Frank Edgerton Martin
What is the actual “period of significance” for an historic
campus or estate landscape?
When is something just “out of date” and needing replacement
and when has a landscape become “historic”?
In the last several years, the Cultural
Landscape Foundation has led the fight to document and preserve many of the
most threatened historic modern works of landscape architecture across the
country. Designed by M. Paul Friedberg, FASLA, Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis is
one of them.
This essay is an updated version of an
original article that I wrote for Architecture
Minnesota magazine in 2008. The future of Peavey Plaza is still uncertain.
For current updates, visit the Cultural
Landscape Foundation and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota who have joined in legal action to preserve
Friedberg’s design and the integrity of public review in a much-needed
rehabilitation.
By
Frank Edgerton Martin
The
1976 film of the novel Logan’s Run poses
a simple answer to this aging problem: willing execution at age 30. That’s
essentially what we’ve been doing for a long time in Minneapolis to make more
room for novelty. The problem is that our downtown looks increasingly like a
shopping mall (albeit, a failing one) and a sterile office park with
block-scale projects.
What
should be news is that we are still ripping out our landmarks during their
awkward teen years. Today’s topic: Why are we even discussing a possible
re-construction of Peavey Plaza, once (and surely 40 years from now) a
nationally-recognized landmark of urban design by New York landscape architect
M. Paul Friedberg? The answer is that we are stuck in the conundrum of not knowing
how to recognize superb design from the recent past. What makes a
nationally-significant work of modernism different from a drive-thru bank? What
were the national an international influences of the time and how well were
they interpreted at Peavey?
As
to potential rehabs for Peavey, we face the second conundrum of not knowing how
much “updating” this modern landscape can take before it becomes a different
landscape. Because it is currently out-of-fashion and rundown, promoters of a
total re-build see no hope in bringing humanity back to the place as it is.
Perhaps they want a new Bryant Park with more grass, more visibility from the
street, wrought iron gates. Perhaps, a jumbo flat video screen and stage
jutting out from Orchestra Hall. Now, that’s pretty hip. So why bother trying
to save Peavey’s concrete steps and staggered tree canopy, its
“character-defining features?” They’re ugly and Brutalist (a pejorative term
these days) anyhow. But, if you took any group of Orchestral Association Board
members and city officials back to around 1980 when Peavey was new and
sparkling and bursting with activities, they might see the quality of design
that landscape architects and historians like myself see underneath the cheap
recent landscape timbers and tar patches.
The challenge for preservationists is—through images and historic narrative that explains Peavey Plaza in the context of its era—to show how well-designed and innovative it was for its time and basically remains today. The bones of the cast concrete and the immersive sounds of falling water and sunken, quiet space are still there, though less inviting and actively used than it its youthful prime.
Somehow
we have to make the annoying adolescent seem like that charming five-year old
again; and we have to show how, with the right rehabilitation and guidance, we
can help Peavey Plaza turn into a wonderful and multi-functional adult. This
will not be easy because, as with many historic parks, Peavey suffers from
deeply misguided (but fortunately reversible) city maintenance. Neighbors and
city officials who see it as cold and uninviting have a firmly-established gestalt in their minds of concrete and
hard surfaces. People like myself who remember what Peavey was and know a
little bit about its history, see the architectural photos that appeared in
this magazine thirty years ago.
As
the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said of people who speak in different
languages, citizens who have different pictures of Peavey Plaza in their minds
“live in different worlds.” That gulf in perception, as also happened in
debates over the former Guthrie Theater and Lutheran Brotherhood Building,
makes communication difficult between our two camps. But, not impossible.
The
response should be a conversation in
which contending parties don’t just throw out abstractions from their own
language worlds such as (from preservationists), “historic,
nationally-significant, and exceptional” and (from reconstructionists) “ugly,
cold sterile, dangerous.” We should instead seek to bridge our cultural
outlooks through visiting Peavey Plaza (and this is true for other contested
sites) together. Rather than
repeating assumptions, we should physically point to what we mean to explain
our stands. The more specific—this stained pipe, this hiding place for crime,
that sound of fountain water, this bland wall—the better. Sharing and pointing
to such “ostensive” definitions is often the way that children communicate what
they want before they know the words for things.
Secondly,
much has been learned since the 1960s and 1970s about plant materials, lighting
and sustainability. We have more choices now to preserve Peavey’s essential
character that preservationists defend while creating new color, activities and
seasonal character. With a pending renovation of Orchestra Hall’s lobby and
facility, the Minnesota Orchestral Association is, as seems appropriate,
thinking of their downtown block as a whole. Indeed, that is the way the block
was originally conceived in the early 1970s: an urban oasis for musical
performance that could draw people from throughout the region.
Peavey
Plaza’s early sketches and completion photographs show a place that is cared
for, occupied, and programmed throughout the year. If a design team is hired to
work with Peavey Plaza, either for the City (that owns it) or another client,
they should be fully-versed in this history and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. These
guidelines, if interpreted wisely, offer a great range of flexibility in
materials and technologies while protecting the spatial patterns, views and
sunken volumes that will one day make Peavey eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. As of this writing, the City of Minneapolis is considering
local historic designation to protect Peavey Plaza from radical change.
In
the Spring of this year, the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota announced its
most “Endangered” list in a press conference right at Peavey Plaza. Peavey was
included because of its poor maintenance and the swirl of rumors concerning its
potential re-design. In a recent MinnPost.com
article reporting the Endangered list: Bonnie McDonald, the Alliance’s
executive director, argued that the preservationist’s task is to create a clear
vision and guidelines for how to soften and improve Peavey without losing its
essence. "Our challenge is to try to bring forth a vision of what that
could look like. What would a renovation of that space look like that would be
sensitive to the original design?"
No
easy question. But it must be asked if Peavey Plaza is going to make it into
adulthood and achieve the eventual consensus it deserves on its historic value.
Landscape preservation is especially rich in puzzles. But, with the right
balance of design and historical expertise, along with a mutually-respectful
and specific conversation among all constituencies, Peavey Plaza may yet grow
old, grow better, and richer in the temporal layers of its character.
Further Reading:
For further background on Peavey Plaza and its dilemmas, click here to see Frank Edgerton Martin’s article from the Spring 2008 issue of _SCAPE:
No comments:
Post a Comment