Mid-Century Modern Preservation: A Conservator’s Dilemma
Stephen HartleyDepartment Head of Historic Preservation
Savannah Technical [email protected]
After the Second World War the United States experienced a tremendous boom in housing, causing a dramatic shift in the way Americans live. These new suburbs, based on the model first practiced by William Levitt on Long, Island, New York in the 1950’s were constructed on a principle of quick, inexpensive housing using standardized construction techniques. Material suppliers responded to this mechanizedway of building, creating materials such as framing lumber and gypsum products in standardized sizes, further restructuring building techniques and creating the model for new construction that we still use today. Indeed, it has been stated that these new construction standards put an end to such trades as plastering and lathing, and specialized others, such a framing and finish carpenters.
In the last twenty years many of these early suburban subdivisions and buildingshave, under the Secretary of Interior Standards, progressed into the classification of historic, thus eligible for all the programs and protections granted to structures of the pre World War Two era. While it is important to acknowledge the historic importance ofthese cultural landscapes, this classification also raises important questions in regards to the physical preservation of such sites. How do conservators effectively maintain materials designed to have limited life spans? Since these buildings were constructed using semi-skilled labor and a production line mentality, what is the role of the preservation artisan in these structures? This session, will explore the physical and ethical dilemmas encountered in the conservation of post-World War Two structures and sites from the evolving perspective of the conservators and building artisans.
Introduction: Mid-Century Modern and Preservation’s Future?
History is a continuum that flows without interruption into the present instant and the future1
1 Kelli Shapiro “From Modernism to McDonald’s: Ideology, Controversy, and the Movement to Preserve the Recent Past”. Journal of Architectural Education. Vol. 60 no.2(2007): 7.
Since its inception, the historic preservation movement has
been rife with controversy. From the beginnings of the movement’s
fight to save historic sites associated with the founding of
America, to its modern conception the preservation movement has
faced questions of what is to be saved as well as what is
authentic and compatible conservation solutions. Today the
largest controversy facing this movement is the preservation of
Mid Century Modern sites, structures and neighborhoods, the vast
numbers of sites eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places associated with Mid Century Modern structures, as
well as long held prejudice and disdain for those sites from many
corners of the preservation realm. Regardless of individual
preservationists’ notions of these structures, it is clear that
the preservation of these sites will play a major role in the
future of the historic preservation movement throughout the
world.
Mid-Century Modern structures are typically identified as
those built between 1930 and 1975. These structures were built
with new technologies and construction methods and represent a
large proportion of America’s built heritage. These buildings
have recently approached or surpassed the fifty year mark, thus
making them eligible for listing on the National Register. Their
experimental technologies and production line construction made
them innovative, drastically and permanently changing the
construction field in the United States and beyond. It is that
same innovation however, which threaten the long term
preservation of these sites as the materials used have proven to
have shorter lives than their traditional counterparts as well as
potentially hazardous conditions for both residents and workers.
There has been a significant amount of research performed
pertaining to the historical value of post World War II
structures, the procedures for documentation, and conservation of
these sites. Most research however has been performed on high
style examples of Mid Century Modern architecture, such as
glazing issues at the Guggenheim Museum and the repair of thin
shelled concrete structures throughout the country. Little
research has been performed however on the responsible
preservation of vernacular structures in post World War II
suburbs, although these buildings represent not only a large
portion of Mid-Century Modern buildings, but a large percentage
of America’s built environment as a whole. While most of these
buildings will not be listed on the National Register
individually, many are contributing structures in historic
district applications focusing on Post World War II development.
This paper will focus on the role of the craftsman and
conservator on these structures, and the future of the heritage
craft in this growing subsection of the preservation field.
Housing the Nation: History of Post WWII Structures
Modernism is both the genesis and the bête noir of historic preservation.2
The history of design and construction of post World War II
structures begins with the United States entrance into the Second
World War at the end of 1941. The Federal Government encouraged
the research and development of new construction techniques and
materials. The demand for mass produced war materials and housing
drove the economy, as private production all but ceased. Large
companies switched all production to the wartime effort, refining
methods for mass production for all aspects of American life.
Builders constructed large housing estates to accommodate
2 Thomas C. Jester and David Fixler. “Modern Heritage: Progress, Priorities and Prognosis” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 27 No. 2-3 (2011): 3.
thousands of workers at factories, shipyards, and military
installations. It was this practice which became perfected after
the war.
By the end of 1945, an estimated 3,600,000 families were in
need of homes3. Returning veterans, eager to start families and
supported by the GI Bill, were in a desperate search for housing.
Builders responded by constructing 1,023,000 in 1946 alone.
Between 1946 and 1975, manufacturers constructed more than 40
million new homes4.
The Federal Government supported this new construction boom
in both direct and indirect manners. The Federal-Aid Highway Act
of 1956 authorized $25 billion dollars to construct a “National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways”5, opening millions of
acres of previously distant land for development of new suburbs.
The National Housing Act of 1936, meant to spur home ownership
and decrease the stock of substandard housing during the Great
Depression, established the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). The
3 Joseph B. Mason, History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. (1982): 45-47. 4 Ibid., 45-47.5 Federal Highway Administration, “The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System ofInterstate and Defense Highways”, Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder (accessed 17 November 2012).
FHA established minimum guidelines for new construction,
including house and room size, lot minimums and access to public
amenities. It also insured mortgages, allowing smaller required
down payments as well as eventually extending payment schedules
to thirty years.
The construction of this number of properties could not have
been possible without a drastic shift in the method that
structures were completed. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Statistics, in 1938 the typical building constructed four or less
single family homes per year, and even fewer had the capacity for
constructing ten a year6. Builders changed their tactics in
regards of how they build. Following the methods used during the
war years, builders subdivided labor into individual jobs, much
like a production line, where crews would move from building to
building performing the same repetitive task. William Levitt, the
most famous of all post World War II builders determined that
there were twenty-six individual building components which
required specific crews. These crews could move faster than their
6 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing.” Transportation Research Board. (2012): p.66.
pre war counterparts, and by 1950 his company was producing one
four bedroom house every 16 minutes7. Increasing productivity and
standardizing production would be easier and more profitable for
the builder, but would change the construction industry forever,
drastically reducing the need for master craftsman and artisans,
and increasing the need for semi-skilled labor which only needed
to perform the same process repeatedly.
Traditional methods of supply and delivery could not
accommodate this new method of construction, and suppliers
responded to the changes. Many builders developed their own
methods of pre-fabrication, building components of the structures
off-site and delivering them to the building location. Still
others prepackaged materials needed to construct the individual
homes, delivering the materials within feet of the structure.
Pre fabrication of components and entire buildings was not a
new idea. During the war, companies quickly built entire
neighborhoods to respond to wartime demand, including the
prefabricated construction of 977 homes in 73 days in Vallejo,
California8, but the construction of millions of structures would
7 Ibid. 68. 8 Ibid., 85.
require an expansion of production as well as the experimentation
with new products.
The mass production of materials meant the standardization
of house styles and layout throughout the country. Plywood, first
patented in 1865, was originally intended for furniture, but
found a role in the building industry. Made in standard 4 foot by
8 foot panels it eliminated the high ceilings and unique room
configuration found before the war. Indeed the plywood industry
experienced a 380 percent increase in production from 1939 to
1947, and the number of plywood manufactures rose from 50 to
1509. Plastics, whose production increased significantly during
the war, found its way into the construction industry by means of
products such as Formica and Bakelite. Vinyl windows, first
produced by the Anderson Window Company, became industry standard
by 1960. These new products would make production easier, but
would be issues for both homeowners and conservators in the
future.
Respecting the Recent: Mid Century Modern as Historic
9 Thomas C. Jester. Twentieth Century Building Materials. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1995). 132-134.
Many, Many people became historic preservationists out of their hatred of modern design10
The historical implications of this post war expansion
cannot be denied. Nor can the changes it spurred within the
construction industry be ignored. Buildings designed by prominent
architects such as Eerro Sarrien and I.M. Pei have been
designated as historic sites based in their innovative design and
their representation of post war design. As increased number of
post World War II structures reach the 50 year mark required for
designation, early suburban developments are now being classified
as historic districts. But how can these developments, repeated
thousands of times throughout the country, be listed as historic,
and what does this mean for the future of the preservation
artisan role within the preservation field?
Many of the high style post World War II buildings have been
listed either before or immediately after they meet the 50 year
mark required by the Secretary of Interior Standards. Those who
were listed before the requirement were done under Consideration
G within the standards which allows for structures to be listed
10 Shapiro. P.8.
if they are of “exceptional importance”11. Some structures which
have been listed under this criterion have included architect
designed buildings, military installations, and sites associated
with the beginnings of the atomic age. The number of structures
listed under this criteria has remained relativity small however.
Since the 1970’s sites listed with association within the last
twenty years have statistically represented less than three
percent of the listings on the National Register12.
As the years march on and more structures are eligible under
the fifty year rule, structures and district applications have
increased dramatically. While individual buildings within early
suburban developments will most likely not be listed individually
as historic structures, given the abundance of examples as well
as prejudice against these structures, they will be listed as
contributing structures within National Register Districts.
National Register District nominations for post war
developments can be justified under several factors. The older
style of nomination, which may have included an argument 11 Jeanne Lambin. Preserving Resources form the Recent Past. (Washington D.C.: Preservation Press, 2003), 5. 12 John Spinkle “Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty-Year rule” in Historic Preservation” The Public Historian Vol. 29 No. 2 (spring 2007): 102.
pertaining to a large collection of structures from one time
period are not enough to justify inclusion as a district under
the statement of significance portion of the application process.
Nor is the argument pertaining to individual craftsmanship or
ethnic building groups, as the structures represent a production
process rather than bespoke building techniques or designs.
Indeed most post war districts have been established on the
argument of innovative planning schemes, connection with local
industry, or a connection with an individual builder or company
plan.
This method of nomination, while not new, has rapidly
increased within the last twenty years. In Savannah Georgia, a
city know for a high percentage of Victorian era architecture,
the Fairway Oaks-Greenview Historic District has been established
under the argument it was “the first mid 20th century suburban
residential development intended for middle to upper class white
homeowners outside the Savannah city limits featuring new-to-
Savannah curvilinear street layout with cul-de-sacs and
irregularly shaped wooded lots”13. Several other districts
13 National Cooperative Highway Research Program pp. 30-31.
surveys, including Kensington Park subdivision and Habersham
Woods have been performed, with varying levels of success.
All these districts represent a social change for the City
of Savannah, as well as a technological change for the building
traditions for the region. But the buildings represented therein
have been replicated repeatedly throughout the region, and in
many respects are still be constructed toady. The buildings
within the Fairway Oak-GreenView District, if listed as
contributing structures are now eligible for tax credits for the
rehabilitation of historic properties. How will these buildings
be preserved, and will preservation artisans be needed for their
rehabilitation? This question is a looming issue for the
preservation field.
Repairing the Disposable: Conservation Issues For Production LineProducts
In this case the material itself was of less importance than the values it represented as a product of industry.14
No discussion on the role of craftsman and conservators in
mid century modern preservation can exist without first
14 David N. Fixler. “Appropriate Means to an Appropriate End: Industry, Modernism, and Preservation” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. Vol. 39. No. 4. (2008): 32.
discussing some of the material introduced during its
construction. While the list of new products is seemly endless,
most, such as Zenitherm and Cuschocel had very short application
time frames. Some found use in high design buildings, such a thin
clad stone and glass curtain walls. Still others found roles in
remolding of older structures, such as asphalt siding which
mimicked brick veneers, and permastone, which provided the same
application for those which desired stone cladding. Three of the
major products which were found extensively on vernacular
structures built during this time frame which are in need of
further study in terms of conservation techniques are aluminum
siding and cladding, asphalt shingles and asbestos siding.
Aluminum was first patented by the Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa) in 1889. Its use however was limited to
industrial purposes for the initial years of its life. During the
war, Aluminum production soared because of its extensive use in
the aircraft industry. After the war the aluminum producers
turned their attention to the building industry as a way to
market their products. Aluminum found its way into window frames,
siding and entire structures. The Reynolds Metals Company, a
subsidiary of Reynolds Tobacco, premiered an all aluminum
building in 1949, announcing that within a few months it would be
available in "unlimited quantities within a few months.15” The
product never made it to market.
While aluminum found its way into the building trades in
many aspects, from kitchen appliances to full polished panels for
architect designed buildings, perhaps that its greatest
contribution to the mid century modern building is in the realm
of siding. Sheet metal siding had been patented as early as 1903,
but it wasn’t until Frank Hoess patented the locking panel joint
in the 1930’s did the use of aluminum siding take off. The
locking joint was a simple way to overlap panels to avoid water
infiltration. This simple design caught the attention of major
aluminum producers, and by 1946 aluminum siding was being
installed on new housing developments throughout the Northeast.
After 18 months of production, the Reynolds Company estimated
that it had already sold enough metal products to side and roof
141,113 five-room homes.16
15 John Lauber “And it Never Needs Painting: The Development of Residential Aluminum Siding” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 31 No.2/3. (2000):20. 16 Ibid., p.21.
Aluminum siding continued to evolve, producing flash coated
painted materials in a rainbow of colors, even embossing sheets
to give the appearance of brick and stone. Until it was
supplanted by less expensive vinyl siding in the mid 1960’s, it
was the dominate cladding material for new construction.
Aluminum has its drawbacks as a building material. It does
not weather well, particularly in environments with high salt
contents. The flash paint technique used to originally coat the
product, if adhered incorrectly, would trap moisture inside the
product, causing it to rust from the inside. Finally, the
material dents and damages easily, causing unsightly damage that
is typically repaired in the same method one would repair an
automobile after an accident. Aluminum siding has long been the
bane of preservationist, as it was used to cover older wood
siding due to its guarantee of low maintenance and a promise that
it “never needs painting”. Now we have reached a point in history
where one of the preservationists most hated materials warrants
preservation.
Asphalt roofing materials have existed since the beginning
of the twentieth century. Asphalt shingles were originally
produced by impregnating an organic mat, as known as rag with
asphalt. While the asphalt was still hot, the producer added
granules to produce a coating on the outer surface of the
material. Asphalt shingles are sold in “squares”, with each
square covering a 10 foot by 10 foot section of roof, or roughly
100 square feet of roofing materials. Various producers created a
variety of styles for shingles, including what is commonly
referred to as two and three tab styles in which the shingles
were produced in consecutive two or three shingle styles, which
when installed on a roof will create a repetitive pattern.
Asphalt shingles were relatively inexpensive, readily
available, and easily installed. While other roofing materials
such a standing seam metal and clay tile required specialized
work crews, asphalt shingle were designed to be installed using
semi-skilled labor, often time the homeowner themselves.
Unlike other roofing materials, asphalt shingles have a very
short life span. In the best conditions, asphalt shingles will
last 30 years before needing replacement. In areas with high
temperatures, that number can be reduced by half, given the
thermal degradation experienced by the product. The longevity of
this material poses a major problem for preservationists.
While removing damaged or failed material and replacing it with
in-kind alternatives is common practice within the preservation
field, the shear variety of shingles produced since the 1930’s
poses a serious authenticity issue for preservationists. During
the restoration of Harry and Bess Truman’s home in Independence,
Missouri the National Park Service faced such a dilemma. The
home, built in 1867 with additions made in 1885, had a two tab
shingle system, installed a few years prior to Harry Truman’s
death. Since the building was considered historic due to its
association with Truman, the Park Service decided to replace the
failing shingle with in kind replacements. The issue that arose
was the original producer of the shingles had closed and larger
companies would not produce replacements unless the Park Service
ordered a minimum of 700 squares (70,000 square feet). The
project required only 35 squares17.
Attempting to find overstock supplies would be difficult,
due to the fact that it would be virtually impossible to locate
17 Alan W. O’Bright Replacing Historic Asphalt Shingles (Chicago: Preserving the Recent Past Proceedings, 1995) P. IV-115.
all 35 squares in one location and the possibility in variances
due to batch differences of the granules. After five years of
attempting to locate replacement shingles and trying to convince
manufacturers to reproduce a small batch, a method was found. A
company was willing to supply 40 squares of single tab shingles,
which would then be manually slotted to produce the two tab
appearance. The manual slotting technique was developed by the
Williamsport Preservation Training Center, who also performed the
install. After five years of planning, the project was completed.
The installation was proclaimed “anti-climactic; the job was like
any other asphalt roofing job”18
This project is an example of an emerging issue when dealing
with modern material restorations. It is not the installation of
the materials which causes the greatest issue, but rather it is
acquiring a mass produced material with a short life span.
Salvaging stone, brick, or even wood, while costly and
troublesome, can be done, there is currently no way to salvage a
material such as asphalt shingles once installed on a structure.
18 Ibid p. IV-119.
While aluminum and asphalt preservation represents important
issues in the craft of preservation and procurement of materials,
asbestos products represent another issue; safety.
Asbestos was typically mixed with other materials to produce a
product. Asbestos was inexpensive to process, was resistant to
fire, and had almost miracle levels of flexibility and wear
resistance as well as an ability to bond to almost any other
material. Asbestos was used as a product in insulation, flooring,
roofing and siding applications. Its use was continued until
1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use and
production of asbestos19. Today, it is illegal to manufacture or
sell asbestos in the United States.
Asbestos based materials are now considered historic, and
therefore eligible for preservation. Indeed there has been some
research done on the correct methods of preserving asbestos
siding using Portland cement patches. The preservation of these
materials raise is not only ethical but legal questions. Legally,
asbestos products may only be handled by certified asbestos
abatement companies, who are charged with safe removal and
19 Amy Lamb Woods. Keeping a Lid on it: Asbestos-Cement Building Materials (Chicago: Preserving the Recent Past Proceedings, 1995) 3-82.
disposal of the materials. Insurance companies, once asbestos has
been identified on site, will often not insure a building until
the material has been removed, regardless of the condition of the
asbestos.
The health issues surrounding asbestos are well documented.
Asbestos is hazardous when it is in its friable state, which is
identified as the exposure of asbestos fibers to the air.
Asbestos which is not in friable condition is not consider
hazardous, nor is products containing small amounts of asbestos
as an additive. Even in a non-friable state, dust control and
proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is required to clean
or repair the material.
While asbestos is certainly not the only hazardous material
potentially found on preservation sites, its potential for
serious illness raises safety concerns for preservation artisans.
Many companies refuse to work on sites continuing asbestos,
including many of the large trade unions operating in the
Northeast. Asbestos also raises concerns for property owners,
particularly those with children. The removal of asbestos will
certainly affect the historic integrity of a structure, but the
retention of such materials may cause long term health issues.
These issues have not been addressed in detail by preservation
artisans, abatement and insurance companies dealing with historic
structures. Further research need to be performed on the future
of historic asbestos materials, which will become a prominent
issue in the near future.
How do we fix it?: The Role of the Conservator and Craftsman in
Mid-Century Modern
Lack of experience and underdeveloped repair technology are the main causes of the current predicament20
As shown, the changes in construction processes after the
Second World War have drastically altered the American landscape
and therefore the historic preservation field. Many of the
procedures and techniques for preserving these structures have
been put in place in terms of advocacy and documentation, but the
role of the conservator and preservation artisan in the
preservation of these sites has not fully developed.
Conservators study the physical and chemical composition of
structures and materials, and perform best practices in the
20 Susan MacDonald. “Authenticity is More than Skin Deep: Conserving Britain’sPostwar Concrete Architecture” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 28 No. 4. (1997): 43.
conservation of sites. Typically, conservators perform work on
architect design buildings and monuments. Their specialized
training and complicated equipment are out of the reach for the
owners of most vernacular structures. Conservators have already
begun researching the failure modules and correct procedures in
two specific areas of mid century modern structures; curtain
walls and concrete. Research has also been conducted on thin
masonry veneers such as granite and marble. These materials are
typically not applied structures found in post war housing
developments.
The conservators’ biggest obstacle to working on mid-century
modern buildings may be the buildings themselves. The
experimental manner in which they were built have proven to have
its faults, and many structures from this era are already showing
signs of extreme fatigue, and the sheer amount of work that needs
to be performed may encourage owners to demolish the structure.
Built in a time of cheap energy, mid century modern structures
are not withstanding the test of time on energy efficiency,
further encouraging demolition. As Susan Bronson and Thomas
Jester state:
“Another drawback is that many buildings of the recent past are currently in a state of technical obsolesce-
theirexposed concrete is decaying or their curtain wall
requiresrepair or replacement-and appropriate, economical
conservationsolutions are not as obvious as for early heritage.”
Craftsmen face two issues when working on post war sites.
The first issue again comes from the buildings themselves. The
mass production methods of original construction are designed to
be assembled with unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Given the
skills required to originally construct them, the repair
techniques are similarly semi-skilled. Big box “do it yourself”
stores encourage homeowners to complete the work themselves.
Contractors who typically build new structures, which use the
same techniques perfected in the 1950’s can use the same
techniques to repair almost any vernacular post war structure.
The preservation artisan must be willing to adapt their
techniques and approaches when working on these buildings.
The second issue arises when examining the materials used to
construct these buildings. Some have been found to be hazardous
to work with. Some were never designed to last. Asphalt shingles,
gypsum wallboard, linoleum flooring and other products were not
designed for a long life span. Preservation of these components
will be difficult, and often times impossible, requiring
replacement. Other materials were mass produced using industrial
processes, and cannot be replicated on site. As Michael Lynch
notes: “You cannot make twenty feet of aluminum extrusion in your
backyard shop the way you can run off a wood molding”21. As shown
by the National Park Service’s work of Truman’s home, the
acquiring the material which needs to be replaced is much more
challenging than the application of those materials. Much like
the specialized companies which replicate products for pre-war
structures, the field of those creating products for post war
structures is expanding. A company having the capacity to extrude
large quantities of aluminum siding or creating small productions
of shingles will require a significant investment of capital in
order to produce. Until the demand increases, production will
not. Until this occurs, craftsmen will be forced to make
decisions about in-kind materials which may be disavowed as the
field progresses.
21 Michael Lynch “What Are We Going to Do with the Recent Past in the Not Too Distant Future” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. Vol. 23. No.2 (1991) 6.
The decisions made by both conservators and craftsman in
regards to best practices in midcentury modern buildings are
certainly likely to stir controversy. The concept of authenticity
in historic sites is always in debate, and Mid Century Modern
structures are certain to contribute to these conversations. The
innovative methods of construction, production techniques of
materials, and hazardous nature of sites will contribute to the
argument which is central to the role of the conservator and
craftsman in regards to Mid Century Modern buildings: What is
authentic in a disposable site.
Conclusion: What is the Future of the Recent Past?
Creativity is important in determining approaches to apparently insurmountable problems22
While the number of National Register listed buildings from
the post war period is small, that number will continue to grow
as years progress and attitudes evolve pertaining to these
structures adapt. This will lead to a change in the role of both
the craftsman and the conservator in the preservation field.
Conservators must learn to adapt their best practices techniques
22 MacDonald. P.43.
to becoming economically viable, as more of the buildings they
are employed to save requires repair. Preservation artisans, who
have spent years studying the traditional techniques practiced in
this country, must expand their knowledge to include construction
techniques of the post war era. They must also adapt to the fact
that they will be facing a greater base of competition from new
build contractors and homeowners themselves. Traditional
craftsmanship is a specialized field, and that field must expand
their specialization in order to remain viable.
In an academic sense, Mid Century Modern structures provide
an exciting field of study. For those working in the field
however, it entails challenges and dangers not fully explored.
Further research must be performed on the best ways to deal with
structures built with impermanent and sometimes hazardous
materials. Questions of authenticity, value and practice must all
be addressed to ensure that this historic cultural change in our
built landscape is preserved for the future.
Bibliography
Federal Highway Administration, “The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways”, Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder (accessed 17 November2012).
Fixler, David N. “Appropriate Means to an Appropriate End: Industry, Modernism, and Preservation” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 39 No. 4. (2008): 31-36.
Jester, Thomas C. 20th Century Building Materials. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995.
Jester, Thomas C. and David Fixler. “Modern Heritage: Progress, Priorities and Prognosis” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 27 No. 2-3 (2011). p.3.
Lambin, Jeanne. Preserving Resources From the Recent Past. Washington D.C.: Preservation Press, 2003.
Lauber, John. “And it Never Needs Painting: The Development of Residential Aluminum Siding” Association for Preservation Technology BulletinVol. 31 No.2/3 (2000): 17-24.
Lynch, Michael. “What Are We Going to Do with the Recent Past in the Not Too Distant Future” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin.Vol. 23. No.2 (1991): 6.
MacDonald, Susan. “Authenticity is More than Skin Deep: Conserving Britain’s Postwar Concrete Architecture” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin Vol. 28 No. 4. (1997): 37-44.
Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1982.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. 2012.
O’Bright, Alan W. “Replacing Historic Asphalt Shingles” in Preserving the Recent Past Proceedings. Chicago, Ill. 1995. P. IV-115.
Shapiro, Kelli. “From Modernism to McDonald’s: Ideology, Controversy, and the Movement to Preserve the Recent Past” Journal of Architectural Education. Vol. 60 No.2 (2007): 6-14.
Spinkle, John. “Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty-Year rule” in Historic Preservation” The Public Historian Vol. 29 No. 2 (spring 2007): 81-103.
Woods, Amy Lamb. “Keeping a Lid on it: Asbestos-Cement Building Materials” in Preserving the Recent Past Proceedings. Chicago Ill. 199: 3-82.
Top Related