The Dilution of the History at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City

The block currently housing Trolley Square was previously the site of the L.D.S. Tenth Ward Square, designated by Brigham Young on February 22, 1849 as one of the original nineteen wards in Salt Lake City. Architectural remnants of the Tenth Ward can still be found near the Trolley Square block. According to the historic marker located at 410 South 800 East:

"…only the Tenth Ward Square retains the buildings which served the settlers’ spiritual, economic, cultural and education needs. Still standing are the 1873 meeting house, the first building used exclusively for religious purposes; the third schoolhouse, built in 1887 and one of the earliest known designs of Richard K. Kletting, prominent architect and Mormon immigrant of 1883; the late Gothic Revival church constructed in 1909; and the Tenth Ward store built in 1880."  (1)

The Tenth Ward was originally bounded by Sixth East to the west, the foothills to the east, Third South to the north and Sixth South to the south. The ten-acre block Tenth Ward Sqaure since served as the states’s first fairgrounds and more prominently as the Utah Light and Railway Yard when Union Pacific and Southern Pacific President E. H. Harriman selected the site for a $3.5 million investment to construct the Mission-Style trolley sheds and maintenance buildings in 1908. By 1914, with its state-of-the-art trolley system and network of tracks, more than 144 trolleys served the Salt Lake Valley, and as far north as Bountiful and Centerville, from the site. The system utilized 146 miles of track and was the premier transportation system in the state. With the advent and rapid dissemination of the automobile, however, the trolley lines were phased out and displaced by a more economical and seemingly agile modern bus system in 1945.

By the early 1970s the trolley sheds were in a state of serious neglect, their early prominence and architectural detail disguised by a coat of shameful yellow paint, applied by the Utah Transit Authority and Utah Power and Light Company, co-owners of the block and used as a bus storage facility. (2)

The archaic trolley sheds were saved from demolition in 1972 by local developer Wallace A. Wright, Jr. The iconic structures were scrubbed of the off-putting hues and transformed into a destination market-place, resembling similar adaptive reuse projects such as San Francisco’s Ghiradelli Square and Boston’s Faneuil Hall. Wright’s attention to detail and reuse of architectural elements from turn-of-the-century relics in constructing its stores created a truly unique ambience and would eventually endear the place to the local residents and mark the site as an important historic Salt Lake City icon. Following the renovations, the newly redeveloped Trolley Square was immediately registered as a historic site by the State of Utah in 1973 and later included on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. It remains one of the most visited and recognized historic sites in Salt Lake City.

Trolley Square has successfully served the high end retail market since the early 1970s and, more recently, in an effort to maintain its viability and, ironically, in the wake a tragic multiple homicide on February 12, 2007, announced a $60 million dollar expansion including renovation of the existing structure and the additions of nearly 185,000 square feet of space. The expansion required the demolition of the historic Sand House building, located on the northeast side of Trolley Square and which recently housed a Wells Fargo Branch, where the construction of a new 40,000 square foot Whole Foods Store is forcefully underway. The development of the entire Trolley square block is evident as the historic trolley sheds and maintenance buildings progressively recede into the shadows of the larger structures obscuring the views to the historic buildings and into historic site. The loss of the historic Sands Building is evidence of the developer’s economic priority to wring out every possible dollar from the site and their concurrent devaluation of the fragile historic asset.

The lack of creativity on the developer’s part to work within the existing historic context will ultimately diminish the force and success of the project. It will lose its quaint and endearing connection and sense of place with the local residents while its historic character is lost in the struggle with its new oppressive sibling. In a recent article in Salt Lakes alternative newspaper, City Weekly, Alan Barnett, lead reference archivist at the Utah State History Archives, stated in reference to the Trolley Square expansion: “It’s not the end of the world, but it’s one more thing that sort of erodes our community.” (3)

Given the sensitive historic nature of the proposed expansion, the project was scrutinized by the Salt Lake City Landmarks Commission beginning in 2007 as the developers, Trolley Square Associates, LLC, presented plans petitioning the commission for a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness. During the initial meeting, the Historic Landmarks Staff recommended approval of the application with a number of recommendations including, among others, extending the ground level windows on the east elevation of Building C closer to the ground to create a knee wall consistent with the store fronts of the existing buildings, that the parking level of Building C have two cutouts per wall section and that the cutouts are similar in dimension to existing second story windows on the historic buildings, and that the section of wall on the west elevation of Building C include some design feature or artwork that creates a visually interesting terminus to Trolley Lane.

The Landmarks Commission is bound by the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic District in Salt Lake City when reviewing proposed development projects in historic districts. The word “similar” permeates the text in this guiding document as it attempts to describe the architectural relationship between new construction and existing historic buildings. Paradoxically, that same document, in Chapter 11 “New Construction in Historic Districts” states:

"Rather than imitating older buildings, a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the district while also conveying the stylistic trends of today. It may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of an individual historic district. Such features upon which to draw include the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials. When these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally in the area, visual compatibility results." (4)

However, stylistic trends of today are not deemed compatible and the Landmarks Commission regards compatibility as Post-Modernist folly. The shortsighted views of the Historic Landmarks Commission have diluted the existing historic character at Trolley Square with ‘compatible’ new construction. The site has become a bland and prosaic mix of old and new architecture. New construction in historic districts is so handicapped by compatibility restrictions that there is no conveyance of “stylistic trends of today.” The misguided efforts of local landmark commissions to maintain historic character is at the heart of the loss of that very character.

In an oblique statement from the developer in April 2007, the project was described as retaining “all of the elements that have distinguished it in the past…” (5)  Similarly, Jerry Hunt, co-founder and president of Blake Hunt Ventures, the development partner for Trolley Square Associates LLC stated:

"There’s a lot of emotional attachment to Trolley. What we wanted to do from the very beginning…is not take away from Trolley but really add some other components and dimensions to it. We think it’s a wonderful project and had great ‘bones.’ We just wanted to enhance it and add to it." (6)

Salt Lake's Historic Landmark Commission approved the expansion at Trolley Square at the September 5, 2007 meeting by a 5 to 1 vote and construction began in 2008. In an almost laughable report by the Ogden Standard Examiner under the title: “Trolley Square gets a modern update while still preserving most of the historic feel” the expansion is described in terms of historic compromise:

"Although many residents of Salt Lake City are saddened by the loss of the ability to view the historic architecture from the street, the new construction is, in general, sensitive to the historic landmark as it incorporates many of the historic elements, such as archways, into the architecture of the new buildings. This type of historic compromise is sometimes required in order to keep historic structures viable for modern living."  (7)

There is, in fact, little sensitivity in the design of the Trolley Square expansion. The article continues by describing the requirement by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to include “appropriate architectural style of the new buildings to blend appropriately with the historic architecture.” (8)   The appropriate architectural style of the new buildings required by the Landmarks Commission provoked the dilution of the historic mass and scale, materiality, façade elements, rhythm and spacing, and overall architectural character. In a word, the historic buildings no longer possess their idiosyncratic style due to a false and cheap imitation. The white concrete arches of the original entrances to the trolley sheds are shamelessly adapted and copied throughout the project, resembling a throwback to McDonald’s retro-arch. The new buildings are clad in a distressed red brick, one to match the effects of sandblasting, a process imposed on the trolley sheds during the 1970s renovation. The most disturbing element in the development is, ironically, the glorification of the automobile with the new eye-popping semi-circular concrete ramp providing access to the parking structure above the Whole Foods Store. The ramp is sited on the most prominent portion of the site on the corner of 700 East and 500 South and will compete with the iconic water tower in visual prominence. The only elements missing on the ramp are pulsating neon lights. Why the decision was made to park the cars above the store and not to dig out a traditional below grade parking structure is beyond my capacity to imagine. Perhaps it was to display the true nature of the project as a homogenous surburban shopping center, as Alan Barnett feared. The above grade parking structure stinks of a Walmart-like distrust and dislike of existing context. No longer is Trolley Square telling the story of its history as a train shed, but now it is just a glorified automobile shed. As such, Building C, the largest building on the complex is unnecessarily tall at 38 feet 8 inches, with the entrance feature reaching 45 feet. But, keep in mind, it’s not as tall as the existing trolley shed building to the south and, therefore, its compatible. The original hierarchy of the site is, however, completely lost as a result. Whereas, the trolley shed building fronting 700 East was previously the primary building on the site (Building D in developer parlance), Building C has now assumed that role because it is 8 feet longer along 700 east and sits roughly 30 feet closer to 700 East than Building D. Its façade does not in any way continue the consistent rhythm found in Building D, in fact its façade is so disjointed and disconnected, one is left wondering how many designers were involved in drafting the lengthy elevation. At a typical 1/8” architectural scale, it would require three 42” wide sheets to capture that façade.

The Landmarks Commission’s tacit approval of these elements is perplexing. They speak of rhythm and continuity, yet shut their eyes and plug their ears when confronted with the very issue. In all their deliberations, there is little discussion of the façade of Building C and its relation to existing context, especially its relation to the significant historic façade to the south (Building D) and its detrimental impact. As a commission, they were much more concerned with the creation of an interior courtyard and the ‘partially’ intact views of the historic buildings from the surrounding streets.

As requested by the Landmarks Commission, the developer enlisted the help of ZUM LLC, a digital rendering company, to produce images of the final project. (9)  The rich blue sky and the crowds of happy people with their bulging shopping bags inhabiting the site can’t disguise the awkward relation between old and new architecture in the background. In each of the images, there is a messy layering, with the existing structures peering out from behind the bulk of the new, like chained and caged animals. In an evasive manner, the developers never rendered the principal elevation of Building C, the behemoth on 700 East. They were more gracious though in the animation sequence, providing a three second window of the east elevation from a camera positioned on a helicopter doing a high pass about a mile to the north-east.

The expansion project is nothing short of historic encapsulation, an analogical method of abatement for asbestos and lead in historic buildings. By covering the threatening materials with new, the threat is encapsulated and neutralized. There is no difference here, except that what is being covered and obscured is a valuable asset to the community and source of a valuable sense of place. Trolley Square will lose its appeal in the effort to eke out every last dollar from the site. Ironically, the adaptive reuse and preservation of Trolley Square’s viability as a market place in the 1970s will be the lynchpin that assures its eventual destruction, for as they say, “this type of historic compromise is sometimes required in order to keep historic structures viable for modern living.” (10)

1.  http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=1417, from inscription on historical marker at 410 South 800 East, Salt Lake City.
2.  General information gathered from: http://www.trolleysquare.com/history.php
3.  http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/print-article-10572-print.html
4.  http://www.slcgov.com/CED/HLC/content/Design_Guidelines_Book.asp
5.  Trolley Square launching renovation Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Apr 12, 2007 by Jenifer K. Nii Deseret Morning News
6.  Trolley Square: Shopping mall is undergoing spiffy $60 million renovation. Brice Wallace Deseret Morning News Published: Thursday, Dec. 13, 2007
7.  Standard Examiner May 12, 2010.
8.  Standard Examiner May 12, 2010.
9.  http://www.zumllc.com/
10.  Standard Examiner May 12, 2010.


© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Young’s Salt Lake City and Haussman’s Paris: A Tale of Two Cities

Paul Goldberger, the New York Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning architectural critic, on a visit to Salt Lake City in 2007 to deliver the opening plenary at the Utah Heritage Foundation’s Annual Preservation Conference, noted the burden of Salt Lake City’s pioneer era block sizes by suggesting: “this is one real drawback to your urban grid here, that it was designed without pedestrians in mind…” A somewhat presumptuous statement given Salt Lake City’s gridded plan derived from the divinely mandated Plat of the City of Zion.

As a bit of history, the central idea of the original plat depicted a orthogonal delineated city populated by a series of large blocks. In the central block a multitude of twenty-four temples were depicted with one emphasized as the principle temple. The temple was graphically described on an unsigned and crudely drafted sheet depicting the plan, front and side elevations alongside an articulate description. These “houses of worship, schools, etc.” were to accommodate the projected 15,000 to 20,000 inhabitants of the proposed City of Zion. Each of the planned twenty-four “houses of worship, schools, etc” was to be at least as large as the specifications found in the drawings for the principal temple of the Presidency, but was to be dedicated to and managed by the various quorums in the two levels of Mormon Priesthood, the Aaronic and Melchizedek. A revised plat was prepared by Frederick G. Williams to correct oversights in the original plat and was sent to Bishop Edward Partridge in Independence in August of 1833. In the revised plat, the total area of the city was increased from 1 mile to 1.5 miles square, the number of half acre lots was increased from 968 to 2,600 which reduced the average number of people projected per lot from between an estimated 15.5 to 20.7 persons to between an estimated 5.8 to 7.7 persons. One of the three central public blocks (used for storehouses and schools) was removed and the remaining central public blocks were reduced in size from the rectangular fifteen acres to ten acres square which resulted in a uniform block pattern throughout. The axial direction of the central public blocks were changed from a north-south to an east-west direction, the uniform street width of 132 feet was limited to the four major cross-axis avenues and the remainder streets were reduced to 82.5 feet. Finally, names or numerical designations were included for the streets in the revised plat. The gridded plat devised for the City of Zion was not uncommon in the United States during this time, and was primarily based on the ubiquitous Federal land survey of 1785. It was the “utopian premise behind Smith’s plan and how it was to be implemented” which distinguished Zion from other contemporary American cities. Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s theocratic successor, continued imprinting the Plat of Zion concept, with utilitarian revisions as necessary, on successive colonial settlements in the West. Salt Lake City was laid out with the four principal streets bounding the solitary yet central temple block.

Returning to Goldberger’s assertion, however, so what of Salt Lake City? Because of the overly large block sizes and wide streets the city exudes a suburban feel in its city center vis-à-vis the densely packed fabric of, say, Portland, Oregon. Salt Lake’s streets are monotonous and uniformly rigid which is surprisingly disorienting despite its obscene rationality. As mentioned, the gridded blocks are ten acres in size and require roughly two minutes to walk end to end, eight minutes around. The streets hold to a uniform 132 foot width, averaging approximately 15 feet of sidewalk on either side with 100 feet of road surface, give or take. Young’s 19th century urban framework accepted the intrusion of the automobile with considerable ease and its accommodation has changed little since the extraction of the intra-city trolley system in the 1950s and 60s. However, in anticipation of the 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City “re-constructed” a much needed light-rail system. The 19-mile light rail system, smartly named TRAX, consists of two lines originating downtown at the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub; one line, which opened in 1999, heads south to Sandy and the other, which opened in 2001, branches east to the University of Utah. Salt Lake City’s Main Street, from South Temple (at the northern aspect) to 400 South (at the southern aspect), was redesigned as a result of the light rail line and now exists as a fresh counterpoint to the surrounding ubiquity of the auto-philic streets. Salt Lake’s Main Street sidewalks are much wider than the typical widths in the rest of the city center; as well there are only two lanes (one on each side of the street) dedicated to the automobile, and of course two light rail tracks. In this five block strip, there are expansive pedestrian platforms at the first, third and fifth blocks providing access to the train and offering a bit of diversity to the street. Here the city comes to life; the shops are vibrant and oriented to the sidewalk and the pedestrian, there exist outdoor dining areas, places to sit, the trees are full and regular, and the architecture exists in the background as a subtext to the street. Main Street is replete with civic amenities, which leaves one to bemoan the drought in the rest of the city. The street itself is a civic amenity.

Brigham Young’s streets were designed ostensibly to accommodate the required turning radius of a team of oxen hitched to a wagon. This archaic function still exists in a majority of the surface streets in the city, however why this remains important is an ongoing mystery, unless one considers the turning radius of the average SUV. Perhaps Young’s prescience anticipated this ungodly environment.

Paul Goldberger continued: “The street means more than the building, and that you can make a great street out of so-so buildings if they are put together well and relate to each other well and make a tight urban fabric, and if you have enough great streets you have one of the most important ingredients of a great city.” Getting at the heart of Goldberger’s argument requires a look at a city known for its striking streets: Paris.

On their face, Paris and Salt Lake City are two of the most unlikely comparitive urban models. Salt Lake once boasted the Paris Department store and the two cities developed into their modern cloak in the 1860s but beyond that, their growth and development resulted from a very diverse set of variables, with a diverse set of end goals, and by very diverse political groups with varied interests. Modern Paris is burdened with its own issues of sprawl, crime and overpopulation, to which any large metropolis is necessarily subject, however it boasts some of the most diverse streetscapes of any city on earth. Goldberger would love modern day Paris with this endless street diversity. It only became a hallowed model of urban planning in the latter half of the 19th century, prior to that time it existed as a medieval rabbit’s warren teeming with narrow twisting roads and dirty alleys. Thomas Jefferson, who spent a considerable amount of his career in Paris as the U.S. Ambassador, stated of cities in general: “The yellow fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation & I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man…” Pre-Haussmann Paris was Jefferson’s likely reference in this anti-urban denunciation.

Georges-Eugène Haussmann and Brigham Young were contemporaries. Both exuded a large and dominant personality, accented by their large portly figures. Both are regarded in their locale as pre-eminent urban planners. Haussmann’s modern reinvention of medieval Paris was on a scale unlike any seen before or after, excluding of course cities ravaged by war or natural tragedy. Haussmann's crafty re-urbanization was largely accomplished by obliterating many of the old, twisting streets and leveling rundown apartment houses. The great urban voids were then replaced with the rues, avenues and wide, tree-lined boulevards which is what Paris is heralded for today. Other elements of Haussman's plan included uniform building heights along the grand boulevards with anchoring elements such as the Arc de Triomphe and the Grand Opera House. Haussmann's plan for Paris inspired some of the most important global architectural movements, including the City Beautiful Movement in the United States. During this urban recreation many of the boulevards were just that, just the street. Development followed the street which is an important point which I’ll come back to. Paris seems to just get better with time like a fine Bordeaux.

Salt Lake City, however, seems a stale cola in comparison, which in effect is just losing its gas. As Goldberger suggests, Salt Lake’s streets may be a liability, however taking the high road (no pun intended) its streets may be an endearing and empowering asset. Salt Lake’s streets already fit the Paris template. Unlike Haussmann’s destruction of Paris, Salt Lake simply has to refit its existing network, akin to removing extra and unecessary clothing as temperatures rise. Most importantly, there must exist a defined hierarchy of streets within the city.

The Parisian “Grand Boulevard” street type can be aptly applied to the existing Salt Lake “arterials” accessing downtown. These include 700 East starting at 2100 South and terminating at the landmark anchor, South Temple; State Street starting at 2100 South and continuing to the Beaux-Arts State Capitol (1916), by Utah’s preeminent architect Richard K.A. Kletting, as the landmark anchor; 400 South starting at the Interstate-15 off-ramp with the University of Utah’s John R. Park Building (1914) as the anchor, which was designed, by the way, by the prominent firm Cannon, Fetzer & Hansen; North Temple beginning at Salt Lake’s International Airport with the Salt Lake Temple as the anchor; 500 South beginning at 700 East and extending to Interstate-15; and 600 South beginning at Interstate-15 and extending to 700 East. These streets are hierarchically the most important, functioning as the primary gateways to Salt Lake City and should be the “Grand Boulevards.” These should offer diverse transit alternatives such as TRAX (as on 400 South and planned for North Temple), Bus Rapid Transit lines, and, of course, automobiles. (See Drawing 1) As well, major arterials from I-15 to the south should populate this category and include 1300 South, 2100 South, and 3300 South all extending to 700 East.

 The Parisian “Boulevard” street type should include South Temple (from the University of Utah past the temple and to the Union Pacific Railroad Depot; Main Street from 2100 South past the temple to the Main Street Plaza (where a stoic statue of Brigham Young stands); West Temple from 1300 South past the temple to the huge architectural behemoth LDS Conference Center. The Salt Lake temple exists as a dominant theme in the overall landscape of these boulevards. These streets should mimic the landscape on Main Street described above, still providing space for the automobile but not allowing it to dominate. Again there should be TRAX lines, bus lines, trolley lines, etc. (See Drawing 2)

The Parisian “Avenue” street type should include 100 South, 200 South, 300 South, 200 West, 300 West, 100 East, 200 East and 300 East; essentially, the commercial core of the city outside of the four principal boulevards. The avenues should be pedestrian oriented with wide sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lines, trolley lines, etc. The automobile will still be allowed but will be a very minor theme to the overall street character. Use of one-way directional patterns should abound at this level to create elbow room for a wide variety of users. (See Drawing 3)

The Parisian “Rue” street type should apply to the remainder of the streets from 400 East to 700 East, from 400 West to 700 West, and from 700 South to 1200 South are primarily residential in character and should be redesigned to include dedicated bike lanes, trees, ample pedestrian sidewalks and promenades, etc. Because of the overall use pattern they should be intimately scaled to the human. The automobile traffic present on these streets should be strictly local. (See Drawing 4)

There should be a progressive and radical initiative on Salt Lake City’s part to continue to promote the development of mid-block alleys, an agenda already being stressed in current master planning initiatives. Mid-block alleys are essential to the future vitality and success of the large and unwieldy Zionic blocks. The mid-block alleys create a permeance within the city, allowing it to breathe in a sense. Mid-block crosswalks should be a mandatory component of a mid-block alley. In essensce a secondary block pattern shoud be established which gives primacy to the pedestrian.

Within all of the models described above a rich diversity of street sub-types can and should exist within each of the street types. Looking closely at the “boulevard,” if TRAX is only feasible on Main Street then other streets within this genre should be outfitted with bus rapid transit, trolley lines, bikes lanes, etc. As streets take on a distinct character, the monotony of the grid will be diminished and citizens will form a relationship with the street.

The ultimate function and goal of the street is it’s capacity to transport people and goods from one point to another, in other words a vehicle for commerce. The street is the vehicle for commerce, not the car. The rational grid built by the pioneers in Salt Lake City accomplishes this economic proposition with unprecedented efficiency. The street will accept any number of transportation alternatives to fulfill its function. In fact, with a greater diversity of transportation alternatives, the street will function at its highest and most optimal. Let’s consider a hypothetical: 100 citizens must get from Main Street to the University of Utah. If all were to hop in their cars, in the large parking lot required to house the cars downtown, and get on 400 South, these 100 cars occupying the current three-lane roadway, assuming each car requires at least its own space and the space of a car in front and back for elbow room, the cars would require at least two blocks (roughly 1500 feet in 3 lanes). These cars would require a large parking area on the other end as well. Now if you added TRAX and assumed 75% opted for this mode of transport, the 25 cars now occupying the three lanes would require only a half a block (about 375 feet). A single TRAX car easily would house 75 passengers and takes up only about 80 feet of linear space (compared with 750 feet for 3 lanes of cars or 2250 feet for a single lane of 75 cars). Now if we add bike lanes and give 15 of those people bikes, and 75 still ride TRAX, we have only 10 cars on the road and these cars only require 100 feet of space packed into 3 lanes. This is about 1/8 of the Salt Lake’s typical block. Suddenly there seems to be little need for three lanes of car traffic and the parking areas required at the origin and destination points is absolutely minimal.

Outside of the central city there exists intact neighborhoods with distinct character and rich diversity with established and fabulous streetscapes. These include the Avenues, Rose Park, Glendale, Sugar House, and Federal Heights. By providing transit options to these “streetcar suburbs,” these areas will continue to thrive and add to the vitality of the city. Another important component of Salt Lake’s urban re-invention would be the inclusion of greater Salt Lake in the mix. For example, the southern boundary of Salt Lake exists at 2100 South, at which point the City of South Salt Lake begins. There is nothing architecturally or geographically that separates the two cities. The Grand Boulevards on State Street and 700 East described above should continue through South Salt Lake to the southern “boroughs” of Midvale, Murray, Sandy and Draper.

Transportation is the key. Alex Marshall stated in his profound book entitled How Cities Work: “Every city built has grown from the spine of its transportation system, like flesh around bones, whether it be a river, a trail, a railroad, or a highway. If we want to shape a city, we have to shape its transportation system.” In summation, to borrow a common phrase: “If you build it, they will come.”

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Sources:
Goldberger, Paul. Utah Heritage Foundation Annual Preservation Conference Plenary Address.

Smith, Joseph. History of the Church, 1:357-59.

Marshall, Alex. How Cities Work. 46.

Utah's Space Age Temples at Ogden and Provo

Mormon temple construction succumbed to the strains of economic depression in the 1930s and the distractions of World War II in the 1940s, a construction drought lasting nearly two decades. Construction resumed in 1945 with the completion of a temple in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Additional temples were constructed in Bern, Switzerland in 1955, Los Angeles, California in 1956, Hamilton, New Zealand and London, England in 1958, and Oakland, California in 1964. The temples in the post-war period were distinctly modern, vis-à-vis the early Utah temples, with their minimalist vernacular. This new breed was devoid of extravagant ornament, yet still suited to the established temple typology. The Idaho Falls Idaho Temple resembles a wedding cake with its progressive setbacks which eventually resolve into the central spire. The Bern Switzerland Temple, the London England Temple, and the Hamilton New Zealand Temple all formally exhibit a heavy and grounded rectangular main massing contrasted with a spire engaged in the front façade with a distinct vertical character. The Los Angeles California Temple exhibits a more elaborate base, in the form of a Greek cross, yet maintains the vertical spire on the front of the massing. The Oakland California temple is a derivation of the Los Angeles Temple but with five spires, with prominence given to the spire in the center of the massing. The four lesser spires act more as pinnacles, an extension of the main mass. Although these were modern temples, the interior spaces were designed for the traditional live ceremony with two important exceptions.


As if to usher in the modern era, in 1953 President David O. McKay commissioned a 16-millimeter film version of the endowment ceremony, up until that time it was a live ceremony, to be used in the one-room Swiss Temple. However, the Oakland temple was the first temple designed with the intention of modernizing the temple ritual by implementing 35-millimeter projection screens for a new film in the endowment rooms, thus altering the traditional interior plan and modernizing the temple ceremony. The Oakland temple bridged the transition between the earlier and less efficiently managed ‘live-action’ temples and the streamlined efficiency of the neo-modern temples, the first two being the Provo Utah and Ogden Utah temples, both of which were built in 1972 and designed by then Church Architect Emil B. Fetzer. Each exhibited a solitary central spire, vaguely reminiscent of the post-war temple typology, but embraced an obvious, yet highly abstract, ornamental program to embellish the exterior, something the immediately preceding temples lacked. Formally, both consisted of a rectangular massing with soft chamfered corners articulated with alternating attenuated windows within wider solid spandrels, all detached and elevated from its larger orthogonal base through the use of a narrow band of windows recessed from the face of the main block above. A tall central spire contrasted with the main form like a toothpick through a Reuben. These new Utah temples exhibited formal characteristics anathema to the traditional temple building typology. The new forms boasted of heightened efficiency of the ceremonies within and, therefore promoted a sense of fretful urgency to the work. Each served a large population center, relieving the stress on the overburdened Salt Lake Temple.

The Ogden and Provo Utah Temples both resemble a futuristic architecture and would greatly influence the architecture of the Washington D.C. Temple (1974), next in line and in design during the construction of the two Utah temples. An associative metaphor is a method whereby one comes to understand the unfamiliar modern building with something that one understands through familiarity. The Apollo Space program depended on the sleek and streamlined Saturn V rocket boosters to propel the astronauts’ module beyond the terrestrial frontiers and into the great voids of space. The Ogden and Provo Temples captured the same imagery in their architecture with the spires resembling the Saturn V breaking away from the earthly tether atop of pillar of fire and the main massing resembling the billowing exhaust from the powerful rocket boosters. This familiar imagery was seared in the collective memory of America in July 1969 as Apollo 11 targeted the Moon. Although the Saturn V symbolic imagery was likely unintended by the architect, the intended symbol of the new Utah temples, the Hebraic pillar of fire and the cloud God employed to stifle the Egyptian army as Israel made her miraculous escape, was very similar. The Ogden and Provo Temples are unlike any other temple, they are larger symbols, where the architectural systems of space, structure, and program are subordinated and suppressed by the overall symbolic form. As Robert Venturi alleged: “This type of building-becoming-sculpture we call the duck in honor of the duck shaped drive-in, “The Long Island Duckling.” The Provo and Ogden Utah temples are therefore ducks in Post-Modern theory.

Both temples occupy very diverse sites. The Ogden Temple is sited near the center of downtown, the Provo Temple at the foot of the craggy Y Mountain, atop Provo’s east bench. The Ogden Temple is seen from without the city and the Provo Temple is seen from within the city. Although the architecture of each reflects its time, both have been continuously impugned by architectural critics and church members alike for their lack of religious aesthetics worthy of Mormonism’s most important building type. The Church has made attempts to refine and standardize each of the outstanding temples in recent years by painting the gold colored spires a bland and boring white and perching a gilded Angel Moroni at the top. Each temple was designed and conceived of as a machine with a singular functional motive: to relentlessly churn out ordinance work for the living and dead. In that regard, each has been highly successful and despite the paucity of architectural acceptance, each has assumed an iconic presence and defined a sense of place.

However, in November 2009, the nonagenarian former architect Emil Fetzer died. As if signaling a green light, the Church immediately developed plans to update the Ogden temple and on February 17, 2010, ceremoniously announced plans to scrap the iconic Ogden exterior for one resembling the newly completed Draper, Utah temple, which is the new “standard plan” for temples. In other words, the iconic Ogden temple will no longer be iconic, but will become a bland and monotonous member of the new group.  Additional upgrades will include improvements to the old electrical, heating and plumbing systems with more modern, energy-saving systems. As well, the above ground parking will be eliminated and an underground parking garage will be constructed along with a complete redesign of of the temple block. The changes affect the adjacent Ogden tabernacle which will lose its spire in submission to the more hierarchically important building type. Paul Anderson, a Mormon temple scholar, opined that the Ogden Temple's look was controversial from the beginning. He added: “Some of the building materials were associated with commercial, not sacred architecture, and the location on a main city street, rather than elevated above it, added to that impression.” For one as conversant as Anderson, the precedent for siting the temple in an urban setting gained acceptance with the early temples, Kirtland, Ohio, Nauvoo, Illinois, and especially Salt Lake City, Utah, which functions as Mormonism’s primary architectural symbol.

Architectural preservationists should be up in arms about the planned changes. The Ogden Utah temple, along with its close twin, represent a paradigmatic shift in the way in which Mormons conceived and interpreted the temple, transitioning from the temple as a sacred structure to the temple as a machine. As the Church’s 14th and 15th operating temples, and two of four built in the 1970s, these were designed for ordinance work, and not as places of refuge and communion for the faithful adherents. As the sense of urgency for temple work increased, twenty-six temples were constructed in the 1980s, twenty-four in the 1990s, and sixty-one in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The update to the Ogden facade represents a rejection of the history associated with these specific temples.  Ironically, the Church made a gross error in the 1970s when it allowed architect Emil Fetzer to gut the interior of the historic Logan Utah temple and replace it with a disturbing 1970s interior, closely reminiscent of the Ogden and Provo interiors.  The same intentions seem to be at play with this planned renovation.

A member of the Church’s presiding First Quorum of the Seventy, Elder William R. Walker explained, “the Ogden Utah Temple has been a beacon of faith in downtown Ogden for nearly forty years and has blessed those who have served and worshipped within its walls. We hope these improvements will not only better serve Church members but also add to the beauty of downtown Ogden for all to enjoy.” He further explained that, "It basically is the same as building a new temple.” The decision to reinvent the exterior of the temple originated from the three members of the Church's governing First Presidency Walker added, because “they thought it somewhat dated.” One hopes that the First Presidency will moderate their extreme architectural urges when they consider the outdatedness of the Salt Lake, Manti, Logan, St. George, and for that matter any temple constructed prior to the Ogden Utah temple.

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Sources
1.  Buerger, David John. The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship. Smith Research Associates: San Francisco. 1994. 167.

2.  Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. 3rd Edition. Rizzoli: New York. 1977. 40.

3.  Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning From Las Vegas : The Forgotten Symbol of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1977. 87.

4.  Salt Lake Tribune. February 18, 2010. 'Somewhat dated' LDS temple to get new look.

American Fork Main Street

The recently constructed Good Earth Whole Foods development on West Main Street in American Fork is blatantly more conspicuous than the early 20th century house it replaced and therefore more impressive in our collective memory. With little effort the developer abandoned the historic value of the site and in a larger sense further eroded the historic fabric of American Fork’s Main Street. The ostensibly trivial removal of elements in American Fork’s historic core do not seem to be a legitimate concern to those involved in local city planning. It’s akin to whittling away at the base of a mature oak tree, initially the cuts are harmless, but over time the cumulative effect undermines the entire structural system and destroys the tree with catastrophic and irreversible effect. Death by a thousand cuts, as it were.

The proposal to demolish the historic house was presented at a planning commission meeting in 2006. A few local preservationists in attendance spoke in defense of the historic structure on Main Street and decried the proposed Good Earth development. If and when historic architecture is replaced, the replacement should be better than that which is replaced and should at a minimum reference the historic condition. There is so much potential to develop responsibly and sustainably, yet cities seem to lack resolve in upgrading exiting Euclidian codes and are reluctant to confront developers. The disruptive urban and architectural issues with the Good Earth development are numerous. The building is set back from the street face with parking areas awkwardly plopped in front paying homage to the automobile. Without decrying the distasteful nature of the architecture, to replace a historic residence with a strip mall is contrary to every current urban planning best practice.

The home’s eventual demise was delayed due to some technicalities in the approval process required for the demolition permit, but ultimately not prevented. During the course of that meeting the Planning Commission Director blithely remarked, “We can’t save everything.” The decision to demolish the structure was based on economic considerations and the director was accurate in suggesting that not everything can be saved. But when one looks at the losses to date in this growing community it is long past time to unequivocally affirm that the remaining historic architecture will not be sacrificed for mediocre and poorly conceived replacements. Decisions to demolish historic structures for the sake of economic development set dismal precedents. Economic development is essential to sustaining cities, but big box and strip mall development is inappropriate and counter productive in the downtown core and especially on historic main streets in small towns like American Fork. The community as a whole is failing to protect the historic core, and until an historic overlay district is established in the downtown core with city ordinances to boot, the trend will continue and increase toward substandard development allowing unabated erosion of the remaining historic architecture and destroying it as a public and civic place.

When one spreads the losses over a number of years and generations those losses are more easily accepted, but when the cumulative effect of the losses are considered it is revolting. It is difficult to imagine that American Fork City seriously considered the demolition of American Fork’s City Hall (1903) just a few years ago. After persistent determination on the part of local and state preservationists and some determined internal city administrators, City Hall was preserved and restored in 2006, reassuming it’s rightful position as American Fork’s crown architectural jewel and receiving numerous state preservation awards. City Hall is once again the metaphorical and physical center of American Fork City.

The economic benefit reaped by developers may not necessarily be beneficial for the fragile communities which we have desperately tried to establish and retain. With each loss towns like this moves one step further from creating and retaining a walkable and pedestrian friendly city center with public amenities which includes a compelling and attractive inventory of historic architecture. In short, a distinctive and unique city center where one prefers to be. With each loss we propel ourselves one step closer to an environment geared entirely toward the automobile, a metastasizing and ubiquitous phenomena which ultimately leads to pedestrian barren landscapes like US Highway 89 which is an unrelenting amassing of strip malls and car lots. A pedestrian no mans land, a non-place. The opposite of the non-place is obvious, as James Howard Kunstler put it: “The idea that people and things exist in some sort of continuity, that we belong to the world physically and chronologically, and that we know where we are.”

A major car dealership in American Fork recently expanded to the east resulting in the demolition of three houses in Columbia Village, a historic Post-war development built in the late 1940s. This just to expand a parking lot filled with gas guzzling super-charged Dodge Ram pickups. The losses will continue to accrue until communities decide enough is enough.

Using American Fork as a mirocosmic example, this trend is occurring in many of Utah’s local communities. All is done in the name of economic development, which in no way guarantees good development. What do we care though, as long as we optimize our conveniences and destroy what created our sense of community and sense of place, to ultimately establish our coveted new organic food stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters and Auto Malls to feed our relentlessly insatiable consumerism.

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Downtown Falling

I applaud the LDS Church's substantial commitment to the economy and vibrancy of downtown Salt Lake. The City Creek development is progressive, engaging ideas congruent with current urban planning theory. Yet, I perceive an irreplaceable and regrettable architectural loss.

The blank slate mentality inherent in the development plan echoes Post-War urban renewal in which American cities permanently lost historic neighborhoods under the guise of progress. In efforts to enliven downtown the authors of the City Creek development propose removing key elements of the city's historic architectural affluency. Of those, the historic 1919 First Security Bank Building exudes a rich architectural diversity to the relatively limited building stock present downtown and should be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but is not, which makes its loss easier to bear and easier to propose. The developers contend that renovation of the structurally unsound First Security Bank Building is not feasible. However, seismic and structural incapacities did not preclude the renovation of the Tabernacle on Temple Square, the Salt Lake City and County Building or the Utah State Capitol.

Ironically, the City Creek development is urban re-renewal of an area which endured renewal in the 1960s and 1970s amid unrealized promises of downtown revitalization. The architectural losses were mollified in preserving two historic building facades on the blank walls of the Crossroads Plaza and ZCMI Center malls affronting Main Street. When one considers the many historic buildings demolished in the name of progress during that architectural wipe, the extant facades magnify the loss and deepen the regret. The City Creek developers hinted at plans to save the historic ZCMI façade on Main Street as well as the First Security Bank building façade from demolition, referred to as façade-ectomies in the field of preservation, although details were both tentative and scant. Once again we are falling for the same assuaging arguments which have little to do with preservation, akin to putting band aids on fatal wounds.

William Taubman, chief operating officer of the retail developer Taubman Centers Inc., said the historic buildings aren't functional and "Communities never stand still. We're not a Victorian painting." Taubman is accurate, cities are a dynamic phenomenon, but change should come incrementally and respect the architectural context which defines its place. The developers accurately perceive preservation of the historic First Security Bank building as non-functional given its poor adaptability as an office space, but it would be an ideal mixed-use residential tower. What makes architectural preservation feasible is the vibrancy and economic viability imparted to communities, not to mention the heightened interest and intrigue the architecture lends to the creation of place. The City Creek development would evolve into an architecturally and financially more successful project if the First Security Bank Building became an important historic anchor.

Jane Jacobs, the perpetually au courant urban planning authority, reacted to Post-war renewal by stating in her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities that:

"The economic value of new buildings is replaceable in cities. It is replaceable by the spending of more construction money. But the economic value of old buildings is irreplaceable at will. It was created by time. This economic requisite for diversity is a requisite that vital city neighborhoods can only inherit, and then sustain over the years."

Perhaps the euphemism "downtown rising" is more palatable than the equally valid title "downtown falling." I suppose it's the same argument one succumbs to when confronting a half glass of water, yet which title aptly evokes optimism is ambiguous. I agree with Jane Jacobs' summation though, "New ideas must use old buildings."

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell