concept of Modern Heritage
needed to go beyond the focus on individual monuments. Consideration should be given
to a broader range of sites, including those with associative value, that form the systems
and networks that are traces and experiences of the processes of modernization,
modernity and modernism. Modern Heritage is not necessarily defined by a single time
period. Such sites may be related to material action to change environments and living
conditions that shaped, and are still shaping, society.

For World Heritage nominations, it was understood that a clear focus remained necessary
on practical and ultimate results: the preservation of places and development of the
conservation process.

2) World Heritage Process
Discussing the implications of the above concept of Moder Heritage, the participants
underlined the need to pursue regional balances and efforts for assistance to under-
represented regions. Furthermore, assistance from the WH Committee to conduct
comparative analyses was requested.

Support for the evolving concept and further development of serial nominations was
suggested, certainly with regard to properties of Modern Heritage. The participants
strongly suggested turning the World Heritage process into a more interactive one to
facilitate the process. This would include the need for a preliminary assessment of OUV
of potential nominations to avoid waste of resources and last minute disappointments,
considered greatly detrimental to the process.









It was further suggested to involve local communities in the establishment of the
Tentative List, along with the professional and scholarly communities. The participants
encouraged the involvement of all stakeholders in establishment of a 'wish-list' of
potential sites to be included in the Tentative List.

The participants reiterated that the World Heritage Convention was ultimately about the
conservation of heritage, recognizing that World Heritage listing is only one aspect of
this process.

3) International Co-operation
As an example of international cooperation, DOCOMOMO US offered to develop its
conference website as a possible portal for dissemination of information on the post-WW
II era.

To maintain dialogue between both the US and Canadian Park Services, in the spirit of
the already existing longstanding cooperation, and after completion of the Tentative List
revision process by the US, multilateral cooperation including Mexico should be
considered on the subject of identification of Modern Heritage.

4) Actions at the National Level
The participants expressed admiration for the rigorous and thorough process in the
establishment of the Canadian Tentative List and strongly suggested that the US draw on
that experience.

Appreciation was expressed as well for the US Government's initiative to revise the
Tentative List in 2005. The participants urged that the process be open and involve all
stakeholders.

Participants recommended the use of multiple, relevant research methodologies and
preservation measures for Modern Heritage, exploring existing partnerships and
generating new ones. They also recommended that students be involved in the process, so
as to foster awareness at the local and national levels.

The participants recognized the universal value of the United Nations building in New
York and urged the need for exploration of possibilities to have the complex listed in the
World Heritage List.

5) Specific follow-up proposals
Considering the implications of the 5 regional meetings, the participants requested the
World Heritage Centre to convene a thematic meeting involving experts selected from all
regions facilitating general advice to the WH Committee.

Adopted in Miami Beach (Florida), USA, on 13 November 2004.










Annex 2


List of Participants

Ms. Carol Shull
Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places
Chief of the National Historic Landmarks Survey
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW (2280)
Washington, DC 20240-0001
Tel: (202) 354-2234
E-mail: Carol Shull@nps.gov

Mr. Arthur H. Chen
Professor, Department of Architecture
University of Minnesota
89 Church Street S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Fax: +1-612 624 5743
E-mail: chenxl21@umn.edu

Mr. Richard Longstreth
Director, Graduate Program in Historic Preservation
American Studies Department
George Washington University
Washington DC 20052
E-mail: nl a tL cdii

Mr. Stephen Morris
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
202.354.1803
E-mail: Stephen Morris@nps.gov

Ms. Jan Eakins
Secretary, Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy
Ex. Director, Fairbanks House
511 E Street
Dedham, MA
Tel: 781-326-1170
Fax: 781-326-2147
E-mail: JanEakins@msn.com

Mr. Thomas Gunny Harboe
Architect, US-ICOMOS/DOCOMOMO
Vice President, Preservation Group McClier
401 East Illinois St.
Suite 625










Chicago, IL 60614
Tel: (312) 373-7790
Fax: (312) 373-7710
E-mail: harboe@mcclier.com

Ms. Jeanne Lambin
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Wisconsin Field Office
319 High Street
Mineral Point, WI 53565
608-987-1502
608-987-1503 (fax)
jeannelambin@nthp.org
(Adrian Fine, Director
Northeast Office, NTHP)

Mrs. Helene Lipstadt, US-DOCOMOMO (MIT)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
lipstadt@mit.edu
Lipstadt@hotmail.com
hlipstad@world.std.com
sophia@brandeis.edu
tel 617.484.7362; cell 617.794.9923

Mr. Enrique Madia, Architect
Historic Preservation Consultant
100 Kings Point Drive #1706
Sunny Isles, Florida 33160
305-898-0074
Emadia@aol.com

Mr. James Ashby
Senior Conservation Architect, O.A.A
Heritage Conservation Directorate Public Works and Government Services Canada
25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor
Gatineau, QC K1A OM5
Government of Canada
Tel: (819) 994-0811
Fax: (819) 953-7482
E-mail: James.ashby@pwgsc.gc.ca

Mr. Andrew Waldron
Parks Canada Recent Past Initiative
Architectural Historian
National Historic Sites Directorate
Parks Canada Agency
25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor (25-5-R)
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada K1A OM5
E-mail: andrew.\ aldionu-a r c ca











Mr. Steven Mannell
Director, School of Architecture
Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture & Planning
Dalhousie University
P.O. Box 1000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
B3J 2X4
Tel: (902) 494 6122
E-mail: Steven.mannell@dal.ca

Mr. Bernard Flaman, SAA, MRAIC
Heritage Resources, Heritage Architect
Culture, Youth, and Recreation
9th Floor
1919 Saskatchewan
Regina, SK S4P 3V7
306.787. 1588
E-mail: bflaman@cyr.gov.sk.ca

Mrs. France Vanlaethem
College of Design
University of Quebec at Montreal
CP8888 Station Downtown
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8
E-mail: Vanlaethem.francine@uqam.ca

Mr. Rhodri Windsor Liscombe, F.S.A.
Department of Art History, Visual Art, and Theory
University of British Columbia
403 6333 Memorial Road
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
E-mail: rhodri@interchange.ubc.ca

Mr. Rejean Legault
College of Design
University of Quebec at Montreal
CP8888 Station Downtown
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8
E-mail: legault.rejean@uqam.ca

Mr. Robert Lemon, Chairman
Marco D'Agostini, Coordinator
City of Vancouver Planning Department
453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4 B.C.V5Y1V4
robert@robertlemon.ca
Robert Lemon Architect Inc.
125 East 4th Avenue,
Vancouver BC V5T 1G4
CANADA
fax 604-874-4955










ph 604-224-2414
]robe:' i' iic l n sha .ca

Ms. Victoria Angel
Canadian Registrar
Canadian Register of Historic Places
Parks Canada Agency
25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor (25-5-R)
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada K1A 0M5
Tel: 1-866-632-6183
E-mail: historicplaces@pc.gc.ca

Mr. Lauro Cavalcanti
Director, Paco Imperial
Patrimonio Comtemporeo
Praca XV de Novembro No. 48, Centro
Rio de Janeiro CEP; 20010-010
BRAZIL
Fax: +55 21 2533 4359
E-mail: laurocav( visualnet.com.br









LIST OF REFERENCES


American Institute of Architects (2001). "DOCOMOMO helps safeguard Saarinen's TWA
terminal." AIArchitect, July 31,
http://aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek/tw0727/0727tw1twaadd.htm, accessed March 2007.

Ashby, J. (2000). "Preserving a prototype: Buckminster Fuller's dymaxion house." Preserving
the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation
Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-1 thru 3-7.

Boothby, T.E., and Roise, C.K. (2000). "Soaring or crashing? The challenges of preserving thin-
shell concrete structures." Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William
G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-29 thru 3-
37.

Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn. What happens after they're built, Penguin Books, New
York.

Brolin, B. (1976). The Failure of modern architecture, VNR Company, New York.

Bronson, S.D., and Jester, T.C. (2000). "Conserving the built heritage of the modern era: Recent
developments and ongoing challenges." APTBulletin, 4-12.

de Botton, A. (2006). The architecture of happiness, Pantheon Books, New York.

Campbell, R. (1995). "Building faced bigger crisis than falling windows." The Boston Globe,
March 3, http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/criticism/works/CRIT-MAR3.html, accessed
March 2007.

Cunningham, A. (1998). "Introduction." Modern movement heritage, Ed. Allen Cunningham, E
& FN Spon, London, 1-9.

DOCOMOMO-US. "The international working party for the documentation and conservation of
buildings, sites, and neighborhoods of the modern movement." http://docomomo-us.org/,
accessed Feb 2007.

Eichler Network. "The wonderful world of Eichler homes."
http://www.eichlernetwork.com/ENHist.html, accessed Feb 2007.

Erwin, D. (2000). "Principles of curtain wall performance affecting assessment and repair."
Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic
Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-159 thru 3-163.

Farrangher, T. (2006). "60 stories and countless tales." The Boston Globe, September 24,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/24/60_storiesandco
untless/tales/, accessed March 2007.









Ford, E. (1997). "The theory and practice of impermanence." Harvard Design Magazine, Fall, 1-
7.

Frankeberger, R., and Garrison, J. (2002). "From rustic romanticism to modernism, and beyond:
Architectural resources in the national parks." Forum Journal, Summer, 8-21.

French, C.M. (2002). "The Cyclorama building: Neutra's monumental vision at Gettysburg."
National Building Museum-Blueprints Magazine, Summer,
http://nbm.org/blueprints/00s/summer02/page7/page7.htm, accessed Feb 2007.

French, C.M. (2002). "Mission 66: Modem architecture in the national parks."
http://www.mission66.com/index.html, accessed Feb 2007.

Glancey, J. (2000). The story of architecture, DK Publishing, Inc., New York.

Glancey, J. (1998). Tii eitie/-century architecture, Carlton Books, London.

Great Buildings (2007). "The great buildings collection." http://www.greatbuildings.com/,
accessed Jan 2007.

Hale, J. (1994). The oldway of seeing, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York.

Henket, H.J. (1998). "The icon and the ordinary." Modern movement heritage, Ed. Allen
Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, 13-17.

Hochstim, J. (2004). Florida modern: Residential architecture 1945-1970, Rizzoli, New York.

Howey, J. (1995). The Sarasota school of architecture: 1941-1966, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

ICCROM (2007). "International centre for the study of the preservation and restoration of
cultural property." http://www.iccrom.org/index.shtml, accessed March 2007.

ICOMOS (2007). "International council on monuments and sites."
http://www.intemational.icomos.org/home.htm, accessed March 2007

Jandl, H.W. (1995). "Preserving the recent past: An introduction." CRM, 18(8), 5-6.

Johnson, D. (2000). "Modern thin cladding considerations." Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed.
Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation,
Washington, D.C., 3-151 thru 3-157.

Kaskel, B.S. (1995). "The metal and glass curtain wall." CRM, 18(8), 33-37.

Kelley, S.J., and Johnson, D.K. (1998). "The metal and glass curtain wall: The history and
diagnostics." Modern movement heritage, Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon,
London, 77-87.









Kostof, S. (1995). A history of architecture: Settings and rituals, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Lamprecht, B. (2004). RichardNeutra: 1892-1970: Survival through design, Taschen, Germany.

Lea, D. (2003). "America's preservation ethos: A tribute to enduring ideals." A richer heritage:
historic preservation in the twenty-first century, Ed. Robert E. Stipe, Univ. of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1-20.

Longstreth, R. (2000). "Critique: What to save? Midcentury modernism at risk." Architectural
Record, September, 59-61.

Longstreth, R. (2000). "Integrity and the recent past." Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah
Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington,
D.C., 2-1 thru 2-6.

Longstreth, R. (1992). "When the present becomes the past." Past meets future: Saving
America's historic environments, Ed. Antoinette J. Lee, The Preservation Press,
Washington, 213-224.

Macdonald, S. (2000). "Challenging contemporary repair methods: The impact of
standardization on the preservation of midcentury buildings and structures." Preserving
the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation
Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-127 thru 3-137.

Maxwell, R. (1998). "Preface." Modern movement heritage, Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN
Spon, London, xiii-xvii.

Moffett, M., Fazio, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2004). Buildings across time: An introduction to
world architecture, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.

Pehnt, W. Ed. (1963). Encyclopedia of modern architecture, Thames and Hudson, London.

Prudon, T.H.M. (1998). "Great expectations: Woolworth building (Cass Gilbert) and Lever
House (SOM)." Modern movement heritage, Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon,
London, 88-95

Recent Past Preservation Network. "Promoting preservation education and advocacy to
encourage a contextual understanding of our built environment."
http://www.recentpast.org/, accessed Feb 2007.

Reed, P.S. (1995). "Enlisting modernism." World War II and the American dream: How wartime
building changed a nation, Ed. Donald Albrecht, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2-
41.









Schuller, M., and Charola, A.E. (2000). "Modern masonry challenges and solutions:
Assemblages." Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks,
Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-179 thru 3-185.

Slaton, D., and Foulks, W.G. (2000). "Introduction: Preserving the recent past 2." Preserving the
recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation
Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., Introduction 1-2.

Strickland, C. (2001). The annotated arch: A crash course in the history of architecture,
Andrews McMeel Publishing, Kansas City, MO.

Stull, N. (2000). "The preservation of decorative plastic laminates: Formica." Preserving the
recentpast 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation
Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-19 thru 3-24.

Tafuri, M., and Dal Co, F. (1976). Modern architecture, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

UNESCO (2007). "United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization's world
heritage." http://whc.unesco.org/, accessed Feb 2007.

Webb, M. (2001). Modernism reborn: Mid-century American houses, Universe Publishing, New
York.

Whitford, F. (1984). Bauhaus, Thames and Hudson, Ltd., London.

WMF (2005). "World monuments fund." http://www.wmf.org/, accessed Feb 2007.

Yeomans, D.T. (2000). "The arrival of the curtain wall." Preserving the recentpast 2, Ed.
Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation,
Washington, D.C., 3-139 thru 3-149.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Carrie Purkerson, daughter of Johnny and Barbara Dilley, grew up in the small town of

Glasgow, Kentucky. She graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2005 with a Bachelor

of Science in Architectural Sciences. During her undergraduate studies, Carrie developed a love

of architectural history (particularly modem architecture) that was sparked by her professor and

mentor, Neal Downing. Carrie took all the classes offered on architectural history at her

university (there were only three), but she wanted to learn more. She spent much of her spare

time reading about modern designers and their buildings, and traveled as far as Marseilles,

France to visit some of her favorite buildings.

In the fall of 2005, Carrie enrolled in the Master of Science in Architectural Studies

Program in the University of Florida's College of Design, Construction, and Planning. Her

interest in architectural history led her in the path of historic preservation, and she is currently

most interested in the preservation of modem architecture. Carrie also enjoys cooking and

traveling.





PAGE 1

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE RECENT PAST: CHALLENGES FACING THE PRESERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE By CARRIE ANN PURKERSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Carrie Purkerson 2

PAGE 3

To my amazing family 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my husband, Shane, for being incredibly patient with me throughout the thesis research and writing process. I tha nk my parents for always supporting me, not matter what endeavor I choose to undert ake. I thank Professor Peter Prugh and Professor Roy Graham, for fostering my interest in preservation a nd motivating me throughout my studies at the University of Florida. I thank Professor Charle s Hailey, for taking me in at the last minute and helping me create this finished thesis. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. ...9 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... ...9 Purpose and Significance of the Study...................................................................................10 2 RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................11 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................14 Preserving the Recent Past 2................................................................................................... 14 Modern Movement Heritage...................................................................................................17 Conjectures and Refutations............................................................................................17 Strategies and Policies.....................................................................................................18 Case Studies.....................................................................................................................18 The Theory and Practice of Impermanence............................................................................19 How Buildings Learn..............................................................................................................20 The Old Way of Seeing..........................................................................................................21 Failure of Modern Architecture..............................................................................................21 When the Present Becomes the Past and Mid-Century Modernism at Risk...........................22 4 THE EVOLUTION OF M ODERN ARCHITECTURE.........................................................24 Modern Beginnings................................................................................................................24 Early European Modernism....................................................................................................26 The Bauhaus...........................................................................................................................28 Early Modernism in America.................................................................................................29 Post-War Modern................................................................................................................ ....31 Mission 66..................................................................................................................... .........34 The Decline of Modernism.....................................................................................................35 5 PROBLEMS WITH MODERN BUILDING ENVELOPES.................................................37 Curtain Walls.................................................................................................................. ........38 Moisture...........................................................................................................................41 Thermal Discomfort........................................................................................................41 Excessive Movement.......................................................................................................42 Material Failures.............................................................................................................. 42 Monolithic St ructures.......................................................................................................... ...45 5

PAGE 6

Thin-Shell Structures.......................................................................................................... ....45 Concrete....................................................................................................................... ....45 Stone................................................................................................................................47 Brick................................................................................................................................48 Flat Roofs................................................................................................................................49 Le Corbusiers Villa Savoye...........................................................................................50 Frank Lloyd WrightWater Everywhere.......................................................................51 Implications................................................................................................................... .........51 6 THE AESTHETICS OF MODERNISM................................................................................53 Le Corbusiers Workers Housing Project...............................................................................55 The Historic Preservation Movement.....................................................................................55 Richard Neutras Cyclorama Building...................................................................................58 Implications................................................................................................................... .........59 7 ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING TO SAVE MODERN ARCHITECTURE........................61 International Council on Monum ents and Sites (ICOMOS)..................................................61 United Nations Educational, Scientific, a nd Cultural Organizati on (UNESCO) and The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)...........................................................................................................63 World Monuments Fund (WMF)............................................................................................64 Modernism at Risk..........................................................................................................65 Modern Buildings on the WMF Watch List....................................................................66 Documentation and Conservation of Build ings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO)..................................................................................68 Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN)............................................................................71 8 OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................................. .72 APPENDIX A THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS..................................................74 B MIAMI SUMMARY REPORT..............................................................................................79 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................89 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................93 6

PAGE 7

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE RECENT PAST: CHALLENGES FACING THE PRESERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE By Carrie Ann Purkerson August 2007 Chair: Peter Prugh Cochair: Roy E. Graham Major: Architecture Over the past two decades, the recent past ha s become an increasingly critical topic for preservationists. As Modern buildings pass the fi fty-year mark, or rapidl y approach it, differing views arise about the need to preserve these buildings. Most Modern buildings have been disliked or misunderstood since the beginning of the Modern Movement, and the surmounting technical problems faced by these buildings only fuel the conflicting opinions on how to deal with these aging structures. My study first looks briefly at the history of Modern architecture to provide a foundation for the ideas, architects, and buildings behi nd the movement. Next, the technical issues encountered in Modern building envelopes are discussed. Then, the negative views of the aesthetics of Modern design and the presence of aesthetic preferences in decision making are discussed. Essays, journal articles, and case studies were utilized for information on the connection between preservation and Modernism. This data helped to define some of the important challenges of preservi ng Modern architecture and led to the examination of groups that promote and protect many of these important hi storic resources from the recent past. The observations section of my study addresses th e need for educationa l reform to make 7

PAGE 8

preservationists and the genera l public aware of the importance of Modernist buildings in our place in history, and discusses some of the ot her obstacles faced by Modern buildings. 8

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem In the blink of an eye, the present has become the past. Buildings that were erected in the lifetime of many Americans are no w up for consideration as histor ic properties. The buildings themselves do not seem old to most people, let al one historic or even significant. Included in the old new buildings of the recent past are wo rks of Modern Movement architecture, a period of design which lasted roughly from the 1920s to the 1970s. For the most part, Modern architecture was never fully appreciated or understood. While some enlightened people may have understood the significance of European-style white-box Modern structures and the glassand-steel skyscrapers of the postwar era, even fewer grasped the importance of Modernist industrial buildings, subu rbs, and roadside architecture. How should we expect these buildings to now be saved if they were never apprecia ted in the first place? Aesthetic barriers are a considerable obsta cle plaguing architectur e from the Modern Movement, but the short lifespan of most Modern architecture is an even greater challenge for preservationists. Building mate rials and construction techniques in Modern design were often experimental. Designers did not in tend for their buildings to last for eternityan idea that went hand-in-hand with the dismissal of historical reference from M odern design. While Modernists certainly did not want their buildings to fail, they were primarily concerned with building efficiently for the present and often did not ta ke into consideration how well their buildings would stand up over time. Many Modern structures are now in disrepair due to material or system failures or blatant neglect. This raises an important issue in th e preservation of Modern architecture: authenticity. 9

PAGE 10

If Modern buildings face detrimental structural and material failures, is it against preservation values, specifically the Secretary of the Interiors Standa rds (Appendix A), to try and preserve them? According to the Standards, properties should only be minimally changed or altered, and the materials and spaces that make the building significant should be left alone. Many of the experimental techniques and materi als used in Modern design are now obsolete, rendering them irreplaceable. Does substituting a new material for the original mar the authenticity of the structure, maki ng it undeserving of preservation? Despite the dilemmas involved in saving the Modern buildings, many preservationists and organizations are finally beginni ng to devote time and attentio n to documenting and preserving Modern structures. Others still remain ambivalent toward Modern heritage. If Modern architecture is treated as an im permanent piece of our history, th en that is what it will become and it will not have the chance to leave a perm anent mark on the future (Longstreth Critique 2000). Purpose and Significance of the Study My study ties together the technological lim itations of Modern buildings, the issue of aesthetics and its relation to preservation, and the organizations that are looking beyond the challenges of preserving Modern architecture and taking action to save Modern buildings. My study makes use of journals, books, and the Intern et to provide a history of the movement, discuss the preservation failures a nd triumphs, and examine some of the future challenges to the preservation of Modern buildings. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODS The first approach taken for this thesis was to review the existing literature on the Modern architecture and historic preservation. Since the idea of preserving Modern architecture is a relatively new concept, the main sources of in formation regarding Modernism and preservation are located in journals and public ations from conferences. In a ddition to the fundamental pieces collected in Preserving the Recent Past 2 and Modern Movement Heritage journals in the design field have included articles a bout the attitudes toward recent past preservation, as well as technical limitations of Modern bu ildings, over the past few decades. For the background of the architectural histor y featured in this study, books were the most beneficial source of info rmation. General architectural history books provided a foundation for the historical summary, while more specified books filled in the gaps, detailing the particulars of the Modern Movement. These books provided the necessary background information for a background summary of the people, locations buildings, and ideas behind the Modern Movement. After the Modern Movement was summarized, the problems of Modern buildings were examined. The technological challenges of pr eserving Modern buildings are numerous, and some of the most pertinent issues with curtain walls, monolithic structures, thin-shell structures, and flat roofs are outlined in this study. The challenges are addressed mo re specifically through various case studies on important examples of buildings from the Modern Movement. It is important to realize the difficulties with Modern bu ildings in order to address preservation issues pertaining to them. Technical issues are not the only barrier for the preservation of Modern buildings. Cultural aspects and aesthetics also play a vita l role in preservation and Modernism. The 11

PAGE 12

Modern Movement was highly misunderstood by the general public. The burgeoning historic preservation movement in the 1960 s itself was in some ways fueled by a distain for the current architecture of the day. Case studies provide support on how aesthetic s has affected peoples judgment of Modern architecture. This especially apparent in the battle over Richard Neutras Cyclorama Building at Getty sburg National Park. Though Modern buildings face many obstacles several organizations are working to promote the preservation of Modernism. The internet is the most critical source of information to help identify these organizations. The websites for the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Working Part y for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO), the World Monuments Fund (WMF), the Recent Past Pr eservation Network (RPPN), UNESCOs World Heritage Centre (WHC), and ICCROM outline cu rrent initiatives to help save and raise awareness of Modern buildings. The sites are updated regularly so they provide the most recent information available on the subject. My research approach led to the discove ry of another underlying barrier to the preservation of Modern architecturelack of education and information. People do not know the important ways Modern design and planning changed building ty pes and cities everywhere. People let their aesthetic pref erences control the way they feel about Modernism without knowing the reasons why buildings look the way they do. Of almost equal importance is the lack of education about how to preserve these Mode rn buildings when the technologies implemented were new and experimental. This leads to another dilemma in preser ving Modern buildings authenticity. When materials perf orm poorly or altogether fail, it can be difficult to know how to address the possible solutions. How much of a building can you re pair or replace while still 12

PAGE 13

maintaining the authenticity of the original struct ure? In traditional structures that implemented traditional materials, it was often easy to replace or repair any materials that had failed. In Modern buildings, you often find materials th at are no longer produced. Is it against preservation standards to impl ement new materials if they ma ke up a significant portion of a structure? The dilemmas discussed in my thesis outline many of the obstacles to preserving Modern architecture. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Interest in preserving buildings and sites from the Modern Movement is a relatively new phenomenon. An increased interest in saving Modern buildings sp arked in 1988 with the formation of an International Working Part y for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Mode rn Movement (DOCOMOMO), an organization solely based on documenting and conserving buildi ngs from the Modern Movement. And as the famous and not-so-famous Modern icons are di sappearing at an alarming rate, people are increasing their interest in thes e often misunderstood piec es of architectural history. While it is possible to find written works on the issue of preservation and Modern architecture, the published pieces are few in number, and are often found in journals. Both Preserving the Recent Past 2 and Modern Movement Heritage contain a series of papers, covering topics such as the Modern Movement in general, the significance of the movement, its shortcomings, and strategies for conserving this crucial part of American history. Edward Ford discusses the technical problems with constructing impermanent build ings in The Theory and Practice of Impermanence. In How Buildings Learn Stewart Brand discusses maintenance concerns of Modern Buildings, and discusses ho w buildings grow and evolve w ith time. Hale discusses the failures of Modernism to beautify the world in The Old Way of Seeing Brent Brolin considers Modernism a complete failure and talks a bout alternatives to Modern design in Failure of Modern Architecture. Finally, Richard Longstreth tackles recent past preservation issues and barriers in both When the Present Becomes the Pa st and Critique: What to save? Mid-century Modernism at risk. Preserving the Recent Past 2 Over the past several years, preservationists have finally begun to devote serious attention to the immense challenge of documenting, evaluating, and conserving cultural resources 14

PAGE 15

from the twentieth century. This attention o ccurs not a moment too soon: it is clear that these are the issues that preservation professi onals will be grappling with for the remainder of this century and well into the next millennia. Ward Jandl, 1995. The publication Preserving the Recent Past 2 is a collection of pape rs from the Preserving the Recent Past 2 Conference that took place in 2000 in Philadelphia. The first conference on Preserving the Recent Past had been in 1995 and stirred public and professional interest in recent past architecture. It seemed that in five years, the need to address Modernism had become even more urgent for preservationists and design professionals. The publication is divided into three major sec tions. First are the papers that examine the recent past from an international perspective. Introductory topics include an examination of Canadas Modern heritage, which is often overl ooked when dealing with Modern architecture and development. Specific preservation topics ab out England and Scotland are also addressed. The inclusion of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties outlines standards for preservation, re habilitation, and restoration. The second section of the pub lication focuses on evaluati on, planning, and preservation strategies. Here, there are papers on Puer to Rican public housing, low-income housing in Chicago, supermarkets in New Jersey, modern banks and storefronts, Cuban Modernism, landscape design in Maryland, a prototypical Mode rnist subdivision in Colorado, and highway bridges, just to name a few. This section se rves to show the divers ity of places and building types affected by the Modern era. The Modern Movement was not limited to residences in Los Angeles or skyscrapers in Chicago and New Yo rk. Modernism infiltrated all building types around the world. 15

PAGE 16

The final section provides the most informa tion on the technical aspects of the Modern Movement, and it scratches the surface of the issue of preservation. Modernism was a time for experimenting with new material s. Buckminster Fuller was a pr oponent of using new materials and forms in his designs. His 1945 Dymaxion House challenged the notion of what was considered home with its basic metal cylindrical form and domed roof. The structure was easy to move, erect, and take apart. Today, conservation efforts for the Dymaxion have been difficult as it has suffered from serious deterioration ove r time, but it an important piece of Modern history (Ashby 2000). Included in the arena of new materials, the emergence of Formica has a place in Modern architectural hist ory. After WWII, the use of Form ica and other plastics grew in popularity, but many of these early synthetic materials are now facing degradation problems (Stull 2000). Thomas Boothby and Charlene Roise discuss the challenges specific to thin-shell concrete structural forms that became so popular for spor ts arenas and conference centers in the 1960s and 1970s in the article Soaring or Crashing? The Challenge of Preserving Thin-Shell Concrete Structures. Boothby and Roise (2000) use cas e studies, such the Kingdome in Seattle and Hershey Sports Arena, to illustrate the successe s and failures of these thin-shell concrete structures. Finally, the six essays discussi ng curtain walls provide an enor mous amount of information on the history, construction, and ultimate failures and limitations of the curtain wall. David Yeomans gives an overview of the pioneers of curtain-walling in his paper, The Arrival of the Curtain Wall, as well as the technical deve lopment of the building system. Dennis Johnson discusses Modern Thin Cladding C onsiderations such as thin stone thin precast concrete, resin panels, composite aluminum panels, and solid aluminum panels. Johnson also discusses the 16

PAGE 17

failures of using thin-cladding system instead of thicker units. Don Erwins Principles of Curtain Wall Performance Affecting Assessment and Repair sheds light on the problems of movement and water infiltra tion faced by curtain walls. The last chapter of Preserving the Recent Past 2 mainly focuses on the issues faced by commercial architecture. It does not specifi cally address the problems faced by Modern residential or vern acular structures. Modern Movement Heritage Modern Movement Heritage is a compilation of nineteen essays by authors around the world. In the introduction, editor Allen C unningham provides an overview of the Modern Movement, its shortcomings, a nd its significance. Much like Preserving the Recent Past 2 this collection is divided into three sections: Conjectu res and Refutations, Strategies and Policies, and Case Studies. Over 150 images support the written works included in this book. Conjectures and Refutations In The Icon and the Ordinary, Hubert-Jan Henket discusses the paradox of preserving throw away buildings, and what preservation approaches should be taken for the Modern buildings that were built with a limited lifespan. Henket recognized that it is critical to be selective when preserving Modern structures be cause not all them can (or should) be saved. Modernity is a difficult term to define, and He nket determines that it means that which is innovative in its social, technical an d aesthetic intentions (1998:15). Hilde Heynens essay, Transit oriness of Modern Architecture (1998), discusses the inherent temporariness of Modern ism, and how that affects how we should treat it today. It is often argued that Modern architecture should be left to decay on its own. Heynen writes about the voices behind those opinions, such as Tschum i, Ruskin, and SantElia. On the other hand, Torres and Berman argue the opposite, expressing th at Modern architecture should be protected 17

PAGE 18

and conserved. When preservation is enacted, however, sometimes the result is a life-less, frozen-in-time building which is far from the M odernist vision. Heynen concludes by stating the importance of protecting Modernism in order to legitimize the signific ance of the movement. Strategies and Policies Part II contrasts preservation policies and attitudes regarding Modernism in five different locationsLatin America, Hungary, the United St ates, Canada, and the Netherlands. Since the focus of this study was primarily on American modernism and preservation, Nina Rappaports Preserving Modern Architecture in the US (1998) contains important da ta about preservation efforts in America. Rappaport discusses the ways information on preservation and Modernism are disseminated in this country and touches on the organizations and individuals that have protected important works of Modernism. Case Studies The Metal and glass curtain wall: The Hist ory and Diagnostics (1998) is both a history of the curtain wall, and a listing of its failures. Kelley and Johnson point out the main problems with curtain wallswater penetration, air leakag e and thermal discomfort, material failures, and structural failures. They also discuss the imperfections of co mmon repair scenarios for curtain walls. The remainder of Part III focuses on specific structural and material concerns of several different Modern buildings. Two New York curt ain wall structures, the Woolworth Building and Lever House, are contrasted in G reat Expectations. Several Eu ropean structures, such as the House of Culture, SantElia Infant School, V illa Noailles and Villa Cavrois, De Lar Warr Pavilion, Masion Prouve, Zonnestraal Sanatorium, and Villa E-1027, are all examined in further detail with a chapter devoted to each. 18

PAGE 19

The Theory and Practice of Impermanence Edward Ford discusses the inherent flaws in Modern construction. Ford outlines numerous case studies, such as Peter Eisenmans House VI and Rogers and Piano s Pompidou Center, that are experiencing severe and expensive problem s although they are rela tively young buildings (just over 30 years old). Alt hough these buildings are not strict examples of International Style Modernism, they represent the unfortunate fa te of many innovative build ings from the past eighty years. In some cases, the fault of poorly constructed building lies w ith the builder, but in other cases it is the fault of poor detailing by the architect. All Modern building types are subject to technical challengesresidences, institutional buildingsnot just curtain wall skyscrapers. Problems with Modern buildings cannot be attribut ed to one common denominator. Ford brings up the important point that all bui ldings have problems, not just Modern ones, and discusses the many problems with traditional buildings by citing specific examples. According to Ford, the issues with Modern structures are often just more publicized because people have are critical of Modern buildings in the first place. The main difference with durability issues with traditional and Modern structures is that traditional buildin gs were meant to last, while Modern buildings were considered more temporary (Ford 1997). While minimalism allowed for Modern buildings to achieve their sleek appearances and effective use of materials, it is the very mi nimalism that causes so many problems. Dome structures are full of problems. Early Modern steel curtain walls by Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius failed within twenty ye ars. Thin-stone clad buildings are incredibly expensive to maintain. Even monolithic Modern structures such as the Hilversum Town Hall and Louis Kahns Exeter Library, have their own share of problems. Ford concludes that Modern buildings must be treated like the complex structures that they are. Architects, contractors, and occupants must all work together to maintain Modern 19

PAGE 20

structures. The biggest role is ascribed to the architect, who must keep the user in mind when designing and detailing buildings. How Buildings Learn In How Buildings Learn Stewart Brand examines buildings as a wholenot just whole in space, but also in time. Brand argues that th e uses of buildings and their surroundings are constantly changing. Buildings are always be ing driven to change by technology, money, and fashion. Brand states that commercial buildi ngs adapt quickly, domestic buildings steadily adapt, and institutional buildings are resistant to change. Brand discusses three types of buildings, what he calls low road, high road, and no road buildings. The low road buildings are ch eap, lacking in style, and have a high turnover rate of occupancy. Most buildings fall into this category. Although th ese buildings may not appear desirable at first, according to Brand, they allow for tremendous amounts of creativity from the occupier. High road buildings, in cont rast, are the elite buildings that were intended to last, such as the residences of United States presidents. They are considered significant to most people, but they are not ope n to change. They can be impr oved, but not drastically altered. The no road buildings are famous new buildin gs, would-be famous buildings, and imitation famous buildings. These buildings are featured in sleek architectural magazines and are an expression of the artistic side of architecture. According to Brand, the notion of art as architecture started in the mi d-1800s, and it still thriving today. Brand notes that the main problems with art functioning as architecture are that art is n on-functional and impractical, it revels in the new and despises th e old, and architectural art only sells at a distance. These no road buildings are driven by architectural fads. Brand specifically mentions buildings from the Modern Movement when talking about how these buildings could be built cheaply, but we re flashy. The architects received praise by 20

PAGE 21

using less money, but the users ultimately were the losers in this scheme because they were stuck with cheap buildings plagued with problems. Brand also discussed maintenance of buildings, and addresses many areas specific to Modern buildi ngs, such as flat roofs, faulty domes, new materials, thin brick walls, and concrete. The Old Way of Seeing Jonathan Hale devotes a chapter to The Life and Death of Modernism in his book, The Old Way of Seeing. Hale points out that Modernists had high hopes of beautifying the world through Modern architecture, but their goal was never realized. In the beginning, Modernisms simplicity may have been refreshing and shocking, but after short while it became boring to both architects and users. Hale discusses how Modernism was an elitist style, and those who were good were successful, but those who were not as good, failed miserably. While Gropius had intended to teach a vision, he instead gave the world a style. It was not the intention of Modernists to provide style guidelines. Hale also brings up the point of Modern city planning. Architects su ch as Le Corbusier had far-reaching plans for entire towns and housi ng complexes, but the ideas behind some of those plans led to disastrous public housing proj ects like Cabrini Green in Chicago, and PruittIgoe in St. Louis. Lastly, Hale talks about the theoretical en d of Modernism, brought about by Robert Venturi and Post-Modernism. Failure of Modern Architecture Brent Brolins 1976 book, Failure of Modern Architecture, is a rejection of the Modern design principles and ideas that were still being taught in desi gn schools at the time. Brolin points out that Modernism never gained the mass acceptance that was intended. Modernism, to Brolin, is not only visually imposing, but it also disregards the social a nd aesthetic values of users. Brolin feels that Modernists forced their views on unwelcoming r ecipients, and stripped 21

PAGE 22

them of their traditions when designing their buildings. The M odernists veiled their aesthetic preferences under moral pretenses. The reject ion of ornament led to boring buildings. Standardization and mass production produced monotonous cityscapes. Br olin concludes with case studies of Chandigarh and Yemen as failures of Modern design and planning because he feels that they show how designers imposed thei r sterile aesthetics on groups of people who rely on historicism in their buildings as an important piece of their culture. When the Present Becomes the Past and Mid-Century Modernism at Risk Richard Longstreth, former president of th e Society of Architectural Historians, has written several articles on preserving the recent past. His 1992 essay, When the Present Becomes the Past, Longstreth discusses how th e 1966 preservation legislat ure was fueled by the notion that the buildings of the present were in ferior. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) protected the buildings that stood in the way of progress. The increasing interest in preserving the recent past is often fueled by nos talgia for the buildings that people grew up around. Longstreth talks about how most people will be reluctant to accept preservation of the recent past. In history, people have generally hate d the recent past and adored the distant past. According to Longstreth, this is a never-endi ng cycle. Too often, aesthetics fuel decisionmaking in preservation, and people, in general, dis like the aesthetics of Modernism. They view the recent past as an alien environment. The recent past is also vi ewed as too young to be historic and worthy of saving. Ultimately, Longstr eth calls for an improvement in education of buildings of the recent past in order to make people thi nk it is worthy of preservation. In 2000, Longstreth revisits the recent past and focuses on the troubles facing Modern architecture. Much of Modernism is either deteriorating or being forgo tten altogether. While many of the icons of Modernism have been lovingly saved, this gives a fals e sense of security for 22

PAGE 23

Modernism as a whole. Works by lesser known Modern architects are disappearing at an alarming rate, and no one seems to notice. Since Modern houses often are sited on expensive pieces of land, they are viewed more as real es tate and are not apprecia ted for their historic value. Developers buy up these properties, only to demolish and reuse the land for something more profitable. Longstreth discusses how preservationists ar e nervous about Modern architecture, and may not fully see the significance of Modernis m. Architects tend to understand the importance of the Modern Movement, and it is up to them to promote education of the buildings from our recent past. 23

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 4 THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE First, what makes a building Modern? Th e Organization for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Nei ghborhoods of the Modern Movement, DOCOMOMO, states that Modern buildings are those cons tructed roughly between the 1920s and 1970s that emphasized expression of functional, technical or spatial properties rather than reliance on decoration (DOCOMOMO-US). Moffett define s many of the characteristics of Modern architectureadmiration of industrial material s and products, straight forward architectural expression with no applied ornament, and an intere st in pure geometric forms and planar surfaces (2004: 518). Tom Wolfe in From the Bauhaus to Our House describes it as the whiteness and lightness and leanness and cleanness and bareness and spareness of it all (Strickland 2001: 120). Strickland defines Modernism as a socially progressive movement in the early twentieth century that championed undecorated, c ubic, functional architecture (2001: 169). An exact, allencompassing definition of Modernism would be n early impossible to formulate. For this study, the DOCOMOMO definition is most appropriate. In order to begin to u nderstand the meaning of Modernism, however, a background of the movement is critical. Modern Beginnings The machine age at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century brought with it steel, concrete, curt ain walls, and, of course, the emergence of the great American skyscraper. The new buildings of this era revele d in their nakedness and their lack of historic ornament (Glancey 2000: 158). The great fire of 1873 all but destroyed the city of Chicago, sparking a tremendous building boom and economic re vitalization (159). Prio r to the fire, most of the buildings packed into the downtown area of Chicago were constructed of wood. The new, replacement buildings erected in Chicago were made of steel and could be much taller than their 24

PAGE 25

earlier counterparts, thus ma king Chicago the birthplace of the skyscraper. Charles Atwoods 1895 Reliance building is one of the purest examples of these firs t skyscrapers (159). Architect Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) moved to Chicago after the Grea t Fire. Sullivan was responsible for the critical theo ry behind early skyscraper tec hnology, and helped popularize the building form. The Wainright Building in St. Louis, Carson Pirie Sco tt in Chicago, and the Guaranty Building in Buffalo are some of Sullivans best works. Sullivan abandoned ornament in the traditional sense in his desi gns, but he advocated for a type of ornament (generally derived from plant-like forms) that was integral to a bu ilding instead of applied for decoration (Moffett 2004: 469). Sullivan authored the phrase forms follows function, a key underlying concept of modern design. Louis Sullivan and his work were cr itical to the career of one of the masters of twentieth-century architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright (Pehnt 1963). Frank Lloyd Wright was not pur ely a Modernist architect. In fact, he did not like to consider himself a Modernist at all. Frank Lloy d Wrights architecture wa s more rooted in the Arts and Crafts movements, and then to a more organic way of buildi ng. Wrights signature Prairie houses took on the form of the rolling pr airie lands of the Midwest. The homes were built close to the ground and were deeply connect ed to the landscape. Wright paid careful attention to environmental factor s to provide comfort inside the homes. Free-flowing floor plans allowed for ease of movement and cross-ventilati on. European Modernists were most influenced by the openness of the interiors in Wrights pr airie houses (Moffett 2004: 482). In fact, Wright influenced many of the great European architect s and Modernists of the twentieth century. Wrights popularity was marginal in the United St ates at the beginning of his career, when he gained notoriety in Europe in 1910-11 when a German publisher showed his portfolio to the European avant-garde (Kostof 1995: 685). 25

PAGE 26

Early European Modernism Even before the Europeans fascination with Wright, Sullivan and his famous skyscrapers made an enormous impression on their designs. Simultaneously, European architects, such as Adolf Loos in Vienna, August Perret in France, and Peter Behrens in Germany, were planting the roots of European Modernism. In Looss 1908 book, Ornament and Crime, the architect took Sullivans notion to abandon ornament a step further, claiming that decorating a building was primitive. Looss writings led people to admire both vernacular, undecorated peasant architecture and engineering structures (M offett 2004: 477-78). Perret made concrete a commonplace building material (Kostof 1995: 689). Although builders had begun to reinforce concrete with metal in the late 1800s, the idea was not extensively used until the twentiethcentury. The development of reinforced concrete was critical to the development of the open plan in Modern architecture (Moffett 2004: 503). Behrens designed the first modern factory in 1909the AEG Turbine Factory. The Turbine Factory had no applied ornament and the materials clearly express their fuction. After his work with AEG, Behrenss office became one of the most progressive in Eur ope, attracting architectural gian ts-to-be Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, and Walter Gropius (Moffett 2004: 487-488). The Deutscher-Werkbund, a German center for c onnecting craft and industry, opened in 1907. By 1910, Werkbund had over 700 members, incl uding 360 artists and 276 industrialists. Top German architects, including Peter Behren s and the young Walter Gr opius, supported the Werkbund. No specific artistic style was supported by the Werkbund, only the reformation of the link between art and i ndustry (Tafuri 1976: 93). On the art and design front, the De Stijl m ovement in Holland was taking form around 1917. The De Stijl movement produced artist Piet Mondrian, who is best known for his use of geometric shapes and primary colors, and designer Gerrit Rietveld. Riet velds Schroder House 26

PAGE 27

(1924) in Utrecht, is a series of white cubes th at interlock in a three-dimensional manner. The De Stijl had a substantial influence on German and Russian avant-garde (Kostof 1995: 702). Early in his career, Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, later known as Le Corbusier, learned about using reinforced concrete from working with August Perret, and learned about industrial design from Peter Behrens. The Dom-ino house plan was a direct result from these two experiences. The Dom-ino project (1914) was a mass-produce d house plan that took advantage of minimal componentsfloor slabs, piers spac ed for vertical support, and stai rs connecting the floors. The components could easily be produced at a site nearby, and erected quickly on site (Moffett 2004: 508). This early idea of mass-produced housing gained popularity in America after World War II. In 1926, Le Corbusier formulated his Five Points Toward a New Architecture, which included: pilotis (stilts) to lift the first floor of a building off the damp ground, flat roofs for gardens or leisure, free-flowing interior plans, horizontal windows to allow for maximum illumination, and freely designed facades. Le Cor busier followed his points in nearly all of his projects until the mid-1950s (Moffett 2004: 511). Le Corbusier was fascinated by man-made objects and technology, and felt like historic architecture was obsolete. He though the house should be a machine for living, devoid of any historical antecedents. He even believed that architecture could improve human nature. Logical, functional, and efficient dwellings could lead to rational and enli ghtened inhabitants (Strickland 135). The Villa Savoye, built in 1931 in Poissy France, is one of Le Corbusiers first masterpieces (Glancey 1998: 161). It features Le Corbusiers pilotis, or stilts, roof spaces, ribbons of glass windows, a clean, white faade. This home is an example of the clean, white box modernism that would be put into practice by many architects to come. 27

PAGE 28

Modern architecture emerged at a time when Western civilization was in upheaval from the First World War and a revolution in Russia. At the same time, art and science were transforming the way people thought about space a nd time. Young designers felt that European culture had failed them, and should be replaced by a completely new way of thinking. They thought that architecture would fuel that transformation. Th ey put their faith in rationality, functionality, economy, and mechanization. They wanted their building to teach and express these new ideals (Moffett 2004: 475-476). The Bauhaus Germany soon became the European leader of th e new direction of architecture. In 1919, the Bauhaus opened in Weimar. The school, directed by Walter Gropius, was aimed to bridge the gap between art and industry, much the same as the Werkbund a few years earlier. The Bauhaus forever changed the way art and design were taught (Whitford 1984: 7). If Louis Sullivan was famous for the expression form follows function, then the Bauhaus movement was famous for putting that expression into us e aesthetically (Brand 1994 : 55). Originally, the Bauhaus philosophy was to liberate mankind from a class system via a machine-age environment (Strickland 2001: 133). In 1925, the Bauhaus was forced to leave Weimar due to lack of financial support, and the school relocated to Dessau. Walter Gropius stepped down as direct or in 1928, and Hannes Meyer became the new director. Germany was b ecoming very volatile at this time, and politics forced Meyer to leave the school in 1930. Ludwig Mies van de r Rohe became the new director, and the school once again relocated, this time to Berlin. The Bauhaus was shut down by the German government in 1933, but the legacy it left behind can still be seen in schools everywhere. According to Wolf von Eckardt, t he Bauhaus created the patterns and set the standards of present-day industrial design; it helped to invent mode rn architecture; it altered the 28

PAGE 29

look of everything from the chair you are sitting in to the page you are reading now (Whitford 1984: 10). Though Mies van der Rohe is most noted for his Post-World War II American skyscrapers, as early as the 1920s he was designing glass skys crapers (they were neve r built) that were the predecessors of his Lakeshore Drive Apartmen ts and the Seagram Building (Moffett 2004: 515). His German Pavilion for the 1929 Barcelona Worl ds Exposition is a ha llmark of modernism with its simple, yet luxurious stru cture features a concrete slab roof, steel columns, sheets of glass, and polished travertine panels (Glancey 1998: 152). Miess German Pavilion combined Schinkels formality of composition, Wrights fr ee plan and broad horizontal roof, and the De Stijls abstract forms (Moffett 2004: 515). The structure was temporar y, but the building was reconstructed on the or iginal site in 1986. Early Modernism in America Early modernism in America was more than ju st skyscrapers. In California, brave new architects were breaking away from the mainstre am architectural designs of their era. Irving Gill, who trained in Louis Sullivans studio, bega n to experiment with new materials and more basic forms. Gill designed several homes in around southern California in the early 1900s that exemplify the Modern Movementflat roofs, white exteriors, geometric forms, no decoration. The Dodge House, built from 1914-16 in Los Angele s, is a prime example of Gills work (Tafuri 1976: 82). Gill laid the foundation for other California modernists, such as Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler. Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler met in Vienna in 1911. They both admired the architecture of fellow Austrian Adolf Loos, and Frank Lloyd Wr ight. Schindler came to the United States in 1914, and Neutra arrived in 1923. Neutra and Schindler renewed their friendship in Los Angeles in 1925 and briefly became partners (Lamprecht 2004: 8-9). Although 29

PAGE 30

their friendship dissolved, Schindler and Neutra shared many of the same characteristics in their designs. Schindler designed houses with open floor plans and he carefully connected indoor and outdoor spaces. Neutra stressed the importance of flowing spaces, natural light, lots of glass, and indoor and outdoor connections in his homes, as well (Strickland 2001: 132). Phillip and Lea Lovell commissioned Schindler to design their beach house in 1922. The Lovell Beach House, one of the icons of American modernism, was completed in 1926. The same family commissioned Neutra to design their Health House in 1927 (Lamprecht 2004: 2324). These two homes put California Modernists on the map and attracted worldwide attention. Schindler and Neutra both stressed that the meri t of such architects of European background lies in their having singled out in American architect ure precisely those technological and structural potentialities of the new multipur pose building types that the B eaux-Arts tradition had done its best to camouflage (Tafuri 1976: 238). In 1932, architectural historian Henry Ru ssell Hitchcock and a young Phillip Johnson published a book entitled, The International Style: Architecture Since 1922 (Tafuri 1976: 238). In the book, Hitchcock and Johnson discussed the new style of European Modernism, and called it international because it has already spread from Europe to the United States, and they prophesized that it would become global (Moffett 2004: 476). That same year Alfred Barr, Hitchcock, and Johnson organized an exhibition at The Museum of Modern Art in New York City entitled International Style (Tafuri 1976: 238). Included in the exhibit were famous European works by Reitveld, Mies, Gropius, and Le Corbusier, as well as a few American public buildings and Neutras Lovell Hous e. The International Style of architecture featured in the exhibit emphasized volumes rather than masses, regularity rather than symmetry, and materials 30

PAGE 31

rather than ornament. The MOMA exhibit showcased European Modernism and raised public awareness about this new style in America (Moffett 2004: 520). The Stock Market crash of 1929 and the subs equent Great Depressi on of the 1930s put a damper on the building boom in the United States. While there were some important public buildings constructed during this time, residential construc tion was put on hold. Prior to World War II, most Americans did not support or understand Modern architecture, and little International Style architecture wa s constructed in the United States in the 1930s. However, one of the most famous buildings of all times was built during this decadeFallingwater. Frank Lloyd Wright designed this modern masterpi ece in 1936 in Bear Run, Pennsylvania for the Kaufmann family (Glancey 1998: 176). This ho me is a fusion of both modern and organic styles. Modern in its geometric forms and use of concrete, glass, and steel, but organic in the way it fits seamlessly into the surroundings and in tegrates natural woods and stones into both the interior and exterior. Post-War Modern After World War II, Americans were ready to forget about the sacrifices of the Great Depression and the sorrows of the war. They we re optimistic about the future, and were ready for a fresh start (Hochstim 2004: 13). A massive building boom started up after the war. Land and construction costs were low (Webb 2001: 11). Architects and homeowners alike were more open to new ideas and the use of new materials. Architectural journals, advertisements, and consumer-oriented pamphlets all claimed that M odernism would become the cultural norm after the war (Reed 1995: 3). World War II led many important European arch itects to flee to America. In 1937, Walter Groupis and Mies van der Rohe arrived in the United States. Gropius took a teaching position at Harvard Design School (Kostof 1995: 724) and Mies be came director of the Illinois Institute of 31

PAGE 32

Technology. Here, Mies designed the new campus for the university (Tafuri 1976: 336). Mies designed the Farnsworth House in Plano, Illi nois in 1951an extraordinary glass box. In 1951, he also designed the Lake Shore Drive Apartmen ts in Chicago. The perfect execution of the glass and metal curtain wall influe nced skyscrapers to come (Gla ncey 1998: 186-187). Mies van der Rohe and Phillip Johnson designed the S eagram Building in New York, completed in 1958. The Seagram Building is one of the finest exam ples of an Internati onal Style skyscraper (Strickland 2001: 135). The Lever House by SOM Architects (1951-52), just across Park Avenue, was the first curtain wall in New York C ity and is often considered the epitome of the glass box. Phillip Johnsons Glass House (1949) in New Canaan, Connecticut was clearly inspired by Miess plan for the Farnsworth House (which was completed after th e Glass House), Johnson may have even perfected the glass box more than Mies (Glancey 1998: 185). Le Corbusier continued to work in Fran ce in the 1950s, where he produced famous monolithic structures like the 18-story housing bl ock, Unite dHabitation in Marseilles, and the Chapel of Notre Dame-du-Haut pilgrimage chur ch in Ronchamp (Strickland 2001: 136). In the United States, Corbusier designed The Carpenter Center for the Vi sual Arts at Harvard in 1961, and collaborated on the United Nati ons Building in New York City. Most of the architecture of the Post-War era, often referr ed to as Mid-Century Modern, was less formal and less serious than Internati onal Style architecture. Florida and California were two hot-beds of Mid-Century Modern architecture. Many young families settled Florida and California because of economics, warm clim ates, and the functional demands of their new lifestyles. The younger generati ons seemed more open to expe rimentation, and therefore the development of the Modern house (Hochstim 2004: 13). But postwar architecture was not about 32

PAGE 33

creating a new style of Modernism. Instead, th e postwar Modern designers relied less on the proscribed characteristics of Modernism, and fo cused instead of the chan ging family life and the specific climatic requirements in addition to new construction techniques and technologies (Hochstim 2004: 17). In Florida, several architects in Sarasota we re creating a Modern Movement of their own. Ralph Twitchell and Paul Rudolph began to design contemporary architecture in Florida that responded to Floridas unique climate and lifes tyle. Twitchell and R udolph were the foundation for what came to be known as the Sarasota School. The Sarasota Modern designers used efficient design principles to adequately cool their houses even before the arrival of air conditioning (Hochstim 2004: 23-28). The Sarasota School architects implemented vernacular Florida architectural ideas into their workpatios, open plans, courtyards, screened porches, lightweight frames, indoor/outdoo r living spaces (Howey 1995: 4). The success of the Sarasota School brought worldwide acclaim to Florid a architecture (Hochstim 2004: 142). Today, however, many of the Sarasota School buildings have either been demolished or are facing demolition. Paul Rudolphs first commission, Rive rview High School built in 1957, is one of the buildings involved in a heated pr eservation debate (DOCOMOMO-US). The Case Study Program launched by Arts & Architecture magazine in 1945 utilized the talents of several emerging archit ects in California, such as Pi erre Koenig, Craig Ellwood, Eero Saarinen, Richard Neutra, and Charles and Ray Eames. The Case Study Program was intended to showcase affordable modern architecture. Case Study House #8, the Eames House (1949) had a steel frame that was erected in only sixtee n hours. Their residence was industrial, cost effective, and modern (Reed 1995: 32). 33

PAGE 34

Even real estate developers were going Mode rn. Merchant builder Joseph Eichler put over 11,000 modernist tract homes on the map in Califor nia, and three in New York, from the 1940s to the 1960s. Not only did the homes feature m odern design, they were also affordable and were built from high-quality materials. Eichler collaborated with progressive architects who were in line with his modernist vision. Eichle rs homes were far ahead of their time, utilizing indoor-outdoor living, glass walls, atriums, and radiant heating (Eichler Network). For the most part, postwar Modern houses were only commissioned by more eccentric clients who did not care what th eir neighbors thought. They were interested in living in a space that suited their specific need s and desires (Webb 2001: 8). Hi storian Esther McCoy observed that modern houses were a badge of intellectua l emancipation; the less venturesome and more domestic women preferred a Cape Cod or a ra nch house (10). Although Modernism was clearly the taste of the minority, there was enough interest in th e movement to keep Modernist architects in business (11). Mission 66 The National Park Service caught on to Mode rnism starting in 1956 with its Mission 66 Program. Mission 66, a ten year improvement pr ogram, was the largest improvement program ever initiated by the NPS (French Mission 66 2002). To accommodate the influx of drastically increased visitor counts (from 3.5 million visitors in 1931 to 50 million in 1955), 114 visitor centers were proposed for parks across the na tion. The visitor center was an entirely new concept for the Park Service. The style of the new facilities, late r known as Park Service Modern, blended into the landscape because of their stripped-down functionalist appearances. Cecil Doty, park service architec t, designed many of the modern Mission 66 buildings, including the Grand Canyon Visitor Center (Frankeberger 2002). Richard Ne utras 1961 Cyclorama 34

PAGE 35

Building at Gettysburg is one of the most notable, yet controvers ial, products of the Mission 66 program. The Decline of Modernism In the 1960s Sigfried Giedion became the voice of the Modern Movement. His 1967 book, Space, Time, and Architecture was part of the curriculum for nearly every architecture student. But even Giedion could sense that th e Modernism was on its way out in 1967, when he admitted that the movement was tired and unsure (Hale 1994: 136). The abandonment of the ideas behind the Modern Movement came from two major sources. First, postwar architecture had fa iled to meet political, social, and technical expectations. Second, Modernism had been too speci fic to suit a broad range of cultural interests (Cunningham 1998: 3). During the unofficial ending of the Modern M ovement, the original masters of Modernism were still producing great pieces of Modern arch itecture. But Modernism never quite revived the world like its practitioners had hope d. When most of the great M odernists died in the late 1960s, so, too, died Modernism (Hale 1994: 136). Although Robert Venturi had been a pupil of Louis Kahn and had prai sed both Alvar Aalto and Le Corbusier, he wrote two books that th eoretically brought Modernism to an end in America Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966) and Learning from Las Vegas These two books also served as the springboard for the next big architectural movement, PostModernism (Hale 1994: 136). Postmodernism was the complete polar opposite of Modernism. Less is a bore was Venturis take on Mies famous quote. The Postmodern movement was an anything goes movement. At its best, Postmodernism broke up the monotony that had been plaguing the late Modern buildings. At its worst, Postmodernism was a huge game where pastel-colored buildings 35

PAGE 36

with pieces of historical or nament thrown on filled the landscape (Glancey 2000: 198-199). Postmodernism did not end all Modernism, however. After the arrival of Postmodernism, the Modern Movement continued to find its place in society with the help of architects such as Richard Meier, Tadao Ando, and I.M. Pei w ho continued to design traditional modernist buildings with International Style surfaces and pure spaces and forms (Strickland 2001: 151). 36

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 5 PROBLEMS WITH MODERN BUILDING ENVELOPES Prior to the Industrial Revolution, arch itects commonly built for permanencethe buildings were planned to last. After the Indu strial Revolution, however, most buildings became less permanent and therefore more disposable (H enket 1998: 14). That is to say, that once the building has completed its function for a particular amount of time, it becomes obsolete. In fact, people are often emotionally attached to a bui lding long after it is functionally or even financially viable. The question then arises if it even makes se nse to try and preserve these throw away buildings if they were specifically designed to only last a short while (Henket 1998: 14). Are the Modern masters rolling over in their graves at the thought of someone trying to preserve their works for posterity? The lifespan of Modern architecture, in partic ular, was inherently limited. Most Modern architects wanted to break all ties to historicis m. The age of Modernism was a time for new and experimental technologies, and it was unclear how the new methods and materials would hold up over time. At the time, many of these new mate rials fared well, but presently either do not perform well, or have failed completely (Prudon 1998: 90). Repairing or replacing materials or systems on Modern structures often does not make financial sense, and brings up the dilemma of au thenticity. Problems with modern buildings are rarely minor. These relatively new buildi ngs now need serious attention, while most traditional buildings do not require large-scale intervention but every 100 or more years (Macdonald 2000). As early as th e 1940s, designers were learning about the technical failures of early modern buildings, and began to try to improve their own building details to promote improved performance (Macdonald 2000). Although some improvements were made in modern design, many of these buildings now need major intervention. 37

PAGE 38

Even the icons of modern design, products of the modern masters themselves, were not immune to architectural defects. In many cases, they were the worst when it came to structural defects and imperfections. For example, Mies van der Rohes Farnswor th House (1951), a pure, pristine glass-and-steel box, had at least one major flawno operable windows. Dr. Edith Farnsworth thought the house was too expensive, too public, and ab solutely unlivable (Strickland 2001: 135). In fact, the she sued Mies on th e grounds that the house was uninhabitable (Hale 1994: 130). Concrete walls became a very critical part of many Modern structures. A four-inch thick concrete wall may have been very strong structur ally, however, it was inefficient when it came to sound insulation, surface decoration, energy prot ection, and weather protection (Maxwell 1998). Modern architecture is full of technical limitations and failures. Curtain Walls A curtain wall is an exterior building wall made of non-load bearing panels that are supported on a structural frame. The curtain wall spans between floors and transfers lateral loads, such as those produced by winds, to the st ructural frame, while the structural frame alone carries these horizontal as well as a ll gravity loads (Kelley 1998: 77). Before the arrival of the curtain wall, the exterior walls served as the structural support of the entire buildingthey were load-bearing walls. With the arrival of the curtain wall, however, the structural frame became a separate entity from the skin of the building. Some of the early curtain walls implemented traditional brick masonr y walls that were narr owed to single-wythe thickness to act as the skin of the building. Other early curtain wall designs involved thin stone panels for building exteriors (Johnson 2000). Th e first true glass curtain wall came in San Francisco in 1917-18the Hallidie Building by W illis Polk (Great Buildings 2007). Polks 38

PAGE 39

building paved the way for the modern glass curtain wall buildings that would come in the following decades. Between the two World Wars, architects conduct ed several experiments that ultimately led to perfecting of various aspects of curtain walls. Modern industrial production was the source of the success (Pehnt 1963: 79). During this time, the theories behind curtain walling were studied at the Bauhaus via educational experiments, th rough the writings of Le Corbusier, and by the projects of Mies van der Rohe and other German designers. It wasnt until after World War II that these experiments were put in to practice on a large scale (80). The 13-story Equitable Building (1944-48) in Portland, Oregon by Pietro Belluschi was one of the first glass and aluminum curtain wall buildings. Glass, aluminum, and concrete were also the favored materials for the United Na tions Headquarters in New York City. The UN Secretariat building was designed by a team of architects from around the world, including Le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, and Sir Howard Ro bertson, and the team was headed by Wallace K. Harrison. The UN Headquarters was comp leted in 1953 (Great Buildings 2007). Acclaimed Modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe implemented glass and steel curtain walls in his Lake Shore Drive Apartments (1951) in Chicago, and in the Seagram Building in New York City (1958). The Lake Shore Drive apartments were some of the first American residential structures to be covered in glass (Kelley 1998). Gordon Buns haft of SOM Architects designed the Lever House in 1950the first curt ain wall building in New York City (Moffett 2004: 515). Unfortunately, the te chnical guidance for architects in the 1950s designing these curtain walls was practically non -existent (Kelley 1998). In contrast to traditional building methods, the construction of a curtain wall is quite flexible. A curtain wall can be built from the bottom up, from the top do wn, or from the center 39

PAGE 40

out (Erwin 2000: 3-160). Loads are always concentr ated at a certain point, so any damage to the point of the load is detrimen tal to the building (3-161). As is the case with modern design in general, the new materials used in curtain walls were not completely understood at the time of their implementation. Some curtain wall failures can be attributed to materials, but other failures are a direct result of the cu rtain wall design itself (Johnson 2000). The curtain wall, which acts as the skin of the building, has to perform many functions in the overall performance of the building. The curtain wall must: Resist water penetra tion and air filtration Accommodate thermal move ments and volume changes Provide thermal insulation Withstand direct exposure to UV radiation Move with the building st ructure as it creeps Sway from wind and seismic movements Deflect in response to internal live loads Provide appropriate amounts of light, ve ntilation, and thermal protection (Johnson 2000: 3-152) Since the curtain wall plays so many roles in the performance of th e building, it comes as no surprise that there are many areas of poten tial failure. Even though many of the components of curtain walls may also have tr aditional applications, in Modern uses they fail in unusual ways. Even the new materials can fail prematurely and une xpectedly. It is always important to address the cause of the failure in curtain walls in order to prevent it from happening again, and to prevent new problems from occurring (Johnson 2000). 40

PAGE 41

Moisture Water has been the enemy of all designers and buildings since the beginning of time. Moisture is capable of destroying all types of building materialswood, masonry, and even steelif proper care is not taken. Curtain walls buildings are no less susceptible to water problems than any other building type. Since cu rtain walls implement thinner walls than older building types, then essentially a large water ba rrier (i.e. the loadbearing wall) is lost. The curtain wall relies strictly on seals to prevent water penetra tion (Johnson 2000). In order to prevent moisture problems with curtain walls, eith er water must not be al lowed to penetrate the wall, or if that is not possibl e, then the penetrable water mu st be controlled (Kelley 1998). Condensation is another water is sue for curtain wall buildings. Here, water vapor can turn into liquid, or even freeze into so lid ice, on the interior surfaces of a building. Many of the older curtain wall buildings are very susceptible to winter frost condensation be cause the designers did not use thermal breaks or in sulated glass (Kelley 1998). Thermal Discomfort Glass curtain wall buildings can obviously be ve ry uncomfortable due their large expanses of glass if care is not taken to allow for a ppropriate shading and sun control (Yeomans 2000). According to Kaskel, the Lever House disregarded the buildings orientation. There are large panels of glass on the south, east and west sides of the building, which cause a tremendous amount of heat and glare in the morning and afte rnoon. Since this is an office building, people are at work during those times, and they have to suffer in an uncomfortable work environment (1995). Another cause of thermal discomfort is air in filtration. Air comes in through the walls and causes drafts. This air can arrive through window vents, mullion joints, sealant joints, and any location where water could al so penetrate (Kelley 1998). 41

PAGE 42

Excessive Movement Mid-century curtain wall buildings move more than buildings built before or after them. Since the steel frame is required to resist all the lateral loads of the building, it is more prone to swaying and twisting than older masonry-framed walls. The movement of the frame causes stress to the anchors that tie the faade to th e frame, and can ultimately distort the members themselves. In the worst situations, the anchors may even break from the constant motion (Erwin 2000). Material Failures Curtain walls are normally made from the repetitive application of pa rts. This repetition allows for quick and easy construction and asse mbly, but can be a major setback when failure occurs. The failure will often be widespread instead of localized to a specific point. Procedures to correct these failu res are often very invasive (Johnson 2000). Aluminum was a prime material component of curtain walls because is forms a tough, protective coating of aluminum oxide as it weathers. This coati ng arrests further oxidation of the aluminum surface (Kelley 1998: 83). Aluminum curtain walls from before the 1950s may lack this protective coating or any surface treatment. These uncoated frames are vulnerable to pitting as the oxidation occurs in an uneven manner. Fortunately, this oxidati on is only an aesthetic problem (Kelley 1998). As durable as aluminum may be, it is also ve ry cathodic. Aluminum easily deteriorates when it comes in contact with anodes like lead, co pper, or steel when water is also involved. This reaction causes unsightly staining or oxidation, or even system failure if this process is not planned for in the design of the curtain wall (Kelley 1998). 42

PAGE 43

If the curtain wall is not made of aluminum, but instead made of steel, the steel corrodes rather easily, especially in the presence of wate r. This corrosion can l ead to glass breakage, inoperable vents, and/or total st ructural failure (Kelley 1998). Thin cladding systems are prone to problems in curtain walls, as well. These systems are also likely to bow and crack due to thermal cycl es after they are attached to the structure. Problems result from the attempt to perfect thin cladding systems by trying to make panels thinner, lighter, and cheaper. When thin cl adding systems fail, over-cladding, re-cladding, and replacement may be the only viable solutions fo r fixing the problems. Thin cladding systems also rely more heavily on joint maintenance and back-up water-tightness than thicker cladding systems (Johnson 2000). Although glass walls make for an aesthetically pleasing building, impurities in glass can result in severe problems for glass-wall buildings Glass can obviously break or crack when it is hit by debris such as rocks, and is especially pr one to this type of damage during high winds or other inclement weather. Even if nothing strike s the glass, it can still sometimes crack on its own. If the glass was heat-tempered, it can spontan eously crack when the nickel sulfides in it expand after fabrication (Kelley 1998). I.M. Pe i and Henry N. Cobbs Hancock Tower in Boston serves as a critical example of the fa ilures of glass in Modern buildings. The 1976 60-story glass Hancock Tower in Bost on was disastrous from the beginning. The excavation of the site caused streets to buckle disrupted utility service, and most tragically, damaged the adjacent Trinity Church. Upon comple tion, the building swayed as much as 3 feet in either direction on the upper floors, causing occupants to feel sick and dizzy. The Hancock Tower was not even structurally soundin very high winds, the building was in danger of literally falling over. Millions of dollars were spent to stabilize the building (Farragher 2006). 43

PAGE 44

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Hancock building, however, was the windows. The Hancock Towers windows began to fall out of the building during constr uction in January of 1973. 75 mile-per-hour wind gusts st ruck the upper floors of the bui lding, causing at least 65 of the 500-pound glass panels to fall off the building. In the following months, more windows fell. The problem with the falling panels was in the window units design (Campbell 1995). Each [window] panel was a sandwich: two layers of gl ass with an air space between, all held in a metal frame. To cut the glare a nd heat of the sun, a coat of reflective chromium was placed on the inside surface of the outside pa ne of glass. (This layer of chrome was what gave the building its mirror effect.) The window frame was bonded to the chrome with a lead solder. During the testing, it was noticed that when a window faile d, the failure began when a tiny J-shaped crack appeared at the edge of the outsi de pane of glass. What was ha ppening was this: The lead solder was bonding too well with the chromeso well, so rigidly, that the join t couldnt absorb any movement. But window glass always moves. It expands and contracts with changes in temperature, and it vibrates with the wind. So the solder would fatigue and crack. The crack would telegraph through to the glass, and the cycle of failure would begin (Campbell 1995). The remaining windows were replaced with single sheets of tempered glass (Campbell 1995). The Hancock Building was not the only famous Modern curtain wall building with glass problems. Both the Lever House and the UN Build ing developed loose, l eaking windows within their first year of operation. The putty that had been used did not withstand temperature variation, vibration, and water run-off, and it quickly dried-up and fell off (Yeomans 2000). Failure of the structural frame in curtain walls most often occurs when connections between components, or the connec tion of the curtain wall to the bui lding frame, lose structural integrity. Curtain wall buildings are not maintena nce-free. They require routine upkeep, such as 44

PAGE 45

caulking, painting, or refinishing. Sealant maintenance is vital for car ing for these Modern curtain wall structures (Kelley 1998 ). Organic sealants and gask ets often deteriorate over time due to heat and ultraviolet rays from the sun (Johnson 2000). Monolithic Structures Contrary to popular belief, the thick monolithic brick and concrete structures implemented by Modern architects often lacked the perman ence that was expected of them. In The Netherlands, the Hilversum Town Hall (complet ed in 1931) by W. M. Dudok is a very solid structure. It consists of monolithic brick walls, a concrete frame, and concrete floors. Although the building is still standing afte r seventy years, there have been numerous problems. A recent restoration of the building resulted in replacing 75% of the exterior bric k walls, 80% of the steel windows, and all of the original utilities. Lit tle of the original build ing remains. The main causes of the problems for the Hi lversum Town Hall building were rust, cheap bricks, frost, and improperly covered rebar (Ford 1997). Louis Kahns 1972 monolithic Exeter Library feat ures concrete floors, concrete columns, and concrete beams with eighteen-inch thick brick load-bearing walls. Merely eighteen years after its completion, the Exeter Library faced many problems. The many parts of the roof terrace required retrofitting or replacement. The teak and oak windows needed serious repairs. Much of the brick exterior wall had deteriorated. The Exeter Library needed substa ntial work after just a short time. It cannot be determined whether the problems were due to improper detailing, poor construction techniques, or a co mbination of the two (Ford 1997). Thin-Shell Structures Concrete Concrete applications in Modern archite cture were not limited to solid, monolithic structures. Just as the curtain wall helped to create thinner, lighter buildings, concrete, too, 45

PAGE 46

allowed for freedom and flexibility in thin-shell designs. Thin-shell concrete structures allowed for large spans in industrial, commercial, and public buildings (Boothby 2000). The thin-shell concrete structure originated in Europe, and ca me to the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. These structures fit in well with Modernist ideals as they allowed for the creation of geometric forms, large spans, and exposed raw materials (Boothby 2000). The architects could have total creativity in design because the co ncrete application took on an al most plastic form. The thinshell concrete structure became very popular for warehouses, airport terminals (Eero Saarinens TWA Terminal at the JFK International Airport), a nd sports arenas toward the end of the Modern Movement in the 1960s and 1970s (Boothby 2000). Most of the problems with thin-s hell concrete structur es occur in the conc rete roofs. The concrete develops cracks as it resists bendi ng and compression. These inevitable cracks ultimately allow water to penetrate the roof (Boothby 2000). Bare concrete roofs are difficult surfaces to apply roofing material s. At the time when these structures were gaining popularity, few people were experienced in applying roof membranes to concrete (Boothby 2000). The Kingdome in Seattle, completed in 1975, exemplifies the numerous difficulties of thin-shell concrete structures. The roof of the Kingdome was a scalloped concrete shell, spanning 660 feet across. It was very difficult to place concrete in the shell portions of the roof. This resulted in a low density and a honeycombing effect in the concrete of the roof, and the insulation could not adequately bond to the surface (Boothby 2000). By 1994, the roof was in terrible shape. Seattles rainy weather soaked through the roof membra ne and into the poorly consolidated concrete. In addition, the roof membrane had been stripped in preparation for a roof replacement, and the roof decking was insensitively washed with a high-pressure spray (Boothby 2000). 46

PAGE 47

The public always disliked the Kingdome, and in 1993 voted it Seattles worst building (Boothby 2000). The problems that surmounted in 1994 made the public like the building even less. The Seattle Mariners were unable to fini sh their season in the dome due to maintenance delays, and two people died trying to repair the roof. To top it off, th e repairs cost over $50 million in public funds instead of the estimated $4 million. Its no surprise that the Kingdome was demolished only six years later in March of 2000 (Boothby 2000). Stone Thin stone panels are prone to serious deterioration. Stone panels may suffer from saccarification (sugaring), bowing, or overall stre ngth loss. When sugaring occurs, weathering and exfoliation cause the crystalline structure of the stone to break down. Stone bows as a result of thermal and moisture cycles. When stone h eats up, the interior and ex terior surfaces of the panels are at different temperat ures. The crystals in the st one expand and contract, and the crystals do not fully rebound from this process, thus leading to warping and bowing. This bowing ultimately leads to the loss of strength in the stone panels, which necessitates their total replacement (Johnson 2000). Edward Durell Stones 1974 Amoco Building in Chicago was built with 1-1/4 inch-thick Carrara marble panels covering th e surfaces. In less than 20 years, the marble had deteriorated and bowed so badly it had to be replaced. This time, the building was clad with expensive 2inch-thick granite panels that cost $80 million (Ford 1997). Alvar Aaltos Finlandia Hall, completed in 1971 experienced a similar fate. In 1998, the Carrara marble panels were replaced with margin ally thicker Carrara panels. Less than ten years later, the new replacement panels had already begun to bow (Ford 1997). 47

PAGE 48

Brick When brick is used in modern applications, it is typically just used as a skin over cheaper framing materials. Relying on bric k solely for the outer layer of a building, and not for structural support, eliminates some of the natural water ba rrier properties of monolithic brick walls. Thus, cavity walls are implemented to keep the moisture that penetrates the out er brick from entering the building. Cavity walls catch the water that comes through the faade and they move it to the outside of the building through flashing and weep holes. Alth ough the cavity wall was no new invention, it was officially recognize d in America in 1937 (Schuller 2000). Since many of the components of contemporary cavity walls are located within the walls themselves, maintenance or preservation efforts requi re at least a partial dismantling of the wall. Rebuilding will be required when the problems are w ith internal components, such as flashing or wall ties. Brick cavity walls face many of the same problems encountered with curtain wall design, such as differential movement, water pe netration, and steel corrosion (Schuller 2000). The brick veneer on the outside of a building faces temperature extremes and moisture issues not experienced by the structural frame. The masonry wall, in this case, is not meant to withstand the loads of the frame. The skin of the building must be completely free-standing in order to prevent strain from differential movement of the faade and frame. If movement joints are not designed into the outer wall, stress will build up and can ultimately cause cracking. In some rare cases, the load will be transferred to the brick instead of the frame, causing the veneer to support the buildi ng (Schuller 2000). If brick is used in conjunction with a concrete frame, other cons iderations need to be made. In time, concrete frames shorten in length from applied loads, creep from sustained loads, and material shrinkage due to moistu re loss, hydration, and carbonati on. Brick, in contrast, gets larger due to thermal and moisture expansion. If the brick is rigidly c onnected to the concrete, 48

PAGE 49

then a large amount of stress builds up in the brick and the veneer tie system could potentially fail altogether. If the walls are bonded, then even small differential movements can fracture header bricks (Schuller 2000). Excessive water penetration can lead to seve ral serious problems for brick cavity walls, such as damage to interior finishes, deterior ation of building materials, efflorescence, and biological growth within the wa ll system. Solutions for attack ing water penetration typically only address the problem, not the cause. This will not provide permanent solutions. Water repellants remove water from th e surface of a building, but the do not seal cracks or separations between the mortar and the brick. Repellants do not block the main entry for water. Sealants and other impermeable coatings are typically not recommended because they do not allow the wall to breathe (Schuller 2000). The metal materials present in brick cavity wallsvertical and horizontal reinforcements, veneer ties, anchors, lintels a nd shelf angles, and the structural frame itselfall are susceptible to corrosion due to moisture penetration. The use of acid-based masonry cleaners, or highpowered pressure washers containing chlorine, accelerates this corrosion (Schuller 2000). According to Schuller, Often the only reasonab le approach is removal of corroding elements followed by installation of new elements, often using stainless steel (2000). Flat Roofs Flat roofs are very flexible. They can some times hide unsightly mechanical equipment on the top of a building, they are safe to work on, th ey allow flexibility in design (in that you can install stairs and skylights wherever desired) and they provide more living space when ground area is limited (Brand 1994: 115). Le Corbusier, in particular, viewed the roof as another functional space of the building design. Flat roofs tend to have one major flawthey are notorious for leaks. The membra ne covering of the roof rarely acts as a perfect water barrier. 49

PAGE 50

The BUR (built-up roof) consists of four or mo re layers of roofing felt and asphalt, with a mineral layer on top (often gravel) to protect th e roof from the sun. BUR technology dates back at least a hundred years. Many of the problems with these built-up roofs come during the construction phase if it is cold or rainy, or if the flashing is no t properly installed. Even more problems come from foot traffic on the roof, or wh en new mechanical equipment is put in place. Common failures that happen over time include: er osion, alligatoring (sun oxidation), blisters, splits, ridges, and punctures (Brand 1994: 115). One of the biggest problems with leaks in flat roofs is that the source of the water is difficult to ascertain. Moisture can travel, undet ected, for long distances in the roof, ceiling, or walls, even before the damage is noticeable (Bra nd 1994: 115). Initial repairs typically fail, so new layers are subsequently a dded. Unfortunately, the addition of new layers adds addition weight that may cause the roof to sag. Excess water builds up in the concave areas, and more leaks ensue. In this case, a total rebuild would be the onl y option. Many owners opt for a pitched roof at that point (Brand 1994: 115). In cold climates, snow build-up is also a se rious concern for flat-r oofed buildings. The slope in traditional peaked roofs allows snow to s lide off and not be concentrated on a flat plane. When the snow melts as the temperature rise s, the melting snow again has nowhere to go. Again, the roofs are plagued with water issues (Brolin 1976: 33). Le Corbusiers Villa Savoye Le Corbusier threw practicality aside in fa vor of aesthetics in his 1929 Modern icon, the Villa Savoye. The walls of the house may have been as delicate as pi eces of lace (de Botton 2006: 65), but the roof was an even bigger archit ectural mistake. The Savoye family initially did not want a flat roof on their home, but Le Corbusier convinced the family that a flat roof would be more economically and technically effi cient than a traditional pitched roof. Merely 50

PAGE 51

one week after the family moved into the house, ho wever, the roof started to leak. And six years later, the roof was still leaking. In 1936, Madame Savoye wrote a rain-splattered letter to Le Corbusier about the flat roof Its raining in the hall, its ra ining on the ramp, and the wall of the garage is absolutely soaked. Whats more, its still raining in my bathroom, which floods in bad weather, as the water comes in thr ough the skylight (de Botton 2006: 65). Although Le Corbusier told the Madame he w ould take care of her leaking roof, his trademark pompous attitude came through when he reminded her how much praise his roof design had received worldwide (de Botton 2006: 65). In 1937, Madame Savoye declared her house uninhabitable (66). Frank Lloyd WrightWater Everywhere Frank Lloyd Wright, the greatest American architect of all time according to the American Institute of Architect s (AIA), was quoted as saying If the roof doesnt leak, the architect hasnt been creative e nough (Brand 1994: 58). Wright wa s notorious for his leaks, and retorted to clients who complained of the le aks, Thats how you can tell its a roof (Brand 1994: 58). Wrights Fallingwater also known as Rising Mildew or a seven-bucket building by its owner, leaked all over. The leaks destro yed the windows, the stone walls, and structural concrete (58). Implications It has been thoroughly addressed that Modern building envelopes have many problems and failures. This, however, is not a phenomenon unique to Modernis m. All building types have their own set of problems. The key difference is that people know how to deal with and correct problems with traditional building materials th at are implemented in traditional ways. Modernists utilized brand-new building techniques and materi als, and experimented with applying traditional materials and methods in new and different ways. They did not consider 51

PAGE 52

how their experiments would turn out, or in what shape their buildings would be in the future. To make matters even more di fficult, many of the materials an d techniques used in Modern construction do not even exist anymore. Thos e concerned with the preservation of these structures are often undecided a bout how to treat thes e buildings. Some materials and methods went out of production before pe ople even had time to consider how they would need to treat problems that may arise in the future. Even the Modern materials and methods that have continued to be used in building construction are often unf amiliar territory with preservationists. Authenticity is a key component of preserva tion. According to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards (Appendix A), distinctive materials must be retained for preservation projects. Many of the distinct ive materials used in Modern construction are the exact components of these buildings that have failed. Replacing them with new or more reliable materials raises doubts to maintaining the auth enticity of the building. Gaining the support to preserve a building is only the beginning step in the preservati on process. Figuring out how to treat Modern buildings effectively, while maintaining authenticity, is often an even bigger problem. 52

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 6 THE AESTHETICS OF MODERNISM It has already been established that Modern architects designed with an idea of building for the present. They may not have intended for their buildings to last beyond their useful life. At the same time, Modernists also opposed historic architecturet hose old and rotting buildings that form our snailshell as Le Corbusier put it (Kostof 702) This creates quite a paradox for the preservation of Modern architecture. Should M odern architecture even be preserved since it inherently rejected trad ition and rejoiced at th e end of history? Mode rn architecture thrived on newness, and rejected the old. The Modernist designers did not foresee the time when their own building would become old. (Maxwell 1998) Modernism was destined for misunderstand ing from the beginning (Cunningham 1998: 3). The very event that publicized this new t ype of architecture, the 1932 MOMA exhibit, The International Style led to mass confusion in two important ways. The first misconception was the notion that there was a cohesive internati onal movement in the first place. The second misconception was that modern ar chitecture could be summed up by its physical appearance. As outlined by the exhibit, the guidelines of Inte rnational Style architecture were simple: Architecture is volume, not mass Regularity, not axial sy mmetry, orders design Applied decoration is arbitrary (Cunningham 1998: 3) According to Brolin, Modern architecture ne ver gained mass acceptance (1976). Most of the apathy, or downright hostility stemmed from aesthetics. Instead of fitting in with neighboring buildings, the buildings from the M odern movement blatan tly stuck out (Brolin 1976: 8). Brolin states that people are put off by the sterility of modernism, and they either do 53

PAGE 54

not know about, or just do not care about, the rati onale behind the design of the buildings (10). Brolin further argues that Modern architecture wa s never intended to be b eautiful, per say, but it was meant to be functional and moral, first a nd foremost (15). Simplicity was bred from functionalism. Ornament was not necessary for functionality, so it was omitted (16). Applying ornament in a traditional sense was a criminal act for Modernists. When the past was treated positively by Modernists, architects favored the simpler forms and processes. Le Corbusier praised the Doric order of Classical architecture because it was the simplest and least decorated. The lack of ornament essentially mean t lack of tradition to Modernists. During the Modern era, for the first time in the history of architecture, ornament was excluded from design (Brolin 1976: 25). Ornament grabs peoples attenti on as they approach a building. Each successive layer of ornament that is revealed as you get closer increases the intrigue. With Modern architecture this phenomenon does not occur. The buildings are fr ee from historic garb, so one would not find decoration to please the eye of the curious onl ooker (Brolin 1976: 25). Essentially, the only elements that pique ones interest are basi c geometric shapes and materials which are decipherable from a distance (26). If people can read all the el ements of a building from far away, then there is no reason to look closer or even keep looking (27). Modernists assumed, according to Brolin, th at people would recognize and accept their buildings. The fact remains that the general publ ic, even at present, does not find Modernism aesthetically pleasi ng. Modernism is viewed as an elitis t movement, only appealing to a few (Brolin 1976: 58). The modern architects took pride in their work, but the public remained bewildered. The City of Tomo rrow exhibit at the Osaka Wo rlds Fair showcased Modern architecture and city planning. The exhibit was highly misunders tood, and even the tour guides 54

PAGE 55

unintentionally called the exhibit City of Sorrows (Brolin 1976: 8). This shows how modern architecture is often perceived as sad and cold. This was not the intention of the architects. Le Corbusiers Workers Housing Project Still relatively early in his career, Le Corbusier received a commission from French industrialist Henry Fruges in 1923 to build housing complexes for his workers and their families. The buildings, near Bordeaux, are prime examples of early Modernism, with their long strips of windows, flat roofs, and stripped-down walls. To Le Corbusier, these complexes celebrated industry and technology. But to the occupants, this was no cause for celebration. They worked hard all day long in an industrial se tting, and did not want to come home to one at night. In just a few years, the tenants added the pieces of hist oricism they felt were missing: pitched roofs, shutters, casement windows, wallpaper, and even picket fences, fountains, and garden gnomes (de Botton 2006: 163-64). The Historic Preservation Movement The idea that Modern architecture is unpopular ba sed on aesthetics is unfortunate in and of itself, but it is ultimately leading to the neglec t and demolition of important modern structures. On the surface, preservation and modern arch itecture inherently do not go hand-in-hand. According to Longstreth, The federal legi slation of 1966, which tr ansformed historic preservation into a national movement, also bore rather ominous implications for the traditional concept of progress. Although not directly st ated, an underlying rationale for the National Historic Preservation Act was th at contemporary achievements in architecture, planning, and other fields that shaped the bui lt environment were inferior to those of the past (1992). Early historic preservation efforts arose from the desire to memorialize Revolutionary War heroes. Independence Hall was saved from demolition by a group of activists who proved the significance of the building. The Mount Vernon Ladies Associati on saved George Washingtons 55

PAGE 56

Mount Vernon residence in 1858 and successfully turned the residence into a house museum. House museums fueled the preservation move ment for nearly a hundr ed years (Lea 2003). The National Park Service (NPS) was created by the Department of the Interior in 1916 as a means to protect the ever-incre asing number of federal lands. By the early 1930s, the NPS was the leading source of preservation expertise for the government (Lea 2004). The NPS, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and othe r federal agencies provided projects for unemployed architects and photographers during the Great Depression. The architects and photographers created measured drawings of significant historic buildings. During this time, the Historic American Buildings Su rvey (HABS) emergedthe natio ns first audit of historic buildings (Lea 2004). In 1947, a group of representatives from cultura l and preservation orga nizations across the country created the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings in th e nations capital. The group felt that the current state of the countrys important sites was being threatened by post-war development and exploration. The council ultimat ely created the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) which helped expand th e preservation movement beyond house museums and battlefields. The Trust was chartered by Congress on October 17, 1949, and brought historic preservation to the public eye (Lea 2004). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 ushered histor ic preservation even further into mainstream society. Prior to th e 1966 legislation, only nationally significant buildings were protected by historic preserva tion activities. The NHPA made preservation applicable to important buildings at the national, state, and lo cal level (Lea 2004). Since the buildings of the distant past were considered superior to those of the present, the new legislation protected the old buildings from the contemporary architects, designers, and planners who were 56

PAGE 57

creating the inferior works of the present. Preser vationists (and most people in general) felt that Modern architecture lacked character, scal e, variety, and signif icance (Longstreth 1992). Hating the architecture of the present, and l oving the buildings of the past, was not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has happened countless times in history. Victorian architecture was despised starting in the late 1800s as scholars and proponents of the City Beautiful movement felt like their work was far superior. Then the Modernists came along and declared that all the buildings of the past were fundamentally wr ong. In the 1950s and 1960s, Modernism itself came into question as buildings beyond neo-classicism were being prot ected (Longstreth 1992). As we have witnessed in recent years, many contemporary architects dislike buildings from the PostModern period. This is a never-ending cycle. The most alarming aspect of preservation, especially pertaining to Modernism, is the presence of taste and aesthetics when it comes to decision-making. While taste is not an official criterion for listing historic properties, accordin g to Longstreth, anyone who has worked in the preservation field knows that it is an underlying factor and may surface openly to influence the debate Matters of taste are usually not expresse d at such; they tend to be coded in jargon or made implicit rather than explicit in statem ents (1992). The demolition of Joseph Abels Governor Shepherd apartment building (1939) in Washington, D.C. proves the presence of taste in decision making. The building was ugly and was not a pure Interna tional Style building. Although this building showcased Abels talent as an architect and played a key role in Modernism for public housing in the D.C. ar ea, the building was nevertheless demolished (Longstreth 1992). While many preservationists today are beginning to work harder in order to protect key buildings from the Modern movement, much of the public is still unsure about modernism, or is 57

PAGE 58

blatantly hostile toward it. Lesser-known Modernist building are disappear ing with few people caring or even noticing, and even many Modern architectural gems by famous architects are being destroyed without much protest (Longstreth Critique 2000). The voice of the supportive preservationists is not enough to save Modern buildings. Richard Neutras Cyclorama Building To some, Richard Neutras 1961 Cyclorama Build ing at Gettysburg is the ultimate Visitor Center of the National Park Se rvices Mission 66 Program. To others, the Cyclorama is an intrusive eyesore that should be demolished (Longstreth Int egrity 2000). For several years, it was unclear which side would ultimately win. Unfortunately, the building will be demolished. The Cyclorama Building is one of the few Mission 66 projects where the Park Service commissioned an internationally renowned ar chitect for the design (Longstreth Integrity 2000). While Richard Neutra is most famous fo r his residential works on the West coast, the Cyclorama is special in that is showed Neutras talent for public architecture on the other side of the country. Neutra even considered the Cyclorama the project closest to his heart (French Mission 66 2002). The building is Neutras tr ibute to Abraham Lincoln, and it houses the 350foot circumference, 30-foot ta ll Cyclorama painting by Paul Phillippoteaux that depicts the climax of the battle of Gettysburg (F rench The Cyclorama Building 2002). Initially, the Cyclorama received praise fr om the architectural community and from publications like The New York Times, which predicted it would bring much acclaim to the National Park System. Only tw elve years after it opened, howe ver, park officials began to complain that the Cyclorama was too small. Th e Park Service immediatel y took away the visitor center function of the building, which sparked a 25 -year period of neglect by the Park Service (French The Cyclorama Building 2002). 58

PAGE 59

In 1998, the Park Service declared the Cy clorama an intrusion on the historical landscape and slated it for demolition (French The Cyclorama Building 2002). To add insult to injury, the NPS nominated th ree Mission 66 Visitor Centers fo r National Landmark Status in 2000, but omitted both of Neutras Mission 66 contributions (his other visitor center is at the Petrified Forest National Park) (Fre nch The Cyclorama Building 2002). In 1998, preservationists nominate d the Cyclorama for the Nati onal Register of Historic Places. That bought some time for the building. In 2000, preservationists, backed by famous architects such as Frank Gehry and Robert A.M. Stern, tried to make th e Cyclorama a historic landmark. The National Parks Advisory Board denied the nomination on the grounds that the building didnt have archite ctural merit (French The Cyclorama Building 2002). In 2005, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) put the Cyclorama on its Watch List of the 100 Most Endangered Sites. The Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN), the non-profit organization that nominated the Cyclorama for the Watch List, tried to persuade the Park Service that the building should just be relocated, not demolished (Frenc h Mission 66 2002). The NPS fought hard to get rid of this im portant piece of their history, a nd they had numerous supporters. Those in favor of the demolition argued that thi s sprawling modernist pile is an unwarranted intrusion, standing near the hi gh-water mark on the Confeder acy, despoiling hallowed ground and it is not only big but that its assertive scale and character run at odds with the setting and detract from these historical associations th at are the bedrock of the parks significance (Longstreth Integrity 2000). The NPS ultimat ely won out, and the battle to save the Cyclorama is over. Implications It would be impossible to force people to a ppreciate Modern buildings and just liking or disliking a building is not really the issue. The important concep t here is that people understand 59

PAGE 60

the significance of Modernism and can appreciate Modern buildings for their innovativeness and the ideas they represented. It is not important to think a building is attractive in order to believe it is significant enough to preserve. 60

PAGE 61

CHAPTER 7 ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING TO SA VE MODERN ARCHITECTURE Over the past two decades, several organiza tions have begun to address the issue of preserving modern architecture. In some cases traditional groups, such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites, the United Nati ons Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or the World Monuments Fund, bega n to take on Modernism as an important cause. In other instances, groups formed solely to document and preserve works of Modernism, such as the International Working Party for th e Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement and the Recent Past Preservation Network. In either case, these organizati ons are bringing the p light of Modernism into the public domain and are finding tremendous support for their cause. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) The International Council on Monuments a nd Sites, ICOMOS, has over 7500 members worldwide. The goal is ICOMOS is to conserve and protect cultural heri tage sites. ICOMOS also helps to disperse information on conserva tion techniques and prin ciples, and establishes training programs for conserva tion. ICOMOS bases its princi ples of conservation on the 1964 Venice Charter (International Charter on the C onservation and Restora tion of Monuments and Sites) (ICOMOS 2007). Almost from its inception, ICOMOS has been concerned with protecting and conserving the recent sites that were the resu lt of intellectual, so cial, technological, or artistic evolution. ICOMOS has held several seminars and produced se veral publications on Modern heritage. In 1989, ICOMOS published pieces on conserving th e Bauhaus in Dessau. In 1993, ICOMOS Germany held a meeting about conserving modern architecture. ICOMOS France held a seminar on preserving architectura l concrete (ICOMOS 2007). 61

PAGE 62

The 1995 ICOMOS Seminar on 20th Century Heritage in Helsinki concluded that recent heritage should not be defined based on aesthetic s, but instead on the important social, economic, and cultural factors. The meeting also covere d how even the modest examples of recent architecture should be given consideration, including urban and ru ral structures, housing complexes, industrial heritage sites, etc. Me eting attendees also stre ssed the importance of researching and documenting the problems and solu tions of conserving Modern heritage. They suggested a follow-up meeting to further discuss the issues. At the c onclusion of the meeting, everyone agreed that ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, and th e World Heritage Center should have an ongoing relationship and should work together to define, identify, and document twentiethcentury heritage (ICOMOS 2007). A follow-up seminar was held in Mexico City in 1996. The main objective of this seminar was to discuss Americas specific contribution to twentieth-century heritage. Sites were evaluated in terms of local importance first, then regional, national, and international significance were examined. Since many new and experimental techniques and materials had been used during the Modern Movement, they were also taken into considerationwhether they succeeded or failed. Economic barriers were also taken into account during this ICOMOS seminar (ICOMOS 2007). Throughout 2000 and 2001, ICOMOS and UNESCOs World Heritage Center collaborated to promote the nomination of recent past propertie s for inclusion on the World Heritage List. A 2001 session held in Montreal proposed an international action plan a nd program for modern heritage. The Montreal Action Plan was developed on the basis that: 1) Twentieth-century heritage was very diverse, as were the issues related to identifying and protecting the resources 2) International Monuments and Sites Day 2002 should be dedicated to twentieth-century 62

PAGE 63

heritage 3) The Heritage at Risk Report of 2002 should especially emph asize twentieth-century heritage and 4) ICOMOS should coordinate wi th UNESCO and other orga nizations to develop meetings and workshops on twentieth-century heritage. April 18th 2002, ICOMOSs International Day for Monuments and Sites had the theme 20th Century Heritage. ICOMOS recognized the importance of recent heritage and realized that recent heritage is often not acknowledged or protected like older heritage (ICOMOS 2007). United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizati on (UNESCO) and The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations World Heritage Centre (WHC) was established in 1992. The WHC holds annual mee tings of the World Heritage Committee, helps State Parties nominate sites to the World Heritage List, obtains international assistance from the World Herita ge Fund, undertakes emergency actions when List sites are threatened, organizes seminars and workshops, updates the World Herita ge List, and raises public awareness for heritage preservation (UNESCO 2007). In 2001, UNESCOs WHC, ICOMOS, and DO COMOMO created the Programme on Modern Heritagea joint program for the identifying, documenting, and promoting the built heritage of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Pr ogramme, which receives financial support from the Netherlands government, helps raise awar eness about the architecture, planning, and landscapes from the Modern era. There have be en five regional meeti ngs on Modern Heritage, including the 2004 meeting, which focused on No rth American Modern Heritage, in Miami Beach and Coral Gables, FL (Appendix B). At the Miami meeting, attendees discussed th e identification, protec tion, conservation, and potential nomination of propertie s and sites of Modern Heritage in North America. They examined both the architectural masterpieces and the urban sites that were important to 63

PAGE 64

modernity and modernization in Nort h America. It was determined at this meeting that there was a limited, but growing appreciation for Modern Heritage in America, but that there should be new ways and means for support and public engage ment for these sites. While the focus of preservation efforts had been primarily on M odern icons, local or vernacular examples of modernity were also important. Attendees of this meeting discussed two major threats to Modern Heritagecontinuing use and upgrading, and obsolescence. The issue of authenticity and preservation of Modern structures was also discussed in detail. At the UNESCO General Conference in New Delhi in 1959, a proposal was made to create an intergovernmental center fo r the study for preservation and restoration. Soon afterwards, ICCROM (The International Centre for the Study of the Preserva tion and Restoration of Cultural Property), was established in Rome. I CCROMs Built Heritage Programme focuses on education, research, and training an d also features courses, semina rs, and workshops. In the past few years, ICCROM has begun to sponsor courses specifically about Mode rn architecture. The first MARC, or Modern Archite cture Conservation Course, wa s held in 1999. The course examined both the theory and practice of conserving Modern buildings. The 2006 MARC course focused specifically on the suburbs built in the 1960s and 1970s (ICCROM 2007). World Monuments Fund (WMF) The World Monuments Fund began in 1965 by Ja mes A. Gray, a retired American army colonel. Gray turned his interest in engine ering issues and monuments into a means for the general public to support preservation for the firs t time in history. The WMF has proven to be a substantial force in the preser vation movement, with more than 450 projects in 80 countries (WMF 2005). The WMF first restored rock-hewn churches in Ethiopia, and then the monuments of Easter Island. In 1966, the WMF stepped in to he lp save Venice after severe floods threatened 64

PAGE 65

important Italian buildings a nd monuments. In 1985, the WMF aided Mexico City after a devastating earthquake damaged the historic city center. The World Monuments Fund has launched other programs all over the world, incl uding Asia and the former Soviet Union (WMF 2005). In 1995, the WMF established the World Monuments Watch program. The Watch program chooses the 100 Most Endangered Site s from around the globe and compiles them into a list every two years. The sites chosen are part icularly threatened by ne glect, vandalism, war, or natural disaster. It is hoped that being selected as a Watch site will attract technical and financial support for these at-risk sites. Over three-quar ters of the Watch sites have been saved (WMF 2005). Modernism at Risk In 2006, the WMF, sponsored by Knoll (a l eading manufacturer of modern office and home furniture for nearly 70 years), launched Modernism at Risk The Modernism at Risk program calls attention to threatened works of Modernism across the world, and will ultimately strengthen the World Monuments Funds place in th e preservation of Modern architecture. With a generous grant from Knoll in the sum of $400,000, the WMF will not only be able to focus on preserving specific sites, but will also be able to launch initiatives for public education and advocacy, and secure media attentio n. A series of traveling exhi bits and lectures by prominent architects will ensue (WMF 2005). A major initiative of the Modernism at Risk program is the awarding of the World Monuments Knoll Modernism Prize. The award will be give to a professional or firm whose work raises public awareness of the important ro le of Modernism in our heritage. The winner will be chosen based on either a showcasing of th e preservation of a modernist structure, or by 65

PAGE 66

using modern design solutions for increasing the longevity of pre-modern landmarks. The first winner will be chosen in 2008 (WMF 2005). Modern Buildings on the WMF Watch List Several well-known Modernist bui ldings have been included on past WMF Watch Lists. In 2000, Richard Neutras VDL Research House II made the Watch List. In 2002, two major American Modernist structures made the Watch ListRudolf Sc hindlers Kings Road House and Studio in West Hollywood and Edward Dure ll Stones A. Conger Goodyear House in Long Island (WMF 2005). The 2006 Watch List featured the highest numbe r of Modern buildings ever listed at oncenine in total. Included in the 2006 List ar e: Melnikovs House Studio, Asmara Historic City Center, International Fairground at Tripo li, Ennis Brown House, Cyclorama Center, and 2 Columbus Circle (WMF 2005). Russian architect Konstantin Melnikovs 1929 home and studio was the only single-family dwelling built for an individual during the Soviet era. The area of town where the house is located is undergoing massive redevelopment. An underground parking lot built next door destroyed the drainage system in the Melni kov house and has led to water penetration. Inadequate preservation work in 1998, in addition to the intense wa ter damage, has led to serious deterioration of the House Studio. Viktor, the architects son, is currently keeping the house alive with his own money. Viktor and other local s want to see the Melnikov House turned into a house-museum (WMF 2005). The Asmara City Center in Eritrea wa s constructed between 1936 and 1941 by Fascist Italian colonists. The Asmara architects incorporat ed a variety of styles into the City Center, but Rationalism (Italys version of International Style Modernism) is most apparent. Again, development in the area is threatening the City Center, including a 1919 Modernist Asmara 66

PAGE 67

Theatre by Oduardo Cavagnari. In 2000, the Cultu ral Assets Rehabilitation Project (CARP), supported by the World Bank, established a safe -zone around the city center where no new construction could begin. CARP feels that by being listed on the Watch List the Eritrea government will adopt planning guidelines that help protect other historic resources in Asmara (WMF 2005). Brazilian Modernist Oscar Niemeyer was co mmissioned in 1963 for the International Fairground Project in Tripoli, Lebanon. Niemey ers design features an oval-shaped fairground with concrete forms and an open-air pavilion. Th e site was originally used by the military when war broke out during construction, but it is now unoccupied. The Fairground site has been neglected over the years, and plan s to demolish the existing structur es and convert the site into a themepark are in the works. Patrimoine sans Frontieres and the Associat ion for the Safeguarding of the Intenational Fairgrounds of Tripoli strongly advocate the pr eservation of the site (WMF 2005). Frank Lloyd Wrights 1924 textile block hous e in Los Angeles has experienced severe deterioration over the years. The very materials used by Wright have been a major source of the demise, along with the 1994 earthquake that cause d structural damage to the house. Local foundations, state funds, and Federal Emergenc y Management Agency (FEMA) have been working hard to save this house. After a series of brutal rains further de teriorated the house in 2005, the City of Los Angeles deemed the house uninhabitable (WMF 2005). Richard Neutras 1963 Cyclorama Building is in serious trouble (see Chapter 6). Organizations like DOCOMOMO and the Recent Past Preservation Networ k (RPPN) feel that being listed on the 2006 Watch List will demonstrate the plight of Modernist architecture. In this 67

PAGE 68

case, the demolition of the Cyclorama Building has been approved by government but vehemently opposed by preservationists (WMF 2005). Edward Durell Stones 1960s museum building at 2 Columbus Circle was originally a personal art gallery for Huntington Hartford. From the very beginning, this building was controversial. The Gallery closed in 1969 due to lack of funding, but it was purchased by the City of New York in 1980. The Museum of Art and Design (MAD) recently purchased the building, and plans to renovate it with a radically different design. In the new plan, the marble exterior and ornament will be removed, and the inte rior will be drastically modified. Both the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and the Preservation League of New York State wanted to save 2 Columbus Circle, but the Ne w York City Landmarks Commission failed to see the significance of the bu ilding, thus rendering it a lost cause (WMF 2005). Documentation and Conservation of Buildings Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO) An International group that specifically focused on Mode rnism was formed in 1988 DOCOMOMO. DOCOMOMO is an International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighbor hoods of the Modern Movement. DOCOMOMO has working parties in 49 countries, includi ng the United States. DOCOMOMO hosts biannual conferences in addition to a semi-annual jo urnal, and published proceedings from the conferences. DOCOMOMO also has internationa l specialist committees (ISC) that are each assigned a different sectorISC/T for technolo gy, ISC/R for registers, ICS/L for landscapes, ISC/U for urbanism, and ISC/ E for education (Bronson 2000). Activities featured on the DOCOMOMO agenda include: identifying, inventorying, listing, protecting, researching, and raisi ng awareness of important modern buildings. The steps for 68

PAGE 69

treating modern buildings are much the same as those for traditional buildings, but must be tailored specifically for modern buildings wh en it comes to physical treatments (Bronson 2000). Originally, DOCOMOMO was mainly conc erned with 1920s and 1930s European Modernism. More recently, however, the focus has shifted, particularly in America, because it was determined that the post-war years showcase a significant portion of modern architectural development (Bronson 2000). DOCOMOMO US was formed in 1995 and now has seven local chaptersChicago, Georgia, New England, the New York Tri-State area, Northern California, North Texas, and Western Washington. The chapters host walking tours and educational programs, give technical assistance for preserving modern buildings, c onduct research and surveys for the DOCOMOMO Register, and advocate to save endangered sites (DOCOMOMO-US). The Mission Statement of DOCOMOMO US has four key elements: DOCOMOMO US seeks to stimulate interest in and educate the public about Modern buildings, sites, neighborhoods and landscapes; DOCOMOMO US seeks to act as a watchdog when examples of Modern buildings, sites, neighborhoods and landscapes are in jeopardy an d advocate for their appropriate protection and preservation; DOCOMOMO US seeks to make a register of important Modern buildings, sites, neighborhoods and landscapes to be preserved and documented; DOCOMOMO US seeks to exchange knowledge a nd ideas about Modern buildings, sites, neighborhoods and landscapes and to share techniques about their documentation and conservation (DOCOMOMO-US 2007) The US DOCOMOMO Register contains significant examples of Modernism in architecture, urban design, landscapes, and gardens. In order for a site to be eligible for the Register, it must first and foremost be a Modern site. The site must have been built during the 69

PAGE 70

Modern period (approximately 1920s to 1970s). Th e design showcased must be consciously and purposefully Modern (DOCOMOMO-US 2007). DOCOMOMO outlines six criteria for evaluating the significance of a building or landscape. Although a site does not need to meet all six qualifications, the more it meets will further justify the significance. Technological merit: Does the work employ innovative modern technology to solve structural, programmatic, or aesthetic challenges? Social merit: Does the design reflect the challenging so cial patterns of 20th century life? Did the designer attempt to improve either living or working conditions, or human behaviors through the works form or function? Artistic or Aesthetic merit: Does the wo rk exhibit skill at composition, handling of proportion, scale and material and detail? Cannonic merit: Is the work and/or architect famous or influen tial? Is it exemplary work? Referential value: Did this work exert an in fluence on subsequent de signers as a result of one or more of its attributes? Integrity: Is the original design intent appare nt? Have material ch anges been made which compromise the architectural integr ity of the structure or site? (DOCOMOMO-US 2007) Currently DOCOMOMO US and DOCOMOMO Tristate New York are fighting hard to save Eero Saarinens 1962 TWA Terminal at th e John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. The construction of new terminals ri ght next to the TWA Terminal has been set in place. Since TWA Airline no longer exists, the TW A Terminal is vacant and its future use has no been reassigned. To make way for the new term inals, part of the original TWA terminal and its gates are supposed to be demolished. DOCOMOMO US and DOCOMOMO Tri-state New York are afraid of this demolition, and they f ear that the new terminal will dwarf the TWA terminal. Since the terminal is no longer in use, DOCOMOMO is afraid that it will further deteriorate and ultimately be demolished entirely. DOCOMOMO members are asking for letters 70

PAGE 71

of support to be sent to the G overnor of New York and the head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (American Institute of Architects 2001). Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN) The Recent Past Preservation Network (RPPN ) has the goal of Promoting preservation education and advocacy to encourage a cont extual understanding of our modern built environment. RPPN advocates the protection of many types of resources from our recent built heritage, many of which are less than fifty years old, out of style, or are considered noncontributing in terms of local, st ate, or national signifi cance. The RPPN is very active in raising awareness about recent past heri tage, and taking physical actions to save recent past structures. RPPN goes beyond the realm of classic examples of Modernism, and further advocates for the documentation and protection of bowling alleys, drive-in theaters, diners, domes, towers, roadside structures, and other structures most people might find ordinary (Recent Past Preservation Network). Although th e RPPN is an invaluable s ource of information preserving recent past heritage and they have been instrume ntal in helping to save important pieces of Modern architecture, the group goes far beyond Modern territory and thus wa s not researched in depth for this study. 71

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 8 OBSERVATIONS At this point in time, nearly all preservationists agree that there were some highly significant buildings erected in the recent pa st that deserve celebrating and saving. Organizations and individuals are constantly fighting to save an increasing number of Modern buildings. Although more people are becoming inte rested in the Modern era, most people are still indifferent toward the preser vation of Modern buildings. This lack of interest in Modernism makes it difficult to obtain public support wh en Modern buildings are threatened. As addressed in previous chapters, Modern building envelopes have numerous problems, and people do not favor Modern aesthetics. Both of these barriers create opposition for the preservation of Modernism, but education, or lack thereof, is perh aps the basis of these challenges to preserving Modern buildings. Education is crucial to unde rstanding why any building shou ld be preserved, but it is particularly important for Modern buildings. The Modern era was a hi ghly misunderstood period of our architectural history. Although most Modern buildings have distinguishing aesthetic characteristics, such as flat roofs and simple forms, Modernism was not a movement based on aesthetics. Building forms were a product of their functions. Modernism also demonstrated optimism about the future and a willingness to expe riment with new ideas and techniques. While education about the Modern era might not ma ke people favor Modern buildings, it would certainly help raise awareness about the impor tant mark Modernism made on the history of design and culture. The lack of education about Modern building materials and processes also poses serious problems when physical preservation is enacted. Since Modernists favored experimentation, many building materials used in their buildings were never fully tested or may be obsolete today. 72

PAGE 73

Most preservationists are knowledgeable about preserving traditional buildings, but they are unsure about preservation techniqu es for Modern buildings. Maintaining architectural integrity and authenticity are monumentally important for hi storic preservation. Au thenticity is a difficult area for Modern buildings, in pa rticular, because retaining the original materials used in construction is often not an option. Insensitive changes and additions to Modern buildings also pose problems for maintaining auth enticity. Since most buildings from the Modern era are small (but efficient), they are often subj ect to additions in order to incr ease space. In many cases, these additions destroy the materials a nd spatial relationships of the original structure. Economics is also an enormous barrier to pr eserving Modern buildings. Modern buildings are expensive to repair, and the land they are locat ed on is often considered more valuable than the structure itself (Longstreth Critique 2000). People today want McMansions, not the modest structures from the Modern movement. Developers often buy Mode rn structures, only to tear them down to build larger buildings on the same site. During the Modern Movement, particularly in the post-war era, there was a dramatic building boom. Not only was there an enormous increase in the number of building, but there was also an emergence of many new building types. It is also difficult to determine which structures are the most significant, and which ar e less important. To make matters even more difficult, funds and resources for preservation are limited. People are often more likely to support the preservation of older, sometimes inferior, buildings of the distant past. Since much of the population still remains indi fferent toward Modernism, it is hard to raise public support to save Modern buildings. This is a great threat to the survival of Mode rn buildingfrom the icons to the ordinary. 73

PAGE 74

APPENDIX A THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards_guidelines.htm The Secretary of the Interior's Standards ROOTED IN OVER 120 YEARS OF PRESERVATION ETHICS in both Europe and America, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Tr eatment of Historic Pr operties are common sense principles in non-technical language. They were developed to help protect our nation's irreplaceable cultural resources by promoting cons istent preservation practices. The Standards may be applied to al l properties listed in the Nationa l Register of Historic Places: buildings, sites, structures objects, and districts. The Standards are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations; as such, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which featur es of a historic property should be saved and which might be changed. But once an appropriate treatment is selected, the Standard s provide philosophical consistency to the work. There are Standards for four distinct but interrelated, approaches to th e treatment of historic properties-preservation, rehabilitation, re storation, and reconstruction. Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of ex isting historic material s and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. (Protec tion and Stabilization have now been consolidated under this treatment.) Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the pr operty's historic character. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portion s of a property for interpretive purposes. 74

PAGE 75

Standards for Preservation 1. A property will be used as it was historicall y, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive material s, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be re tained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic material s or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical r ecord of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and c onserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon clos e inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired hist oric significance in th eir own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techni ques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration require s repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material w ill match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatment s, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 75

PAGE 76

Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, fe atures, spaces, and sp atial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be re tained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of featur es, spaces, and spatia l relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical r ecord of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic propertie s, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired hist oric significance in th eir own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techni ques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, mate rials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatment s, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or rela ted new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatib le with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essentia l form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 76

PAGE 77

Standards for Restoration 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the propertys restoration period. 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alterati on of features, spaces, and spatial relati onships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical r ecord of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, an d properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techni ques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration pe riod will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requ ires replacement of a distinctiv e feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, textur e, and, where possible, materials. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false se nse of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features fr om other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatment s, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. 77

PAGE 78

Standards for Reconstruction 1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanish ed or non-surviving porti ons of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate recons truction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruc tion is essential to the public understanding of the property. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its hi storic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruc tion. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate dup lication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical eviden ce rather than on conjec tural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will recreate the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. 5. A reconstruction will be clearly iden tified as a contemporary re-creation. 6. Designs that were never executed hi storically will not be constructed. 78

PAGE 79

APPENDIX B MIAMI SUMMARY REPORT United Nations Educational, Scie ntific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour lducation, la science et la culture Centre du patrimoine mondial World Heritage Centre Regional Meeting on Modern Heritage North America Miami Beach & Coral Gables (Florida), USA 10 13 November 2004 FINAL VERSION Summary Report From 10 to 13 November 2004, forty-five experts a nd professionals particip ated in the Regional Meeting on Modern Heritage: North America in Miami Beach and Coral Gables, USA (see Annex 1 for the program), organised by UNESCOs World Heritage Centre (WHC) and the University of Florida (College of Design, C onstruction and Planning Preservation Programs). With the support of the Government of th e Netherlands, US-ICOMOS the Consortium for Urban Conservation in North America (CUC INA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, The Villagers Inc., the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation and DOCOMOMO-US, 20 experts invited by the Direct or of the World Heritage Centre for their professional work and expe rience in the field of conservation of 19th and 20th centuries heritage, engaged in debate to di scuss identification, prot ection, conservation and potential nomination of properties and sites of Modern Heritage in North America. (See Annex 2 for the list of participants) The opening of the Regional Meeting took place on Wednesday 10 November 2004 at the Venetian Pool in Coral Gables with opening remarks from the Mayor of Coral Gables, the Coordinator of the Modern Heritage Programme at WHC, the Representatives of the University of Florida, the Representative of the Advi sory Council on Historic Preservation, the Representative of the National Park Servi ce, and the Secretary-General of ICOMOS International. The expert meeting started on Thursday morni ng 11 November at the Miami Beach Botanical Gardens setting a broad stage with presentations on general issues, including an overview of the Programme on Modern Heritage with results of previous Regional Meetings, ICOMOS involvement in the preservation of Modern Herita ge, recent discussions at the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerni ng the possible listing of major US properties and sites (such as those related to the Manhattan Pr oject and the Interstate Highway network) and the system of 79

PAGE 80

identification and listing of properties and sites, many of thos e related to modernity, at the US National Register of Historic Pl aces, National Park Service. Representatives of Parks Canada, including the Canadian Regist er of Historic Places introduced similar topics, while DOCOMOMO US representatives elaborated on international connections and Modern Heritage criteria applied to sites in the US. In general it was established that both Canada and the United States had put in place an elaborate system of institutions and instruments, includi ng consultation procedures and public information programmes. While the United States was arguably far ahead of other regions in the world with regard to identification and lis ting of various heritage categories according to themes, including Modern Heritage, Canada on the contrary had es tablished an elaborate system regarding the World Heritage process, including a rigorous pro cedure for the establishment of its Tentative List, which had just been completed after two y ears of identification an d consultation. In this respect all participants appreciated the possibility offered at this expert meeting to exchange information and experiences. As the United States had refrained from putting forward nominations during the last decade (its last nominations were Glacier National Park, together with Ca nada, and Carlsbad Caverns in 1995), allowing for other States Parties to bring nominations forward, much discussion was focused on how the US is currently planning to get back in the process. The responsible representative explained that at the moment much effort wa s put in the Periodic Reporting process in view of the presentation of the re gions report in 2005. A comprehensive revision of the Tentative List, which was es tablished over 20 years ago, is envisaged, although no strategy had been developed yet. It wa s brought forward that the US Administration remained open to suggestions, taking into account that the Global Strategy and local support for heritage sites would be important aspects. A Federal Inter-Agency Panel will consider the Tentative List and nominations, coordinated by the Secretary of the Interior. The State Department then will send nominations to the World Heritage Centre. Chaired by representatives of the US and Canadian Government and non-Governmental organizations, the expert meeting further included a series of presentations on properties and sites of Modern Heritage in North America gr ouped in three sessions: monuments, sites and landscapes. These served as a basis for the di scussion related to the identification and conservation of Modern Heritage in the United States and Canada. The following properties and sites were examined as case studies: The Parkway System in Minneapolis The Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line St ation network in th e Canadian Arctic Miami Beach Heritage & Art Deco District Montreal Modern Downtown S.R. Crown Hall and the Illinois Ins titute of Technology Campus, Chicago Habitat 67, Montreal Marina City, Chicago Grain elevators of Saskatchewan The former Visitor Center at Gettysburg National Military Park The Dal Grauer Substation and the Burrard Street Corridor, Vancouver 80

PAGE 81

The Buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright Three mid-twentieth century pr operties in Atlantic Canada The University of British Columbia Campus, Vancouver The Brazilian Pavilion, 1939-40 Worlds Fair, New York The different cases ranged from architectural masterpieces to urban ensembles and cultural landscapes, including cities, infrastructural wo rks, military systems and networks of noncontiguous sites, and repres ented important aspects of modernity and modernization in North America. None of the cases had been evaluated in the context of a Worl d Heritage nomination, although one is in the process of preparat ion, being the works of Frank Lloyd Wright. In the debate following the presentations pa rticipants agreed on a limited but growing appreciation for modern heritage, notwithstanding the omni-presence of heritage of the recent past in North American society, urging for a need to rethink ways and means for political support and public engagement. The values of heritage need to be communicated and it was suggested that perhaps three audiences need to be addr essed: the general public decision makers and professionals of related disciplines, focusing on the lessons of hi story, the collective memory of the people and heritage as important economic, cultu ral and social assets. It was further remarked that preservation needs to be pro-active and engage the public. While both National Registers showed a broad re presentation of heritage sites, also on the neighbourhood level, participants agreed that the majority of the presentations at the expert meeting tended to focus on canonical and iconic North American arch itecture, triggering a debate about internationalization versus the importance of local context, of local meaning versus landmarks of architectural history. The ideology of modernism created a language w hose expressions became understood as a style. The manifestations of this style have become the object of conservation. A goal of conservation should be the interpretation and conveying of th e historical context. The importance of functional, economic, social, cultural and technological factors in shaping the character and form of the built environment should be given greater consideration in the identification and conservation of sites of Modern Heritage. It was remarked that the cons ervation of modern monuments of ten entails the preservation of photographs and images, and it was questioned wh ether the use of images, which were so powerful in the spread of the m odernist ideal, could be used as well to reach the public for preservation purposes. The grain elevators case provided for intense and stimulating debate about the heritage story encompassing both Canada and the US relating to interconnected netw orks of food production and distribution, regional plan ning and land management, settle ment and immigration, which offers an opportunity to describe and transmit an important part of North American history. This in turn led to discussion of the importance of understanding many facets of modern heritage as systems or networks into whic h specific sites can be more fully understood. However, the participants realized while pract ical issues, such as the need for protection and conservation, and 81

PAGE 82

the requirement for property-owner consent, woul d limit application of this concept for World Heritage nomination, they do not preclude the need for and desirability of collaborative research. With regard to identification, refere nce was made to the 1997 DOCOMOMO study commissioned by ICOMOS suggesting propertie s and sites of the Modern Movement for possible inclusion in the World Heritage List. Further discussed was the fact that the newly established Tentative List of Canada contai ned no examples of the Modern Movement. The participants observed two threats: con tinuing use and upgrading, and obsolescence. In continuing use the broad public awareness of th e heritage value is unrecognized and designation is perceived as a threat to the ongoing opera tion and upgrading. Obsolescence's, real and perceived, on the other hand is often accelerate d by rapid technological changes leading to unusually complex challenges in the us e of certain types of properties. The unusually short life span of mo dern heritage buildings is a pa rticularly acute problem, which is not only due to rapid obsolescence, but also due to intense pressures for greater growth experienced in city centers, peri pheral locations and formerly rural areas alike. For instance many of the great achievements of the Chicag o School of Architecture were demolished after only 20 to 40 years. It was put forward that planne d urban renewal schemes were a truly universal phenomenon of modernization and very signifi cant for both the American con tinents, calling for coordinated research and documentation to take a needed fresh perspective. With regard to protection, prom inent in the discussion was th e US requirement for propertyowner consent in the process of designating a World Heritage site. In both countries the lack of public appreciation was complicating protection and conservation efforts, illustrated by the often-difficult process of getting ev en masterpieces of North Amer ican architecture protected. In addition, branding for tourism and other purposes, pr omoting towns where the old days still live on, often result in destruction of modern prop erties and remodelling them to simulate a preindustrial appearance. An important plea was made to undertake histori cal analyses of urban form, in addition to a building-focused approach, in protection and cons ervation strategies for Modern Heritage, an issue that had been discussed in the re cent DOCOMOMO Conference in New York in September 2004. The current threat to Place Ville Marie in Montreal highlights the value of coordinating these two approaches. Issues of authenticity versus the need to improve on the perform ance of buildings (fire safety regulations, energy efficiency, etc.) were discu ssed in the context of the often painstakingly precise process of architectural conservation, including the need fo r careful consideration of new interventions. Since the materials utilized in the original construction sometimes werent expected to last more than 30 years, obtaining appropriate materials for the restoration process remains another challenge. The use of economic incentives was emphasized as an important tool to support conservation. 82

PAGE 83

While preservation of authentic exteriors is currently fairly well und erstood, it was shown through examples in particular in Montreal (Habitat complex) and Miami Beach (Art Deco District) that interiors often re mained seriously under threat. It was put forward that increased efforts were needed to improve on this situation. Regarding criteria for assessment and evaluation the case of the works of Frank Lloyd Wright was discussed extensively. Reviewing the proposed serial nomination to recognize significant contributions to the development of modern arch itecture represented by the buildings of FLW, the participants suggested that a proper statemen t of significance could pr ovide for insights into the number of properties to be included in the nomination proposal. Review of the 1991 ICOMOS recommendations confirmed that the curre nt process of reviewi ng a significant number of FLWs works would lead to an informed decision regarding the selection of buildings. This would facilitate ICOMOS task of advising the World Heritage Committ ee, and the Committees task of deciding on the Outstandi ng Universal Value of the works. Recommendations 1) Concept While the important contribu tion of architects and archit ecture was acknowledged, the participants agreed that for identification purposes the concept of Modern Heritage needed to go beyond the focus on individual monuments. Consideration should be given to a broader range of sites, including those w ith associative value, that form the systems and networks that are traces and experiences of the processes of modernization, modernity and modernism. Modern Heritage is not necessarily defined by a single time period. Such sites may be related to material action to change environments and living conditions that shaped, and are still shaping, society. For World Heritage nominations, it was unders tood that a clear focus remained necessary on practical and ultimate results: the preservation of places and development of the conservation process. 2) World Heritage Process Discussing the implications of the above con cept of Modern Heritage, the participants underlined the need to pursue regional balanc es and efforts for assistance to underrepresented regions. Furthermore, assistance from the WH Committee to conduct comparative analyses was requested. Support for the evolving concept and further development of serial nominations was suggested, certainly with regard to proper ties of Modern Heritage. The participants strongly suggested turning the World Heritage process into a more interactive one to facilitate the process. This would include the need for a preliminary assessment of OUV of potential nominations to avoid waste of resources and last minute disappointments, considered greatly detrimental to the process. 83

PAGE 84

It was further suggested to involve local communities in the establishment of the Tentative List, along with the professional a nd scholarly communities. The participants encouraged the involvement of all stakeholde rs in establishment of a wish-list of potential sites to be incl uded in the Tentative List. The participants reiterated th at the World Heritage Convent ion was ultimately about the conservation of heritage, recogni zing that World Heritage listing is only one aspect of this process. 3) International Co-operation As an example of international cooperation, DOCOMOMO US offered to develop its conference website as a possible portal for dissemination of information on the post-WW II era. To maintain dialogue between both the US and Canadian Park Services, in the spirit of the already existing longstanding cooperation, a nd after completion of the Tentative List revision process by the US, multilateral cooperation including Mexico should be considered on the subject of id entification of Modern Heritage. 4) Actions at the National Level The participants expressed admiration for the rigorous and thorough process in the establishment of the Canadian Tentative List and strongly s uggested that the US draw on that experience. Appreciation was expressed as well for the US Governments initiative to revise the Tentative List in 2005. The part icipants urged that the proc ess be open and involve all stakeholders. Participants recommended the use of multip le, relevant research methodologies and preservation measures for Modern Herita ge, exploring existin g partnerships and generating new ones. They also recommended that students be involved in the process, so as to foster awareness at the local and national levels. The participants recognized the universal value of the United Nations building in New York and urged the need for exploration of po ssibilities to have the complex listed in the World Heritage List. 5) Specific follow-up proposals Considering the implications of the 5 regional meetings, the participants requested the World Heritage Centre to convene a thematic meeting involving expert s selected from all regions facilitating general advice to the WH Committee. Adopted in Miami Beach (Florida), USA, on 13 November 2004. 84

PAGE 85

Annex 2 List of Participants Ms. Carol Shull Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places Chief of the National Historic Landmarks Survey National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2280) Washington, DC 20240-0001 Tel: (202) 354-2234 E-mail: Carol_Shull@nps.gov -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Arthur H. Chen Professor, Department of Architecture University of Minnesota 89 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 Fax: +1-612 624 5743 E-mail: chenx121@umn.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Richard Longstreth Director, Graduate Program in Historic Preservation American Studies Department George Washington University Washington DC 20052 E-mail: rwl@gwu.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Stephen Morris Office of International Affairs National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 202.354.1803 E-mail: Stephen_Morris@nps.gov -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ms. Jan Eakins Secretary, Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy Ex. Director, Fairbanks House 511 E Street Dedham, MA Tel: 781-326-1170 Fax: 781-326-2147 E-mail: JanEakins@msn.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Thomas Gunny Harboe Architect, US-ICOMOS/DOCOMOMO Vice President, Preservation Group McClier 401 East Illinois St. Suite 625 85

PAGE 86

Chicago, IL 60614 Tel: (312) 373-7790 Fax: (312) 373-7710 E-mail: harboe@mcclier.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ms. Jeanne Lambin National Trust for Historic Preservation Wisconsin Field Office 319 High Street Mineral Point, WI 53565 608-987-1502 608-987-1503 (fax) jeanne_lambin@nthp.org (Adrian Fine, Director Northeast Office, NTHP) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mrs. Helene Lipstadt, US-DOCOMOMO (MIT) Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 lipstadt@mit.edu Lipstadt@hotmail.com hlipstad@world.std.com sophia@brandeis.edu tel 617.484.7362; cell 617.794.9923 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Enrique Madia, Architect Historic Preservation Consultant 100 Kings Point Drive #1706 Sunny Isles, Florida 33160 305-898-0074 Emadia@aol.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. James Ashby Senior Conservation Architect, O.A.A Heritage Conservation Directorate Public Works and Government Services Canada 25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor Gatineau, QC K1A 0M5 Government of Canada Tel: (819) 994-0811 Fax: (819) 953-7482 E-mail: James.ashby@pwgsc.gc.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Andrew Waldron Parks Canada Recent Past Initiative Architectural Historian National Historic Sites Directorate Parks Canada Agency 25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor (25-5-R) Gatineau, Quebec, Canada K1A 0M5 E-mail: andrew.waldron@pc.gc.ca 86

PAGE 87

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Steven Mannell Director, School of Architecture Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture & Planning Dalhousie University P.O. Box 1000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2X4 Tel: (902) 494 6122 E-mail: Steven.mannell@dal.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Bernard Flaman, SAA, MRAIC Heritage Resources, Heritage Architect Culture, Youth, and Recreation 9th Floor 1919 Saskatchewan Regina, SK S4P 3V7 306. 787. 1588 E-mail: bflaman@cyr.gov.sk.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mrs. France Vanlaethem College of Design University of Quebec at Montreal CP8888 Station Downtown Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8 E-mail: Vanlaethem.francine@uqam.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Rhodri Windsor Liscombe, F.S.A. Department of Art History, Visual Art, and Theory University of British Columbia 403 6333 Memorial Road Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 E-mail: rhodri@interchange.ubc.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Rejean Legault College of Design University of Quebec at Montreal CP8888 Station Downtown Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8 E-mail: legault.rejean@uqam.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Robert Lemon, Chairman Marco DAgostini, Coordinator City of Vancouver Planning Department 453 West 12th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4 B.C.V5Y1V4 robert@robertlemon.ca Robert Lemon Architect Inc. 125 East 4th Avenue, Vancouver BC V5T 1G4 CANADA fax 604-874-4955 87

PAGE 88

ph 604-224-2414 robertlemon@shaw.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ms. Victoria Angel Canadian Registrar Canadian Register of Historic Places Parks Canada Agency 25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor (25-5-R) Gatineau, Quebec, Canada K1A 0M5 Tel: 1-866-632-6183 E-mail: historicplaces@pc.gc.ca -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Lauro Cavalcanti Director, Pao Imperial Patrimonio Comtemporeo Praca XV de Novembro No. 48, Centro Ro de Janeiro CEP; 20010-010 BRAZIL Fax: +55 21 2533 4359 E-mail: laurocav@visualnet.com.br 88

PAGE 89

LIST OF REFERENCES American Institute of Architects (2001). DOCOMOMO helps safeguard Saarinens TWA terminal. AIArchitect July 31, http://aia.org/aiarchitect /thisweek/tw0727/0727tw1twaadd.htm accessed March 2007. Ashby, J. (2000). Preserving a prototype: Buckminster Fullers dymaxion house. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-1 thru 3-7. Boothby, T.E., and Roise, C.K. (2000). Soaring or crashing? The challenges of preserving thinshell concrete structures. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-29 thru 337. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after theyre built, Penguin Books, New York. Brolin, B. (1976). The Failure of modern architecture VNR Company, New York. Bronson, S.D., and Jester, T.C. (2000). Conserving th e built heritage of the modern era: Recent developments and ongoing challenges. APT Bulletin, 4-12. de Botton, A. (2006). The architecture of happiness Pantheon Books, New York. Campbell, R. (1995). Building faced bigger crisis than falling windows. The Boston Globe, March 3, http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/cr iticism/works/CRIT-MAR3.html, accessed March 2007. Cunningham, A. (1998). Introduction. Modern movement heritage Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, 1-9. DOCOMOMO-US. The international working part y for the documentation and conservation of buildings, sites, and neighborhoods of the modern movement. http://docomomo-us.org/ accessed Feb 2007. Eichler Network. The wonderful world of Eichler homes. http://www.eichlernetwork.com/ENHist.html accessed Feb 2007. Erwin, D. (2000). Principles of curtain wall pe rformance affecting assessment and repair. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and W illiam G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Wa shington, D.C., 3-159 thru 3-163. Farrangher, T. (2006). st ories and countless tales. The Boston Globe, September 24, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/24/60_stories_and_co untless/tales/ accessed March 2007. 89

PAGE 90

Ford, E. (1997). The theory and practice of impermanence. Harvard Design Magazine Fall, 17. Frankeberger, R., and Garrison, J. (2002). From rustic romanticism to modernism, and beyond: Architectural resources in the national parks. Forum Journal Summer, 8-21. French, C.M. (2002). The Cyclorama building: Neutras monumental vision at Gettysburg. National Building Museum -Blueprints Magazine, Summer, http://nbm.org/blueprints/ 00s/summer02/page7/page7.htm accessed Feb 2007. French, C.M. (2002). Mission 66: Modern architecture in the national parks. http://www.mission66.com/index.html accessed Feb 2007. Glancey, J. (2000). The story of architecture DK Publishing, Inc., New York. Glancey, J. (1998). Twentieth-century architecture Carlton Books, London. Great Buildings (2007). The great buildings collection. http://www.greatbuildings.com/ accessed Jan 2007. Hale, J. (1994). The old way of seeing Houghton Mifflin Co., New York. Henket, H.J. (1998). The icon and the ordinary. Modern movement heritage Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, 13-17. Hochstim, J. (2004). Florida modern: Reside ntial architecture 1945-1970 Rizzoli, New York. Howey, J. (1995). The Sarasota school of architecture: 1941-1966 The MIT Press, Cambridge. ICCROM (2007). International centre for the study of the pres ervation and restoration of cultural property. http://www.iccrom.org/index.shtml accessed March 2007. ICOMOS (2007). International co uncil on monuments and sites. http://www.international.icomos.org/home.htm accessed March 2007 Jandl, H.W. (1995). Preserving th e recent past: An introduction. CRM, 18(8), 5-6. Johnson, D. (2000). Modern thin cladding considerations. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Hi storic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-151 thru 3-157. Kaskel, B.S. (1995). The metal and glass curtain wall. CRM, 18(8), 33-37. Kelley, S.J., and Johnson, D.K. (1998). The me tal and glass curtain wall: The history and diagnostics. Modern movement heritage Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, 77-87. 90

PAGE 91

Kostof, S. (1995). A history of architecture: Settings and rituals Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Lamprecht, B. (2004). Richard Neutra: 1892-1970: Survival through design, Taschen, Germany. Lea, D. (2003). Americas preservation ethos: A tribute to enduring ideals. A richer heritage: historic preservation in the twenty-first century Ed. Robert E. Stipe, Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1-20. Longstreth, R. (2000). Critique: What to sa ve? Midcentury modernism at risk. Architectural Record, September, 59-61. Longstreth, R. (2000). Integr ity and the recent past. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Pr eservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 2-1 thru 2-6. Longstreth, R. (1992). When the present becomes the past. Past meets future: Saving Americas historic environments Ed. Antoinette J. Lee, The Preservation Press, Washington, 213-224. Macdonald, S. (2000). Challenging contem porary repair methods: The impact of standardization on the preservation of midcentury buildings and structures. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-127 thru 3-137. Maxwell, R. (1998). Preface. Modern movement heritage Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, xiii-xvii. Moffett, M., Fazio, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2004). Buildings across time: An introduction to world architecture, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. Pehnt, W. Ed. (1963). Encyclopedia of modern architecture, Thames and Hudson, London. Prudon, T.H.M. (1998). Great expectations: W oolworth building (Cass Gilbert) and Lever House (SOM). Modern movement heritage Ed. Allen Cunningham, E & FN Spon, London, 88-95 Recent Past Preservation Network. Promoti ng preservation education and advocacy to encourage a contextual understand ing of our built environment. http://www.recentpast.org/ accessed Feb 2007. Reed, P.S. (1995). Enlisting modernism. World War II and the American dream: How wartime building changed a nation Ed. Donald Albrecht, The MI T Press, Cambridge, Mass., 241. 91

PAGE 92

Schuller, M., and Charola, A.E. (2000). M odern masonry challenges and solutions: Assemblages. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Fou ndation, Washington, D.C., 3-179 thru 3-185. Slaton, D., and Foulks, W.G. (2000). Intr oduction: Preserving the recent past 2. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washingt on, D.C., Introduction 1-2. Strickland, C. (2001). The annotated arch: A crash course in the history of architecture Andrews McMeel Publishing, Kansas City, MO. Stull, N. (2000). The preservation of decorative plastic laminates: Formica. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Historic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-19 thru 3-24. Tafuri, M., and Dal Co, F. (1976). Modern architecture Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York. UNESCO (2007). United Nations educational, sc ientific, and cultural organizations world heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/ accessed Feb 2007. Webb, M. (2001). Modernism reborn: Mid-century American houses Universe Publishing, New York. Whitford, F. (1984). Bauhaus, Thames and Hudson, Ltd., London. WMF (2005). World monuments fund. http://www.wmf.org/ accessed Feb 2007. Yeomans, D.T. (2000). The arrival of the curtain wall. Preserving the recent past 2, Ed. Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, Hi storic Preservation Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., 3-139 thru 3-149. 92

PAGE 93

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Carrie Purkerson, daughter of Johnny and Barbara Dilley, grew up in the small town of Glasgow, Kentucky. She graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2005 with a Bachelor of Science in Architectural Sciences. During he r undergraduate studies, Carrie developed a love of architectural history (particu larly modern architecture) that was sparked by her professor and mentor, Neal Downing. Carrie took all the cla sses offered on architectural history at her university (there were only three), but she wanted to learn more. She spent much of her spare time reading about modern designers and their bui ldings, and traveled as far as Marseilles, France to visit some of her favorite buildings. In the fall of 2005, Carrie enrolled in the Ma ster of Science in Architectural Studies Program in the University of Floridas College of Design, Construc tion, and Planning. Her interest in architectural history led her in the path of historic preservation, and she is currently most interested in the preserva tion of modern architecture. Carrie also enjoys cooking and traveling. 93