Built St. Louis has already published demolition photographs from Prince Hall, which is a long way gone.
That the demolition started so quickly raises many questions. How did preservationists fail in this case? There seemed to be considerable delay from the time people started talking about the proposed demolition to the time people acted. And the action came mostly in the form of letter-writing and a few newspaper article quotes. Admittedly, the preservation dynamo Esley Hamilton worked hard to preserve the building. The rest of us were there mostly in spirit and not enough in deed to make a difference.
The potential to have lobbied alumni and donors could have been utilized. Washington University may have changed its mind if its decision was costing money. With large universities, there seems to be no other way outside of legal restriction to keep historic campus buildings standing.
I also think that the building's secluded location on a private campus located amid wealthy neighborhoods kept it from being a championed cause among the rank-and-file of urbanists and preservationists. Most of us, to be frank, didn't go to Washington University and live far from the manicured lawns of Clayton. I have to admit that Prince Hall was low on my list given the urgency of the situation of the Mullanphy Emigrant Home and other north side buildings.
Still, the Washington University Tudor Gothic campus core -- designed by Cope and Stewardson and built between 1901 and 1905 -- is one of the most attractive collegiate groups in the country. The great significance of this group as architecture, that art so public that ownership legal barely restricts its appreciation, outweighs any reservations myself and others had. We should have tried much harder.
One final question the demolition raises is whether or not the Washington University campus district's listing as a National Historic Landmark District should be de-certified. Is there sufficient context left for it to remain listed? What would de-certification mean for the other buildings? The National Historic Landmark listing again proves to give no special protection to an historic building, even if it gives special recognition. Preservation is the result of human action.
Friday, June 9, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
What a shame. They have something authentic and raze it while they continue to build new buildings trying to look old. Fools.
I think there's still plenty of context to warrant maintaining the "Danforth" campus as a national historic district. Brookings Hall, Holmes Lounge, and Graham Chapel are enough for me.
I figured this was a done deal; and obviously being on WashU's payroll gives me a disincentive to organize against it. Plus, it's in the County.
I believe WashU has actively resisted efforts by Clayton and UCity over the years to annex the campus (the area bounded by St. Louis City limits, Forest Park Parkway, Big Bend, and Forsyth).
It's unincorporated, but served by Clayton Fire Department. There's no local historic district; I don't think such a thing exists in unincorporated St. Louis County anyway.
They're a non-profit, so it's not like they'd be eligible for historic rehab tax credits in most cases.
The main Quad alone would warrant historic status, honestly.
As for Prince, I would have been making noise a long time ago if I'd heard about it sooner. It was random chance that I found out at all. Guess I need to start paying attention in more of the right places...
The National Register status cannot be revoked, but the listing can be de-certified so that the site becomes inelgible for tax credits. Since WashU can't receive tax credits, such a move would be symbolic only.
Well, Prince is now totally gone. Wow, that was fast.
I just hope the new structure is a worthy replacement. I fear it will not be.
Post a Comment