Minneapolis has its own version of Charlotte's Marshall Park, a vintage mid-century plaza of aging concrete that few love or visit. In Minneapolis it's Peavey Plaza. "Minneapolis Tussles Over a Faded Plaza," is the New York Times' article.
It's another example of the dilemma over how much unloved, unpopular mid-century Modernism should be preserved. Ardent historic preservationists point out that 50 years ago people were tearing down Victorian houses because they were so "ugly," only to wait a decade until people began to love them. Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Historic Landmarks Commission has posted a study of the city's post-World War II buildings to recommend which were worth National Register designation. Note, Marshall Park is not on the list.
However, the Times article recounts, in 1999 the American Society of Landscape Architects recognized Peavey Plaza as one of the nation’s most significant examples of landscape architecture, along with Central Park in Manhattan and the Biltmore estate in North Carolina. (That, alone, may offer more insight into what's wrong with landscape architecture in America today than any other single piece of evidence.)
Built in the early 1970s (Peavey Plaza dates to 1975) after urban renewal razed a historically black neighborhood, Marshall Park is frequented most often by Canada geese. It had a moment of national glory as a stand-in for Farragut North in the Showtime series "Homeland," filmed in Charlotte.
I don't think every park adds value, especially in a city downtown with so many blank spaces from parking lots, empty lots, corporate plazas and such.
At the same time, I don't think beauty alone, or popular opinion alone, should determine whether a building or other place should be preserved, or torn down and replaced. Even though I find almost all Modernist architecture bleak, depressing and anti-human, I still believe examples should be saved. If for no other reason, they may serve to remind us of the awful ideas some so-called designers can come up with.
It's another example of the dilemma over how much unloved, unpopular mid-century Modernism should be preserved. Ardent historic preservationists point out that 50 years ago people were tearing down Victorian houses because they were so "ugly," only to wait a decade until people began to love them. Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Historic Landmarks Commission has posted a study of the city's post-World War II buildings to recommend which were worth National Register designation. Note, Marshall Park is not on the list.
However, the Times article recounts, in 1999 the American Society of Landscape Architects recognized Peavey Plaza as one of the nation’s most significant examples of landscape architecture, along with Central Park in Manhattan and the Biltmore estate in North Carolina. (That, alone, may offer more insight into what's wrong with landscape architecture in America today than any other single piece of evidence.)
Built in the early 1970s (Peavey Plaza dates to 1975) after urban renewal razed a historically black neighborhood, Marshall Park is frequented most often by Canada geese. It had a moment of national glory as a stand-in for Farragut North in the Showtime series "Homeland," filmed in Charlotte.
I don't think every park adds value, especially in a city downtown with so many blank spaces from parking lots, empty lots, corporate plazas and such.
At the same time, I don't think beauty alone, or popular opinion alone, should determine whether a building or other place should be preserved, or torn down and replaced. Even though I find almost all Modernist architecture bleak, depressing and anti-human, I still believe examples should be saved. If for no other reason, they may serve to remind us of the awful ideas some so-called designers can come up with.
