Multiple times in the past I’ve compared building design to clothing styles, and while such an analogy may gall both architects and fashion designers, I’m going to hold my ground on this one. The two professions clearly fall within the discipline of design, and, as such, they rely heavily on the transitory nature of prevailing cultural tastes toward a certain aesthetic.
Looking at a single block in the small city of Yankton, South Dakota (population 15,000), even the unschooled can see three radically different architectural forms represented.We have one time period on the left, another in the middle, and a third on the right. Which one is modern? Why, the one in the middle—of course.That’s right; the building that looks the oldest is the most reflective of contemporary tastes. Erected (we can assume) in 1869, the edifice reveals a remarkable restoration of a façade, with fresh colorations to all the various ornamental features at the cornice. Maybe it has always enjoyed this level of preservationist solicitude; regardless, the fresh paint and attention to detail (particularly on that second floor) suggest a recent, sizable investment. Meanwhile, the building on the right retains some similar details on the cornice, but the owner appears to have subjected it to a repurposing to something more industrial, or perhaps something more confidential, thereby justifying the massive, two-story panes of opaque glass bricks—a feature that I can confidently assert had no real salience in the mid nineteenth century. Then there’s that broad building on the left. It may date from the same time as the other two, but one would hardly know it: reclad in what essentially looks like corrugated fiberglass, the owner no doubt sought to modernize the building, most likely in the middle of the twentieth century, a period when even small, comparatively isolated cities’ downtowns were facing serious competition from auto-oriented strip malls on the outskirts.
At the same time that the automobile became a sine qua non for the average American family in the late 1940s, the historic downtowns suffered from a lack of parking nearby, and their configuration didn’t lend well to logistics necessary for wholesale loading and unloading. Additionally, the combination of multiple uses under one roof—with retail typically on the first floor and offices or apartments immediately above—proved less desirable when compact settlement patterns were no longer as expedient. And as retail activity migrated out to cheap land, to make room for parking lots and squat strip malls, the owners of those declining downtown buildings struggled to find ways to retain viability.
It’s hard to imagine a point in time when our Victorian, Italianate and Romanesque commercial buildings were as passé and unsightly as an Ed Hardy shirt is in 2019, but it really did get that bad. Though it took longer to impact small towns or remote cities, by the 1980s even downtowns in places like Yankton were suffering, having lost considerable ground to the automobile-oriented shopping that lined US Route 81 (Broadway Avenue) stretching northwards from the historic center. Buildings like the ones featured in the photo above fell into neglect and disrepair, sometimes to the point that the city had to condemn and ultimately demolish them.
Downtown Yankton has held together better than many other places, perhaps because, in sparsely populated South Dakota, it’s a regional center in its own right (the Census calls it a micropolitan area), but the evidence is still abundant that the owners of commercial buildings downtown reacted desperately to changing times. I suspect there’s a handsome old façade behind that corrugated green sheath, but, at some point in time, the owners installed it to make their building appear newer and more contemporary. (It also helped to hide the fact that, in all likelihood, the now windowless second floor of the building has served for years as nothing more than storage, if not abandoned altogether.)
I have featured other examples on this blog where property owners have re-clad the historic façades in an attempt to rebrand old commercial buildings, with variegated results. In the similarly sized Thibodaux, Louisiana, the owner sought to endow the façade with an appearance that, at the time (presumably around 1960), no doubt seemed almost futuristic; the mid-century, space-age gestures seem quaint a half-century later, but they shrouded what clearly seemed like an outmoded building. The much smaller town of Altamont, Illinois chose to garnish an old brick façade with a rustic, pioneer motif, apparently to evoke a sort of early-days nostalgia. The left-hand building in Yankton does not evince a great deal of stylistic thought: neither referencing the past nor the future, it merely serves to shroud a presumably underutilized (and maybe even dilapidated) second-floor façade.
In a single camera frame, Yankton effectively captures three aesthetic judgments toward downtown. We witness a chronological advancement of different taste cultures, with—as is nearly always the case—an eventual return to the earliest period, manifested by that middle building. While I don’t think we’re likely to encounter any major surgery performed on the building on the right (with the glass blocks), I suspect I’m not alone in hoping that the broad building to the left undergoes extensive renovations, ideally with that unsightly green sheath removed. In the nearly three years since I took these photos, the tenants appear to have embarked on some improvements: the storefront church that occupies part of the first floor (a common tenant in downtowns that have not yet gone upscale) appears to have renovated its ground-level façade to a more welcoming contemporary unfinished wood aesthetic, while featuring a coffeehouse as part of its outreach. Good. One can only hope that, in the near future, the owner of this property sees the value in that long-neglected upper floor and devotes considerable effort to improving its capitalization and restoring that original façade. For all we know, it could be just as decorative as Monta’s, the painted lady to its right.
Stepping back from this analysis, one might conclude that all of those faux-façades from the middle of the 20th century—the era that predated the downtown renaissance—need to get torn down. Such a decision, in my opinion, would be rash. Take this streetscape elsewhere in downtown Yankton.
I know next to nothing about Rexall Drugs, but apparently it was a common national network of primarily individually franchised stores until the late 1970s, at which point private investors bought the chain, divested the company-owned stores, but allowed independent owners to retain the name, look, and brand. The Rexall brand today (“Rx for All”) primarily refers to health related products still under the manufacture of the much smaller company; any locations using the orange-and-blue cursive logo are franchised that have survived over the years, most commonly seen in rural locations. This Rexall in Yankton is revelatory not just because its iconic, vintage sign.Another midcentury façade, which probably is the same age as that rusty hanging sign. It’s no great artistic achievement, but at least it helps reinforce the Rexall logo. I’d wager that it’s more effective because of this symbiosis, and thus I’d rally less for the owner to remove it. But it still blocks the windows on that second floor, thereby reducing the structure’s market capitalization rate. If the Rexall ever closes, and if Yankton’s downtown ever escalates from one of reasonable success (its current condition) to one of high value, the owner’s best interest would absolutely be to remove that fake façade and restore the building to its historic state.
While the revitalization of downtowns has shifted the cultural gaze back to the historic appearance of our old commercial buildings, we have to remind ourselves what impelled us to slap ungainly sheathes on them sixty years ago. Some of the sheathes achieve as good of aesthetic results as the original façade, or, at the very least, are interesting and evocative on their own terms. Jane Jacobs, in her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, recalled two of her fundamentals to vibrant urban neighborhoods: a mixture of land uses and a variety of time periods (and, therefore, of architectural styles) reflected in the buildings. Most commercial real estate undergoes some modifications concomitant with renovations or rehabilitations; the juxtaposition of a Rexall and a preserved Italianate commercial building—two unlikely neighbors—may confer more value in aggregate than one where preservationists advocate for a systematic dismantling of those space-age, mid-century façades. The revitalization advocates should assess each building on an individual basis, which exactly what talented developers, brokers, and preservationists are already doing.
7 thoughts on “Mid-century modern in main street Yankton: where everything new is old again.”
I really like the way you ended this piece and I agree wholeheartedly. There is certainly a tension between ivory tower historic preservation and basic market pragmatism and too often the discussion about these buildings goes completely off the rails over this when revitalization happens. We really have to loosen up on the “window dressing” as long as the basic fabric or form is not destroyed.
BTW, for the building on the right with the glass block, I wonder if it has always been that way as a way to hide a very industrial use. I say this due to the location of the large electric lines that go down the alley next to it. This building might have originally contained either a power generation plant (appears to be an old stack in the back) and/or eventually a location for transformers once electricity production moved to a larger scale elsewhere. We have a similar building in Annapolis that is still owned by Baltimore Gas and Electric that was exactly that (right at the terminus of the WB&A electric railroad one of the original turn of the century electrifications).
Glass block came into use in the early 1900s, which is about 20-25 years too late for it to be original to the style of the brick building. Its heyday was in the Art Deco/Moderne/Streamline/MCM eras, roughly 1930-55, with a comeback in the 80s (Miami Vice style).
Another clue is the “modern” (i.e. 40s-50s) 1st-floor limestone-look cladding.
I’d guess that the original facade included discrete window openings on the second floor similar to those above the third, and that those were removed to create a “modern update” of the whole building post WW2.
Apparently some early attempts at glass block predate the 20th century, but more for decorative and light amplification purposes. I don’t think they served as a structural element until the time periods you mentioned. I agree that this building probably had more conventional fenestration when it was first built and that the glass blocks served their most common purpose: to allow natural sunlight but still to conceal activity. Very common today in bars and pubs.
Agreed, Alex. If we strip down all of our good mid-century cladding we may soon find the commercial life of our first auto-oriented settlements is all but gone. Much of the free-standing Googie architecture got revamped by the late 70s and 80s, when it was the architectural equivalent of an Ed Hardy t-shirt.
I don’t think either of these Yankton examples are particularly indispensable, but the one in Thibodaux (an earlier blog article, linked through this Yankton post) is pretty great.
I thought a mish-mash of architecture was considered cool these days http://www.newgeography.com/files/renn-carmel-9.jpg
I’m with you. While that is likely a strategically positioned photo, you’d be hard pressed to find that combination of modest road width with such a density of tall buildings (uninterrupted by parking lots) in too many locations in downtown Indy, let alone with that diversity of architectural styles (contrived though it may be).
Also I was reminded of the way Andres Duany refers to the phenomenon you refer to with your use of sine qua non: Americans have come to use automobiles as prosthetic devices.