Mid-Century Moderism at Cranbrook - June 13 to 16

[p69rrh51]

A design by Saul Katz.


951 Whitmore built in 1939 Palmer Park Apartment Buildings Historic District Detroit, MI.

[p69rrh51]

One of the many Louis Redstone designs around town.


Laura Ingalls Wilder Branch 7140 East Seven Mile built in 1962 Detroit Public Library Detroit, MI.

[p69rrh51]

By the way the Saarinens were not perfect either. This home is not one of their crowning achievements.

8634 Nadine built in 1938 Hill Historic District Huntington Woods, MI.

[p69rrh51]

A Wallace Frost design after he returned from California.


515 Lakshore built in 1954 Grosse Pointe Shores, MI.

[p69rrh51]

I would like to see the experts at Cranbrook expand beyond their comfort zone. Now that would be worth the money!

[Jason]

detroit is known throughout the country as having great examples of pre-depression architecture and pre-depression skyscrapers.

Detroit is well known for having a collection of prewar architecture because Detroiters have been saying it over and over and over and over again. Detroit has a collection of prewar architecture that is appropriate for the size city it is.

Does Detroit really have a better collection than other major cities from the time? NYC is a beast and has more and better prewar architecture than anyone but it's not fair to compare anyone to NYC. But Philly has a better collection, Chicago has a better collection, San Fransisco has a better collection, LA [[despite its reputation) has a better collection. Look at their cities and their downtowns and compare the number and quality and variety of buildings. I'm not saying that Detroit has a bad collection, but Detroiters have been repeating the "one of the best pre-war collections in the nation" thing over and over and it's not really true. If Detroit has "one of the best", then about a dozen other cities also have "one of the best" too which clearly doesn't make Detroit exceptional in that regard.

just because of the examples ive listed YOU personally only care for the guardian doesnt make any less important or well designed in the eyes of many others.

I have actual reasons for thinking that some are more significant than others and I don't have to fool myself that those buildings are more important than the thousands of other skyscrapers being built at the same time in the same style.

For a comparison, I think that 211 West Fort Street is a nice building, but I know that there are countless other buildings around the country and world that are also nice. It's not the Seagram Building, it's not Lever House, it's one of countless nice but otherwise unremarkable buildings. And 211 was even covered in at least one architecture magazine at the time.

One time in college I checked out a giant stack of books on art deco. The Guardian Building was the only building in Detroit that was in those books and even then it wasn't always included. And it's because even though Detroit has nice art deco buildings, so do other cities, and there are other buildings that deserve the page space. According to what Detroiters have written on wikipedia, Detroit is a major center for art deco, but then why is it that Buffalo and LA consistently have several buildings in books about art deco and detroit has one or none? It's because, despite what Detroiters would tell you, we're not any more of a major art deco center than other big cities are.

i think you made my point when you said how many other cities had guys like rowland + kahn. well based on the quality of structures, not many, but how many architects outside of of new york and chicago were known to anyone

You're being unfair to those other cities and their architects to say that. Actually go check various cities out in google maps and compare their buildings downtown to our buildings, building for building. They are of comparable quality. And if you went to those cities they'd be able to spout off all the designers just like Detroiters can for their buildings.

you are examining a field that produces very few stars, especially at the time these buildings were being constructed and you seem to be placing the importance of the architect based on how they changed history. i just find the criteria to be a bit unfair and if all architects were judged on that criteria there were would be few at the top of that mountain.

How important or good an architect is is a long gradient. Yeah, if it's a mountain there's not a lot of room at the top. And just because an architect isn't at the top of the mountain doesn't mean that they're bad, it just means that the others are more important. And the modern designers that the conference is covering are genuinely near the top of that mountain. The Eames are some of the greatest and most culturally significant designers America has ever produced. If the US put significant people, including designers on our money like european countries do [[before and after the euro) they would probably be on our money.

We don't need to lower ourselves to the middle of the mountain and tell ourselves that they're great when we have people near the top, or at least higher up, the mountain who genuinely were great.

I agree with southen! For one Modern is not that well excepted outside of smallish but fanatical following.

Justin Bieber and One Direction have more acceptance and popularity than the entirety of architecture from all time and place combined. Doesn't mean they're more important or better than humanity's thousands of years of building.

Also its Louis Kamper not Kampfer and Jason you are clueless if you say he is not signifcant, and I challenge you to prove that he is not!

Yeah for some reason I always want to slip an f in there... As you can tell my brain doesn't think he's important enough to remember his name right!

I think it's up to you to prove that he is significant. But you'll say that he is and I'll say that he isn't. But you know, we could go and buy hundreds of "history of architecture books" and as long as we exclude local interest books, kamper will not be in a single one of them. Architectural historians unanimously agree that he is not a significant architect.

Sure, if you write a book about the history of architecture in Detroit, he will be in it. But outside of that context he doesn't matter.

And I don't think Detroit needs to measure its accomplishments in a local context, I think we can measure our accomplishments on a national or international context.

[p69rrh51]

Detroit is well known for having a collection of prewar architecture because Detroiters have been saying it over and over and over and over again. Detroit has a collection of prewar architecture that is appropriate for the size city it is.

Does Detroit really have a better collection than other major cities from the time? NYC is a beast and has more and better prewar architecture than anyone but it's not fair to compare anyone to NYC. But Philly has a better collection, Chicago has a better collection, San Fransisco has a better collection, LA [[despite its reputation) has a better collection. Look at their cities and their downtowns and compare the number and quality and variety of buildings. I'm not saying that Detroit has a bad collection, but Detroiters have been repeating the "one of the best pre-war collections in the nation" thing over and over and it's not really true. If Detroit has "one of the best", then about a dozen other cities also have "one of the best" too which clearly doesn't make Detroit exceptional in that regard.



I have actual reasons for thinking that some are more significant than others and I don't have to fool myself that those buildings are more important than the thousands of other skyscrapers being built at the same time in the same style.

For a comparison, I think that 211 West Fort Street is a nice building, but I know that there are countless other buildings around the country and world that are also nice. It's not the Seagram Building, it's not Lever House, it's one of countless nice but otherwise unremarkable buildings. And 211 was even covered in at least one architecture magazine at the time.

One time in college I checked out a giant stack of books on art deco. The Guardian Building was the only building in Detroit that was in those books and even then it wasn't always included. And it's because even though Detroit has nice art deco buildings, so do other cities, and there are other buildings that deserve the page space. According to what Detroiters have written on wikipedia, Detroit is a major center for art deco, but then why is it that Buffalo and LA consistently have several buildings in books about art deco and detroit has one or none? It's because, despite what Detroiters would tell you, we're not any more of a major art deco center than other big cities are.



You're being unfair to those other cities and their architects to say that. Actually go check various cities out in google maps and compare their buildings downtown to our buildings, building for building. They are of comparable quality. And if you went to those cities they'd be able to spout off all the designers just like Detroiters can for their buildings.



How important or good an architect is is a long gradient. Yeah, if it's a mountain there's not a lot of room at the top. And just because an architect isn't at the top of the mountain doesn't mean that they're bad, it just means that the others are more important. And the modern designers that the conference is covering are genuinely near the top of that mountain. The Eames are some of the greatest and most culturally significant designers America has ever produced. If the US put significant people, including designers on our money like european countries do [[before and after the euro) they would probably be on our money.

We don't need to lower ourselves to the middle of the mountain and tell ourselves that they're great when we have people near the top, or at least higher up, the mountain who genuinely were great.




Justin Bieber and One Direction have more acceptance and popularity than the entirety of architecture from all time and place combined. Doesn't mean they're more important or better than humanity's thousands of years of building.



Yeah for some reason I always want to slip an f in there... As you can tell my brain doesn't think he's important enough to remember his name right!

I think it's up to you to prove that he is significant. But you'll say that he is and I'll say that he isn't. But you know, we could go and buy hundreds of "history of architecture books" and as long as we exclude local interest books, kamper will not be in a single one of them. Architectural historians unanimously agree that he is not a significant architect.

Sure, if you write a book about the history of architecture in Detroit, he will be in it. But outside of that context he doesn't matter.

And I don't think Detroit needs to measure its accomplishments in a local context, I think we can measure our accomplishments on a national or international context.

At least you spelled him name properly this time. Since you obviously know nothing about Kamper and are ducking my challenge to you, I would like to see the list of architectural historians who say he is not significant. By the way you made the statement why can't you back it up?

[Jason]

Your challenge to me is to prove that something doesn't exist by finding evidence of it not existing, which is impossible. It's a logical fallacy.

My challenge to you is to find a general purpose/non-local history of architecture book that includes Kamper. If he's really significant to any degree it shouldn't be hard to find him mentioned somewhere. The burden of proof lies on you and this is a reasonable way of doing it.

And we don't have the ability to poll historians, but do you really think that if we traveled the world to various architecture departments and asked them if they knew who Louis Kamper was, that they would know?

[p69rrh51]

Your challenge to me is to prove that something doesn't exist by finding evidence of it not existing, which is impossible. It's a logical fallacy.

My challenge to you is to find a general purpose/non-local history of architecture book that includes Kamper. If he's really significant to any degree it shouldn't be hard to find him mentioned somewhere. The burden of proof lies on you and this is a reasonable way of doing it.

And we don't have the ability to poll historians, but do you really think that if we traveled the world to various architecture departments and asked them if they knew who Louis Kamper was, that they would know?

I am not the one who said he was not significant. Its not my job to prove something I never said. You on the other hand are making statements you cannot back up! Also you mentioned architecture historians, who are they? Again you are talking out the side of your mouth. Overall you are making the statements but have nothing to back them up. So I guess clueless was right!

[Jason]

How am I supposed to prove that unicorns don't exist? Am I supposed to capture a non-existent unicorn and then show it to you and say "look, here's a non-existent unicorn!"?

How about this, let's do a search on jstor.

http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicS...f&wc=on&fc=off

6 results. The only one that isn't local has one paragraph about an unrelated "Mrs. Louis Kamper".

Saarinen comes back with 3,900 results. Eames 8,800. Albert Kahn comes back with 734 results.

[p69rrh51]

How am I supposed to prove that unicorns don't exist? Am I supposed to capture a non-existent unicorn and then show it to you and say "look, here's a non-existent unicorn!"?

How about this, let's do a search on jstor.

http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicS...f&wc=on&fc=off

6 results. The only one that isn't local has one paragraph about an unrelated "Mrs. Louis Kamper".

Saarinen comes back with 3,900 results. Eames 8,800. Albert Kahn comes back with 734 results.

You found six not bad. One thing to remember is where is most of the publishing done? One of most full of itself cities in the world. For them the world ends at the Hudson River. Its funny with a city that was as wealthy as Detroit was in the late 19th and 20th centuries those vaunted New York firms only designed a few buildings here. I have done quite a bit of research and while NYC is the 800 pound gorilla there are only a handful of NYC firms that have a sizable portfolio of commissions, and one of the better known firms was headed by a Detroiter. Many buildings in NYC were the firms only commission, and there are quite a few out of towners with designs in the city. Three of our guys with commissions in NYC come to mind off the top of my head.
What I find most annoying is your holier than thou attitude. The locals here are very well versed in historic architecture[[locally and nationally) far more than you think.
Last from my personal observations our architects on the whole[[not individually) are much better than the architects from other cities.

[narnarnar]

I would like to see the experts at Cranbrook expand beyond their comfort zone. Now that would be worth the money!

With such 20th c visionaries as Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Charles and Ray Eames, Harry Bertoia, Carl Milles and Marshall Fredericks, among many others who lived and worked there, Cranbrook has a heck of a "comfort zone!"

[p69rrh51]

With such 20th c visionaries as Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Charles and Ray Eames, Harry Bertoia, Carl Milles and Marshall Fredericks, among many others who lived and worked there, Cranbrook has a heck of a "comfort zone!"

I totally agree, but there is more to mid-century/Michigan modern than the group listed above. Most of the Cranbrook group is well known and well researched. I find that just sticking always to that group is doing a disservice to the other terrific contributors to the movement.

[Gingellgirl]

If you can't attend the Cranbrook fest, try this:

Mid-Century Modern Design in Oakland County is the focus of June’s Oakland County Planners’ Gathering. The event is set for Friday, June 7 at 11:30 a.m. at Lawrence Technological University, Architecture Gallery, Building 9, 21000 W. 10 Mile Road, Southfield, MI 48075. The cost is $20 per person and includes lunch.

Mid-century modern designs were a by-product of post-war optimism and reflected a nation’s dedication to building a new future. This new architecture used modern materials such as reinforced concrete, glass and steel and was defined by clean lines, simple shapes and unornamented facades. Michigan, and in particular SE Michigan, was an epicenter, to Mid-Century Modern that was exported around the world. There is a resurgence of appeal and interest in anything from this period. The City of Southfield was a recipient of much of this architecture and has embraced it as an asset for its future. Join us at this Planners Gathering to learn the extent of influence our designers/architects had during the Mid-Century Modern period; see the product of a partnership between LTU and the City of Southfield to secure these remarkable assets and discover Southfield’s vision for the future.

Speakers include Kenson Siver, Council President, City of Southfield; Terry Croad, AICP, ASLA, Directory of Planning, City of Southfield and Glen S. LeRoy, FAIA, FAICP, Dean, College of Architecture and Design, Lawrence Technological University.

The Planners’ Gathering is a quarterly luncheon, networking and speaker series regarding community development issues. For more than three decades, Planners’ Gatherings have attracted individuals from various backgrounds who wish to learn ways of improving the built and natural environment in their communities. It is hosted by the Planning Group within the Oakland County Department of Economic Development & Community Affairs.

A registration form is available online in the events calendar at AdvantageOakland.com. For questions, contact Julie Skene, 248-858-5437 or skenej@oakgov.com.

[Jason]

Also, the Michigan Modern event is the kickoff for an exhibition, also hosted at cranbrook. I don't remember if it costs money to get into.

[Kathleen]

If you can't attend the Cranbrook fest, try this:

Mid-Century Modern Design in Oakland County is the focus of June’s Oakland County Planners’ Gathering. The event is set for Friday, June 7 at 11:30 a.m. at Lawrence Technological University, Architecture Gallery, Building 9, 21000 W. 10 Mile Road, Southfield, MI 48075. The cost is $20 per person and includes lunch.

That event is ahead of this one in Southfield:

Join City Historian Ken Siver on a guided tour of Southfield’s unique collection of MID-CENTURY MODERN architecture, Saturday, June 29, 2013, 1 pm to 3:30 pm. $20 per person. Purchase tickets in the Civic Center Lobby, 26000 Evergreen Rd., Southfield, MI or email ksiver@cityofsouthfield.com.

[Kathleen]

Reminder about upcoming Michigan Modern and related events:

Exhibit: East Lansing Modern, Michigan State University Museum, through August 18, 2013.
http://museum.msu.edu/?q=node/987

Exhibit: Michigan Modern: Design that Shaped America, Cranbrook Art Museum, June 14 through October 13, 2013. http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum/CAMec2.html

Tour: Yamasaki in the Cultural Center, Saturday, June 22
Preservation Detroit - $10 - register online or just show up at Mackenzie House that morning
http://preservationdetroit.org/detroit-heritage-tours/

Bus Tour: Mid-Century Modern Design in Oakland County, Saturday, June 29, 1pm. Purchase tickets in the Civic Center Lobby, 26000 Evergreen Rd., Southfield, MI or email ksiver@cityofsouthfield.com.

[Zacha341]

How cool is all of this! Grand things to do all summer. Thanks for posting Kathleen. Z341

[Zacha341]

Wow! Never noticed the detailing of this structure. Thanks!

One of the many Louis Redstone designs around town.

Laura Ingalls Wilder Branch 7140 East Seven Mile built in 1962 Detroit Public Library Detroit, MI.

[Kathleen]

The Michigan Modern exhibit at Cranbrook Art Museum is fabulous!!! If you enjoy architecture, this is a must-see exhibit!!

Exhibit: Michigan Modern: Design that Shaped America, Cranbrook Art Museum, June 14 through October 13, 2013. http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum/CAMec2.html

While you are there, check out the other two exhibits:
A Driving Force: Cranbrook and the Car
and
What to Paint and Why: Modern Painters at Cranbrook, 1936 – 1974
Both are very interesting!!!

[Kathleen]

This piece from Curbed Detroit posted today...

Yamasaki's Most Important Architecture in and around Detroit
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...nd-detroit.php

Also....
Tour: Yamasaki in the Cultural Center, Saturday, August 10
Preservation Detroit - $10 - register online or just show up at Mackenzie House that morning
http://preservationdetroit.org/detroit-heritage-tours/

[Gistok]

Jason... I think that you must be reading different architectural books than P69rrh51. Southen, myself and others. The first hit I got in a Google search on Philly [[known for its architecture... but not well known for Art Deco)... funny thing that they say... when you read the intro...

http://hiddencityphila.org/2012/04/d...e-of-the-best/

I have Barbara Baer Capitman's book on Art Deco in the USA [[she virtually alone saved the Miami Beach Deco District)... and her comments on Detroit architecture of pre WWII were one of awe...
http://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-.../dp/0525934421

Perhaps many architecture critics have "overlooked" Detroit's architectural heritage in the past... .

National Geographic had nice things to say about Detroit...
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...roit-traveler/

Who says the Fisher Building is not a masterpiece...
http://blog.hostelbookers.com/travel/art-deco/

Even Detroit's much forgotten C. Howard Crane had a rarely seen Art Deco penchant as seen in this collection of 15 of the world's great Art Deco masterpieces with his Leveque Tower in Columbus...
http://www.architizer.com/blog/great...s-of-art-deco/

I guess like all things... beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marcel Breuer's Grosse Pointe Farms library is a building I've driven by dozens of times with hardly a glance... until I was told by Architectural critics that it was a work by a great architect... Oooookaaay I thought... great architect... masterpiece... got it.... but I still hate it....

So we all see things differently... it's not just as simple as Detroit self promotion as you suggest....

[p69rrh51]

Jason... I think that you must be reading different architectural books than P69rrh51. Southen, myself and others. The first hit I got in a Google search on Philly [[known for its architecture... but not well known for Art Deco)... funny thing that they say... when you read the intro...

http://hiddencityphila.org/2012/04/d...e-of-the-best/

I have Barbara Anne Capitman's book on Art Deco in the USA [[she virtually alone saved the Miami Beach Deco District)... and her comments on Detroit architecture of pre WWII were one of awe...

Perhaps many architecture critics have "overlooked" Detroit's architectural heritage in the past... .

National Geographic had nice things to say about Detroit...
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...roit-traveler/

Who says the Fisher Building is not a masterpiece...
http://blog.hostelbookers.com/travel/art-deco/

Even Detroit's much forgetten C. Howard Crane had a rarely seen Art Deco penchant as seen in this collection of 15 of the world's great Art Deco masterpieces with his Leveque Tower in Columbus...
http://www.architizer.com/blog/great...s-of-art-deco/

I guess like all things... beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Marcel Breuer's Grosse Pointe Farms library is a building I've driven by dozens of times with hardly a glance... until I was told by Architectural critics that it was a work by a great architect... Oooookaaay I thought... great architect... masterpiece... got it.... but I still hate it....

So we all see things differently... it's not just as simple as Detroit self promotion as you suggest....

To add to Gistok's great comments, this forum is mainly about Detroit itself with forays into the burbs when needed. Detroit's best known architects do not get the love they should in print, but those like Kahn, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls, Donaldson & Meier, Alvin Harley et. al. have designed 100's of buildings each in the city.
With the most well known Michigan Modern architects[[the group that Cranbrook promotes most often) there are 15 buildings total designed by FLW, Dow, Yamasaki and the Saarinens that I know of east of Telegraph and south of 8 Mile, and 5 of them are/were in Grosse Pointe. A. B. Dow does not have one design within the political boundaries of the City of Detroit. Minoru Yamasaki does have the lion's share with 8 designs. On the other hand this relatively unknown but excellent practitioner of Art Deco has more than 15 designs alone in the area described but does not receive any attention. My question is three of the four[[Yamasaki excluded) listed above were practicing architecture at a time when the CoD was still growing, why is there not more of their work in the city?

Lyle Zisler's personal home. Includes an image of Zisler's home from a 1938 issue of Michigan Architect and Engineer.

[Kathleen]

This lecture series at Cranbrook Museum of Art sounds interesting!!!

Michigan Modern Lecture Series Sponsored by Cranbrook Art Museum and the Cranbrook Center for Collections and Research in association with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office. All lectures take place in the Art Museum’s deSalle Auditorium. Access to the Auditorium is through the Art Museum entrance. Museum admission required.


Sunday, September 15, 4pm
“Competition, Collaboration, and Connection: Cranbrook in 1939”
Leslie S. Edwards, Head Archivist, Cranbrook Center for Collections and Research

Sunday, September 22, 4pm
“Alden B. Dow: Midwestern Modern”
Craig McDonald, Director, Alden B. Dow Home and Studio

Sunday, September 29, 4pm
“Ralph Rapson: A Son’s Perspective of a Pioneering Modernist”
Rip Rapson, President and CEO, The Kresge Foundation

Sunday, October 6, 4pm
“Michigan Modern: The National Context”
Eric Hill, Professor of Practice in Architecture, University of Michigan

Sunday, October 13, 4pm
“Serenity and Delight: The Architectural Humanism of Minoru Yamasaki”
Dale Gyure, Professor of Architecture, Lawrence Technological University

http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum/CAMpe1.html