Several years ago, the government in my town (Wenatchee, WA) decided to refurbish the downtown area by encouraging the owners of the buildings there to remove the facades from the fronts of the stores and repair/restore the original brickwork. They provided incentive through low-interest loans and tax breaks. The result has been nothing short of amazing! It’s taken time, of course, but now the majority of our downtown buildings have been restored to their former glory. These are honestly some beautiful buildings, now that those tacky facades have been torn down. It actually looks like a coherent, classic, downtown area, instead of looking like a bunch of little stores crammed together. There are still quite a few buildings left to fix, but overall, the change has been good.
The whole process made me wonder why those facades were put up in the first place. I’m sure they looked snazzy when they were new, but they were constructed of materials that were obviously not as durable as good old-fashioned brick. Within a couple decades, those shiny facades were weathered, dull, and ugly. When I moved to this town in 1983, the downtown area was hideous.
But what made me really ask the question, “Dear God, WHY?” was waiting for a train in Seattle and reading the signage detailing the renovation of King Street Station. One sign described how, in the 1960s, the marble walls in the restrooms were covered with … formica! :eek: I was completely stunned when I read that! What were they thinking?! How was formica an improvement on marble?
So I gotta ask. What were people thinking in the '60s and '70s when they decided it would be a good idea to deface beautiful old buildings with facades and … (shudder) formica?
Facades of older structures were usually covered over for the following reasons:
You know how in the eyes of many today, commercial architecture from the 1960s and 1960s seems tacky, ugly and dated in a not-so-good-way? Now, take that mindset, and go back in time 50 years. A building built in 1957 is literally as old to us as a structure built in 1907 was to those living in the Nifty Fifties.
Downtown businesses of the area realized that new plazas and malls in growing suburbs were a threat, but they didn’t know how to respond. There was a prevalent attitude of “newer is better” in the era, and that the detailed facades of pre-War structures weren’t in keeping with a jet-age nation. To compete with the shiny new plazas and malls, property and business owners believed that updating their buildings to look newer would help downtown and neighborhood shopping districts compete.
The facade of that renovated building might look spectacular, but it didn’t look anything like that in the 1950s and 1960s, before it was covered up. Grime and soot permeated brick, mortar, terra cotta, and other architectural details. Faded turn-of-the-century era painted signs often covered ever exposed surface. Peeling paint covered doors, window mullions and elsewhere. Thanks to the economic crisis of the Depression and material shortages of WWII, decades of deferred maintenance took their toll on older structures.
It often costs less to add a cheap facade than to fix up the original, especially if the original is some expensive material like marble. Plus when you’re in a depression or recession, no one wants you to be putting marble in the bus station.
Digressing very slightly, my uncle told me that in the 1950s in the UK, it was considered smart to put hardboard over panelled doors to make them smooth.
Interestingly he brought it up as an interior design trick of which he approved.
Modernity and new materials were fashionable, what looks tacky to us looked up to date back then.
Marble stains quite easily, and stains are hard to remove. (It’s a porous stone that stains can soak into.) So it may not work well in a place where stains are common (like a restroom).
Typical procedure for removing stains is to make up a poultice of water and an absorbent powder (clay, cornstarch, flour, etc), put it over the stain, cover it with an airtight plastic wrap, and let it sit for 24-48 hours. Then repeat 2 or 3 times until the stain is entirely removed. Not an easy process! Cleaning Formica is much easier.
Marble can be waxed or seal-coated so that it will resist stains. But this has to be redone on a regular basis – waxing probably weekly, sealing will last 3-6 months. When such marble walls were installed, probably around 1910-1920, they probably had enough janitors on staff to keep up with this. But when they reduced the staff, the marble probably became increasingly stained and harder to clean, so covering it with Formica was a sensible option.
When an 1890’s school was being demolished in town, neighbors of ours bought (very cheaply) the marble from the washrooms for use in their new house. They ended up with beautiful bathroom walls, counter tops, and a kitchen bread-making countertop. But it took them over 6 months to clean all the stains off these 100-year-old marble slabs. And they do have to be re-sealed about every year or so. But in a private home, that’s feasible.
elmwood is correct. In addition, restoration can be very expensive not to mention that it can be difficult to find the experts who can do it properly. There were ornate buildings with deteriorating stonework that just got paneled over to look new. Now, the restoration of these original facades become major projects.
What’s worse is that there were churchs during the 60’s that tore out their ornate artwork. It had a lot to do with the “modernization” mindset resulting from Vatican II.
Yep, I can vouch for that. I’m in the middle of redecorating what used to be my parents’ house. The owners before them (some time in the late 1960s) had ripped out the original banister spindles and filled the resulting gap with hardboard, then painted over the whole lot with white gloss. :smack:
That was an easy and not-at-all time-consuming thing to remedy :dubious:
It is the same stuff that happens with collector items. Between the time things are brand-spanking new and super cool and the time they are classics, they go through a long period of just being outdated.
It takes a lot of determination (or negligence, actually) to hang on to stuff during that period.
I bet that in 40 years, someone will look at the remaining plastic and formica buildings that are still standing and say “wow! that needs to be restored to its former glory”
Urban planner specializing in long-range/comprehensive planning, land use, and urban design.
It’s already happening. In the inner-ring suburb where I live, low-interest loans are being offered to homeowners to restore what are called “mid-century houses” to their original splendor. A requirement of the loans: remove all vinyl windows, and all aluminum and vinyl siding.
In many communities, there are emerging historic districts featuring modernistic houses built in the 1950s; not the typical Cape Cods, split-levels or faux Colonials of the era, but rather examples of what was then touted as futuristic design.
What will the future call all of these “McMansion” neighborhoods which are springing up all over the place like posioned mushrooms? Will any of thes huge (but cheaply built) houses survive to reach some sort of historical status in the future? What will the furture call this period’s style?
In my town, Main Street is full of old buildings,dating (mostly) from 1880-1910. many of them have been altered with cheap facings, signage, to make them look “modern”. But this was done as well to conceal deterioration-those old brick facings frequently need repointing and repar, plus the decline of Main Streets (in favor of malls) means the tenants don’t pay rents which are high enough, to pay for restoration.
Frankly, I find much of the architecture from that period to be ugly and depressing-are there any “Main Streets” that were built up with truly modern-styled buildings? maybe Beverly Hills?