The Dynamic American City (or..."Old Buildings Stand in the Way of Progress") 2:51 PM

(Updated: Now with comments and minute marks)

These videos, obtained from Archive.org, are a wonderful look into the mindset of circa 1956 modern planners and "city builders". They're also painful to watch. Dozens of cities' historic building stocks crumble, tumble, and fall before your eyes. Why? Because their lots are small and they're not new. Simple as that.

While a lot of what the narrator observes is "true", little attention is paid to the force of American public policy in shaping these realities. What is most striking, though, is the sheer confidence that starting over and building anew was naturally superior. There is almost a point in this video where you hear the crisis of modernism in the context of the city: the narrator must defend density as a part of urban life while simultaneously arguing that the previous way of urban life was deficient, outmoded, obsolete. Yet cities were more dense with their scores of small- and mid-scale architecture than they became, in so many American downtowns, when office towers and parking lots replaced whole blocks.

These must be watched to be believed.

PART I:


0:00 - 3:49 - Introduction (rambling about how there are proven ways "to make your city better".

3:50 - The "Dynamic American City" documentary begins.

5:04 - "The American city is dense with a narrow lot pattern". Here there is an unbelievable row of homes, all identical, probably in Baltimore (?)

5:46 - "A question of importance therefore is: why did all city dwellers adjust their lives to narrow lots?"

6:25 - ..."Throughout most of the history of civilization, man has been dependent upon animals for transportation...Man built densely because of his reliance on horses. Having built densely, on narrow lots, we created many interesting and peculiar properties..."

7:55 - "We see a typical horse and buggy lot still remaining on one of the busy Radio City corners. Thus we see that the narrow lot pattern tends to endure and can exert its influence on the mightiest of our commercial developments. Indeed, the density of all real estate, wherever it exists, stems from the primitive horse and buggy plan..."

8:48 - "What a revolutionary power the Steam Engine brought! The Steam Engine made possible for the first time in history a release from the bondage of density."

9:45 - "We still have, and urgently need, rapid transit. But the old time trolley has all but passed with the horse."

11:08 - The automobile and electricity have thrust the nation into a state of competitive change.

12:20 - Shopping Centers taking over farms is great!

13:40 - The most powerful competitive force of all is the new shopping center with its landscaped mall...surely the most competitive force of new shopping centers is abundant space for free parking at the very door of outlying stores.

PART II:



0:10 - "The problems of our cities are real, however, because of the heavy hand of old-fashioned design."

0:45 - There is a twofold problem: architectural obsolescence and narrow lot patterns.

1:06 - Compete with the suburbs by demolishing all of these obsolete structures on small lots and merge them!

1:17 - "Often the substance of our urban structures is such as to resist the power of the demolition hammer. As a people however we are steadfast as we tackle problems, and the hammer of demolition will be sure to swing with determination. In this jet age, events move fast...our progress is certain to be steady as we clear away the structures that block progress..."

1:20-8:00 - Cities are innovating by building parking garages, new office buildings, beautifying and modernizing commercial buildings, etc.

8:30 - St. Louis!

12:15 - The tallest building in America to be demolished for progress ("to start over")...

13:00 - We'll be seeing lots of demolition now. The continent has not yet reached its manifest destiny because cities will, and have to, be rebuilt.
----

The Beauty in Brutalism 12:09 PM

I saw the Wall Street Journal article "The Beauty in Brutalism, Restored and Updated" linked on Planetizen. It's a great read.

I particularly love how Ada Louise Huxtable sets up the history of recent-past preservation so eloquently and yet so concisely:

For a maverick movement begun by little old ladies in tennis shoes fighting bulldozers in the urban renewal demolition wars of the 1960s, historic preservation has achieved some astounding successes, from the passage of landmarks preservation laws and the establishment of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to the recognition, restoration and reuse of an impressive part of this country's architectural heritage. Guidelines have been established for a wide range of buildings, from the monumental to the vernacular -- repair first, restore second, rebuild last; make clear what is new or added, and honor the original materials and construction.

But when the vernacular expanded to the popular and kitsch joined high art in the pantheon of taste, nothing, potentially, was unworthy of serious consideration and a good argument could be made for almost any building that had survived. The new cultural ideals were inclusive and pluralistic. Objective scholarship was sidelined for subjective, emotional associations fueled by partisan passions. Familiar standards simply fell apart, and so did the comfortable operating consensus of the preservation movement.

It was at this moment of disequilibrium that modernist architecture came under attack, its aging landmarks threatened with destruction. These buildings broke with every convention of design and construction, but beyond disagreements about criteria, there were the failed experimental technologies of a now historic avant-garde. Preservationists were faced with a whole new set of problems.

Even so, amidst all the attempts to vilify Brutalism, perhaps modernism's most unapologetic and brash expression, Yale University has restored a brutalist gem, Paul Rudolph's Art and Architecture Building.




Huxtable goes on to attack Boston for its well-publicized hatred of its brutalist City Hall. Boston is not alone in its disdain for the 1969 building--VirtualTourist.com put it at the top of the list of the "World's Top 10 Ugliest Buildings and Monuments".


Huxtable's piece is a great defense of brutalism, and a call to re-examine our attitudes toward modern buildings. Surprisingly, she does not advocate for a full restoration of the building as it once was in the case of these experimental designs. As she notes in her first couple paragraphs, preserving modernism changes the whole game of preservation. The whole modern movement was founded upon the unrelenting notion of progress; whatever new materials and experimental construction techniques were available were then used. No modernist looked back; that was antithetical to progress. When we, nearly half a century later, look to the re-use of these buildings, we may have to recognize a need to retool them. Huxtable, of course, says it better, and in fewer words:

Nothing is the same when you reach the 21st century. Suddenly a 20th-century heritage is in crisis and in desperate need of a revised, realistic agenda to keep its landmarks useful and alive.

As we all well know now, modernism is the current battleground for preservation. The fifty year mark that is the rule of thumb for deeming a building "historic" now puts us at 1959. The label "historic" will soon sail into the tumultuous 1960s.


Because these threatened mid-century modern buildings were so landmark for their time, and still appear unique and apart from earlier eras, their loss is particularly noticeable. This is great for efforts such as the one to save the San Luis, which is not Brutalist, of course, but is also unabashedly modern and under threat. We will regret the loss of these buildings, and they are reworkable, even if not in their original, literal, experimental sense.

Scenes from the San Luis Love-In 1:21 PM

Only a week too late, see my photos from the San Luis Love-In on Valentine's last Saturday. Click the picture below to check out the album.

From San Luis Love-In: Feb 14, 2009

Filling in a (Donut) Hole on Old Route 66 4:20 PM

I knew something didn't look right.

I truly do remember this sign from when I was a child. Why did they ever take it down? At any rate, it's back up, thanks to an intriguing Restore Route 66 grant from the state of Missouri. Kudos to remembering our autocentric history alongside our more urban history.



You can thank the Lindenwood Neighbor's December 2008 issue for this sweet bit of news. It's published quarterly by the Lindenwood Neighborhood Association. Check it out.

Attorneys sack downtown St. Louis 5:31 PM

Historic law firm Thompson Coburn LLP has decided to stay downtown, according to Mayor Slay. But not without $700,000 in incentives and a new parking garage! Really? A new garage? And atop the former Ambassador?

Now, Armstrong Teasdale is leaving, headed to Clayton as part of the new Centene deal (itself playing the incentives game to get more from Clayton?). A 21-story tower will now replace the modernist landmark, the former Library Limited building at Forsyth and Hanley.

What has our area gained?

A new parking garage.

A new twenty-one story building.

What have we lost?

Valuable space downtown that could have been developed as an office/residential building in the future.

Downtown viability, as fewer people will be "forced" to walk the streets of downtown to get to Thompson Coburn's offices.

Another modernist landmark--the region's first suburban Scruggs, Vandervoort and Barney department store.

History does repeat itself.

The Library Ltd. Building, from Vanishing STL:

Mid Century Madness! 2:43 AM

Get over to Toby Weiss's B.E.L.T. now if you already haven't.

My head was spinning in bedazzlement at the MCM wonders of Lindell Boulevard.

While B.E.L.T. ignores the buildings that detract from Lindell's space age streetscape, my mind drifted to the Lindell Marketplace. It's nice that the shopping center seems to have little trouble leasing space. But think of all of that activity brought closer to the Lindell block face. It could really add a lot. Instead, the front expanse of parking dominates and projects the image of a rundown suburb. Walgreens...I'm looking at you too! Check out the site plan of Lindell Marketplace.



At least there are now some "outparcels" that front Lindell! That's about the best you can hope for with THF, known for the dismally anti-urban Maplewood Commons, among others.


The new Jack in the Box will be popular, I'm sure, but would you want the fast food chain as your neighbor? The soon-to-be residents of the Villas of St. Louis development have little choice in the matter. If they're not satisfied with a Sourdough Jack, there are Big Macs and Bacon Beef and Cheddars nearby as well.

I digress far too much.

Lindell is a gem of an urban street. It has an impressive array of buildings old and new. It would be a shame to see the San Luis Apartments be senselessly removed from that more than functional equation.

Surely there's something negative to say about Lindell besides the Marketplace, right? Of course! It cries out for a central median (recall my plea for New Orleans style-neutral grounds). These medians offer greenery and serve as islands for pedestrians all at once. They slow down traffic and can even serve as jogging paths.

Toby's post shows (exhaustively) how Lindell has the elements to be a great street. The role of the city and the public should be to demand it see its potential.

Urban Review's Steve Patterson deems San Luis Apartments "not a good urban building"--and undermines preservation in the process. 8:35 PM

Urban Review St. Louis has released its verdict on the San Luis Apartments: not worth saving, but better than a parking lot.


The photo is courtesy of VanishingSTL.

Here is my list of grievances surrounding Patterson's post:

1. As a respected (and, by local leaders, feared) urbanist, Patterson's commentary is of particular importance in keeping a prominent corner of the Central West End away from the direction of surface parking. On principle, Patterson has opposed modern buildings that are not "urban" and has declared San Luis unworthy of preservation. He has likely solidified an already extant bias against mid-century modern structures (due to their association with urban renewal). In the fight against surface parking for Taylor and Lindell, Patterson has severely diminished morale.
2. The San Luis Apartments is a unique building. Its massing and materials are appropriate for Lindell's midrise streetscape. Its street level, while obviously not a top-notch urban space, does not compromise the ability of one more temperate with regard to the reality of automobiles in cities to recognize the building is, in fact, urban. On the Urban Review topic's comments section, a reader rightfully pointed out that the turn-of-the-century decadence displayed on Westmoreland and Portland places is not quite "urban", but nevertheless adds to the character of the Central West End.
   
3. Even if the Archdiocese sold the land to the city, which issued an RFP, which netted a proposal, how confident would anyone be that the resultant design would be superior to San Luis? It may address the street level issues, but would the bold architectural heritage of the San Luis be respected? I doubt it. If we cannot build "better" (energy efficient, exercise of skilled craftsmanship, etc.) and build to last longer than what we replace, there should be no consideration of demolition.
4. Patterson demands of those who insist architecture be saved merely for its accurate representation of a popular style during a specific period: please shoot me. He references the dreary track record of 1980s strip malls as an example. This sort of logical fallacy is damaging to preservation. It is not merely representativeness that deems a building worthy of saving; it is also superior design, contribution to streetscape, and how the building attempts to blend into the existing fabric. I would argue that San Luis accomplishes these with success, even if not a stellar example.
5. This same "it's not urban" argument can be twisted and manipulated. Why not have torn down St. Aloysius on the Hill if significant residential density--urban formatted homes--would replace it? Why the hell not demolish the Doering Mansion for the much more dense arrangement of Mississippi Bluffs Condos? Steve's argument here was not exactly one of density, as I've made it, but it's but another one of the tenets of Jane Jacobs' bible of urbanism that is never to be defied. Why be willing to sacrifice density but be unwavering in opposition to a building whose pedestrian friendliness is under scrutiny?
   
6. San Luis can be reformatted as easily as it could be torn down and replaced. Its street level issues could be addressed.

Urban Review--contributing to the rationale for this demolition is contrary to your mission.

Read the New Orleans Chapter of the American Institute of Architects' statement on the San Luis here.

Also, a typically awesome and well-spoken statement by Michael Allen on the former Hotel DeVille, now San Luis.

Brainstorming Session for the San Luis Apartments Parking Dilemma begins now! 11:18 PM

If it would please you, post in the comments section your ideas for satisfying the demands of Rosati-Kain and the St. Louis Archdiocese for parking in place of the San Luis Apartments, pictured below (thanks, as usual, go to Ecology of Absence for the photo). You may think demolition is appropriate, or you may offer some innovative strategy to avoid adding a surface parking lot, however "green" it may be, to a prominent Central West End corner.



28th Ward Alderperson Lyda Krewson wants some suggestions (another email job--see similar post below).

I will update the post with your suggestions and will credit you, the ingenious solutions-guy or gal that you may be. (Translation: for once, I will shut up and let you do the talking!)

Your input will help fill my response email to Lyda Krewson. You could quite possibly be the messiah to Taylor and Lindell (Christian pun not consciously intended)!

For what do we sacrifice our mid-century marvels? 12:33 PM

As demolition of the Doctor's Building is complete, and the threat of the San Luis Apartments demolition grows more tangible, I just have to ask one question regarding the targeting of mid-century architecture and what ultimately replaces it: why?


In the case of the Doctor's Building, the new denizen of the site will at least be urban in form and keep a mixed-use presence on the site, even filling in the land on which the parking lot that the Doctor's Building originally claimed for its own construction rests. But concerns over why the building had to be demolished at all remain, as well as doubts about the quality of the design of the new project. Michael Allen wrote a beautiful essay on the Doctor's Building and another on his qualms about the proposed development over at Ecology of Absence.


In the case of the San Luis Apartments, (or crazy, funky mod building with three compound fractures, if you will) the St. Louis Archdiocese intends to turn the site into a surface parking lot. Vanishing STL has more on their plans to establish a "campus" where now only a "hodgepodge that happened over time" exists with regards to buildings. Those are the words of our spiritual leaders, folks. Check the full story out here.


I might add, on a bit of a tangent, that this "campus" mentality is what fuels St. Louis University to rid of its own troublesome "hodgepodge" and seek a unified, faux-Gothic appearance punctuated by green space. It's as if the city and its neighborhoods are once again canvasses from a time of urban renewal, where blocks can be closed, buildings torn down, people uprooted, churches and institutions drained of their members, and once active urban spaces with the potential to be such again reduced to parking lots and garages--all in the name of creating a logical "campus". It's a mortifying confirmation of SLU's and the Archdiocese's view of the city and their respective roles within it--that the city's complexities, those that render it interesting and unpredictable and urban, can be done away with in order to produce a sterilized, definable, controllable, and marketable "place."


Any Mid-Century Modern proponent should look further back to what is St. Louis's perhaps most egregious abuse of land in a direct violation of what neighborhood residents originally demanded. Look no further than the northeast corner of the intersection of Chippewa and Kingshighway, where four neighborhoods and a whole lot of pedestrian and automobile traffic converge.



This was what the corner used to convey when the old Famous-Barr Southtown store was constructed in 1951. Though its massive scale and caustic materials may have hurt its chances at recognition as "historic" in the 21st century, there is a lot to commend about this structure, demolished in 1995. In typical streamlined modern fashion, the building adhered to a classical form while showing it up on the massing and using bolder materials. That is, this building has great respect for this large and heavily trafficked corner with its dramatic curvaceousness. It commandeered this intersection with its very presence, so much so that one barely notices the gas station in the foreground. Combined with the northwestern block of buildings of this intersection, this is unmistakably an urban neighborhood.


Fast forward to 2005, and construction has been completed on a new commercial strip center over the site of the old Famous. The result is a dreary and awkward design that can't even compete with the suburban counterparts it has attempted to emulate. One of the outbuildings abuts Chippewa, albeit about eight feet above it, and shows its backside, literally and figuratively, to the passers-by below. A Walgreens store occupies the parcel closest to the corner, but with a spacious row of parking and a non-sensical triumphal arch/bus shelter(?) that urges the otherwise overlooked pedestrian to jog across a parking lot to purchase wares that can be found in an identical store in Des Peres or dozens of other St. Louis suburbs.







The neighborhood fought a K-Mart store that was interested in the 11 acre lot in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The "Southside Coalition" headed by John Klevorn pressed for an urban, mixed-use replacement to the felled Famous. Per an April 5, 2000 Riverfront Times article:



[14th Ward Alderman Stephen] Gregali, Klevorn and the Southside Coalition have a different plan for the long-empty corner, and Kmart is not a part of it. Instead of one "big-box" development, they envision two or three smaller stores, something along the lines of an Old Navy, Circuit City or T.J. Maxx, connected by smaller storefronts featuring the likes of a St. Louis Bread Co. or other small stores and restaurants. In their plan, the stores would be close to the street and the parking would be behind the stores -- still free, just not as visible from the street. The bricks and architecture would be more suited to the surrounding apartments and businesses, similar to the strip on South Grand Boulevard at Arsenal Street.


The coalition produced a rendering depicting what they would like on the site. Contrast it to the photos above.




Interestingly, this drama unfolded the year that Mayor Francis Slay, then President of the Board of Aldermen, began his first campaign against incumbent Clarence Harmon. Slay said of the Southtown site, "This issue is too important to sit idly by and watch from the sidelines."



This quote makes the result of the K-Mart protest all the more surprising. The announcement of a first ever urban PetSmart drew excitement, and the redundancy of an Office Max addition to the neighborhood (with the Office Depot store in the old Venture strip center further south on Kingshighway) was forgiven. And Walgreens did in fact move from a declining strip center across Chippewa to a new building on the site, as rumored. Failing to see the follies of shifting commercial boxes around doomed strip centers, the leadership suddenly dropped the activist role and began to back the development on the site as we now know it.


The recent exchange between Steve Patterson and still-Alderman Stephen Gregali is classic and must be read to be believed. The Southtown reference is toward the end. At least Gregali spoke on the issue when prodded; in great irony, Mayor Slay has "sat idly by" and has remained mum.


Despite a new tenant (the Army Corps of Engineers) and a proposed pizza joint, the center has been a remarkable failure, with most of the storefronts on the northern building never even leased. An urban clothing store and a Verizon Wireless store have already faltered, and the Cold Stone Creamery had, at least at one point, switched to "seasonal" hours.


Okay. So what is my point? Go back to the beginning of this post and look at the old Famous building. Look at what replaced it. Do St. Louis and its leaders and residents not have the power or the will to demand better? In Southtown's case, all seemed aligned to ensure that the loss of this urban building would not be for naught; that the vacant lot would be filled with a worthy successor that would live to see not just its 50th, but perhaps its 100th anniversary. What happened? This case shows the vigilance and dedication it takes to be a proper steward to St. Louis's built environment. Vocal protest of a big box may not be enough; it may require vocal advocacy for what would be better than the box.


In retrospect, or at least in comparison to what's there today, the mid-century Southtown Famous Barr should have remained; its presence was stunning and bold and, yes, even urban. Mixed-use redevelopment of the building seemed entirely possible with a creative mind and equally creating financing. Instead we have lost not just a magnificent urban department store, we have lost that very corner itself.


Who knows how long it will be until this site is rebuilt again. Will we, at that point, demand something lasting, something beautiful, something truly fitting for St. Louis? Or will we play strip center shuffle yet again?



Let this stand as a warning for West Pine and Euclid, and for Taylor and Lindell. That mid-century building you think is ugly and outmoded--wait until you see what this century produces.


[Photographs of Southtown Centre courtesy of Urban Review St. Louis.]

Mid-Century Modernism: Demolition Alert! 11:36 AM

San Luis Apartments
4483 Lindell Blvd. (at Taylor)
St. Louis, Missouri - Central West End
Built: 1962
Demolisher: St. Louis Archdiocese
Date: Permit not received yet; demolition date to be decided
Future use: surface parking lot

Thanks to JivecitySTL of the Urban St. Louis forums for the pictures below!





If you'd like to contact the Archdiocese of St. Louis, you may do so here.

If you'd like to contact 28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson to express your feelings on this demolition, you may do so here.

Please, if you feel that the loss of this presence on the Lindell streetscape for a surface parking lot is not the future you'd like to see for the Central West End, express your discontent. It's the only way that anything will change.

Also, there will be a hearing on the issue on March 29, 2008 (9 a.m.) at the Schlafly Library on Euclid and Lindell.

More MCMs in the St. Louis blogosphere... 3:12 PM

As I study the fights for and against mid century architecture preservation, I continually run across some sites that passionately advocate for the salvage of our "space age" construction.

Toby Weiss's B.E.L.T. has an excellent series of photographs and commentary on Overland's MCM stock. Some are quite impressive.

Steve Patterson's Urban Review St. Louis, which is currently guest editorials only due to his sudden illness (may he get better soon--St. Louis needs him!), features an editorial on what the role of the preservation community is in addressing threats to our mid century heritage. I particularly like the editorialist's suggestion that the former St. Louis Public Library Buder Branch, now the Record Exchange, at Hampton and Eichelberger be nominated to the National Register. See the (tiny) picture below.



Finally, St. Louis County has begun to recognize the value of its trove of MCM assets. You can read about their summary of modern architecture and their historic MCM sites here.

The nation's first Post WWII suburban subdivision historic district 7:15 PM

As promised, here is the historic district of suburban MCMs that has made its way onto the National Register of Historic Places. It's called the Arapahoe Acres Historic District, out of Englewood, Colorado--some seven miles from Downtown Denver. Some are distant cousins to Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie and Usonian styles, while others forge a wholly new, 1950s modernist vision of the good life.


The Beville House, 1955


The Boxer House, 1955 - Streamlined Prairie?


The Fish House, 1953 - A more modest example...


The Frison House, 1952 - ...and a much more bold residence.


The Holland House, 1953 - The classic barely peaked roof, the orange brick, and the noticeable but not flamboyant car port all make this MCM example field guide worthy.


The Perdue House (no date given) - Notice that even the garage sports a half peak roof in imitation of the main structure.


The Irish House, 1953 - This one looks like a nearly direct FLW inspiration.



The Halpin House, 1952 - This structure could be mistaken for commercial architecture in a different context (say, a large road). Several gas stations and automotive shops of the 1950s might have even featured a larger relative to the mini-car port that this house boasts. The "glassiness" is a marker of the era and will eventually sugue into the even less ornate and more glassy "International" style craze of the 1960s.


The Orr House, 1955 - A pronounced break from pre-War classicism and yet an appeal to simplicity and mutedness define the MCM period. This house, though odd in its proportions, somehow manages to pay some respect to its natural landscape.


If you'd like to see more (and read descriptions), try clicking here.

More Modernism Mania 11:39 AM

Le Corbusier did a lot to villify the notion of modernism, especially to the 21st Century urban booster. After all, his "skyscrapers in a park" concept for reimagining the urban landscape scorned neotraditional values like historic architecture and pedestrian-scaled environments.

So Modernism is an easy target for criticism. Most pro-urban scholars of the 1960s and 1970s lashed out at the sprawling collections of ranch houses. Their assemblage in floral-esque, curvilinear subdivisions; their awkward angularity; their conspicuous, even ostentatious display of car ports; or even merely their newness and perfect conformity combined with their contrast to the crumbling old Gilded Age buildings across most of America's struggling Rust and Frostbelt: all of these things made Modernism seem like an easy scapegoat, or punching bag, for those frustrated at the misfortunes of their once grand central cities.

It is ironic today that the rise of the post-modern neotraditional mansion in many American suburbs (derided as "McMansions" by many, even academics) has reframed the whole notion of the evils of mid-century modernism. In comparison to today's grotesque caricatures of historical styles, with their distorted scales, unnecessary eaves, and frontal four car garages, mid-century moderns seem quaint, unique, and--shall I say it--historic.




This is the area of my research at the University of New Orleans. I wish to analyze the preservation movement and its change over time as it must continually redress its definition of historic--both to include structures now within the magic "50 year old" time frame to be invited into history and to assess whether or not structures or neighborhoods of cultural significance should see some recognition as well.

After all, is the Post-War subdivision not the ultimate cultural statement of the 1950s? An era in which Joe McCarthy's witchhunt for the Reds inspired dutiful, utterly American, owned, clean, sane, safe neighborhoods in which productive and capitalist citizens would reside? Of course, this is too simple a view of mid-century subdivisions, and, as you will see or have already observed, mid-century architecture is wholly unique and deserves more than a second look.

Coming soon, I will post on what touts itself to be the nation's first recognized Post-War suburban subdivision historic district. But it's a surprise for now.

Miami Modern - a success story for "auto age" preservationists 5:47 PM

To Miami residents, this is not news. For those of us in harsher climes, this relatively new historic district (as of 2006) may seem groundbreaking. Miami fought to get a swath of Biscayne Boulevard (BiBo to locals) preserved in order to save it from the wrecking ball. Sounds like a familiar preservation effort, right?

Well, the structures to be salvaged are mostly post World War II concoctions, in a style that locals have dubbed "Miami Modern." As a city that pioneered the first (and now widely loved) Art Deco historic district in the country, Miami again appears on the forefront of the preservation movement. Mid-century modernism just might have a fighting chance if word of Miami's spearhead catches on. Granted, "Miami Modern" is just a wee bit on the ornate side compared to the more subdued Mid-Century Modern ranches found up north. Still, it's worth noting that somewhere in our country, mid century architecture has been dubbed historic.

Other notables about the district? It's Miami's first historic commercial (as opposed to residential) district.

See pictures below of the Miami Modern (MiMo) / Biscayne Boulevard Historic District: