DID YOU KNOW?
ARCHIVES
Pierson-Wold House Named Landmark By Minneapolis City Council (8/25/08 to 3/3/09)
by Bob Glancy
(published with the author's permission)
Minneapolis has preserved another Historic Landmark. On June 20, 2008, the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution
making the Pierson-Wold House at 1779 Emerson Ave. S. a designated landmark. This was the first residence to be added to
the local register in many years.
Natalie and Gil Westreich, who have owned the house for forty-two years, have long believed their home was worthy of
historic designation. They hired neighborhood historian Bob Glancy to research their home’s history and to prepare a
nomination to be submitted to the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. As a result of his findings, 1779 Emerson
Ave. S. was deemed to qualify as a historic landmark under three of the seven criteria used by the HPC.
The house is a Colonial Revival style yellow brick veneer house which features many leaded and stained glass windows
and a distinctive 6-inch course of rough-chiseled cream-colored Indiana limestone. The window sills are of the same
material.
The house is within an area of Lowry Hill that was determined to have potential as a historic district by a recent
HPC-sponsored study of the neighborhood.
The three criteria under which the Pierson-Wold House qualified for designation are:
- The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify
broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history.
- The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups.
- The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.
The first criterion was met because the Pierson-Wold House represents the growth and expansion of the upper class
neighborhood called Lowry Hill. The area’s lots were marketed using restrictive covenants to ensure that residential
development would be characterized by broad streets, with houses set back on lots. It was further based on the area
retaining a high degree of historic integrity today.
Though the original owner, Newton Pierson, lends his name to the official designation, it is really the second owners
who met the second criterion. Theodore T. Wold was a prominent executive in the banking business in Minneapolis. His
career spanned more than fifty years and included his being named the first Governor of the Ninth Federal Reserve Bank.
Also qualifying under the second criterion was his son, Ernest Groves Wold, who at the age of eighteen volunteered for
military service during World War I. Because the United States didn’t have a significant air force at the time, he trained
in France and became a member of the Lafayette Escadrille in the fall of 1917. He flew observation planes to photograph
enemy locations and was awarded for shooting down several enemy aircraft. Wold himself was shot down and died in battle.
Another young Minneapolis aviator, Cyrus Foss Chamberlain, died in battle about the same time. Five years later the
Minneapolis Airport was renamed Wold-Chamberlain Airport in their honor. While the airport is now known as
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, the airfield is still Wold-Chamberlain Field.
The third criterion under which the Pierson-Wold House qualified was based on the designer and builder of the home,
Theron Potter Healy. He was recognized by the Heritage Preservation Commission several years ago when it approved the
Healy Block Historic District in the 3100 block of Second and Third Avenues in south Minneapolis. While that district
features Healy’s early Queen Anne style houses, the Pierson-Wold House represents the final phase of his building career
in which he constructed homes of stone and brick for many of Lowry Hill’s most prominent residents. These included the
homes of Charles Martin, William Hood Dunwoody and J. B. Hudson.
More information about Healy can be found in the pages of the website: coololdbuildingsmn.wordpress.com.
Preservation and Protection of Church Organs: Practical Tips Before the Work Begins (6/28/08 to 8/25/08)
(originally published on the EnVisionChurch website July 2008, republished here with permission from
EnVisionChurch)
In an earlier article in the July 30, 2007 issue, I wrote about the steps to take when planning a church restoration
project. In essence, the message was to assess the entire facility and prioritize the work to implement it from the
outside in, addressing building envelope problems such as leaking roofs and deteriorated masonry to ensure that interior
work done too soon is not damaged by leaks later. Once the outside of the building has been repaired, work can prudently
begin inside. However, there is one more major -- and expensive -- item that needs the same protective attention, the
organ.
Church organs are complex and sensitive instruments. There are many different types, each with their inherent and
valued characteristics, and this article will not attempt to identify them or how they should be restored. Rather it will
address things that should be considered so that the organ can be protected from adverse affects from construction work.
The best source for information on how to protect your church’s organ is usually with the local company that services it
and/or the original manufacturer, if still in existence. They generally know the organ better than anyone and can advise
you concerning the steps to take and the related costs.
First, if a major interior rehabilitation project is going to take place AND the organ is going to also be restored,
if possible schedule the construction work first and the organ work last. Dust is the enemy of church organs, and
construction projects are sources of incredible amounts of dust. Particularly heavy dust-generating activities include
plaster and gypsum board sanding and masonry saw-cutting. The console and pipes must be protected from direct damage
(being bumped, dropped on, etc.); and the valves, wind chambers, and other sensitive parts should be wrapped or sealed
against excess dust. This isn’t as critical in this case, however, since they will be completely cleaned later when the
construction is done and the organ is restored.
If the organ must be restored or a new one installed BEFORE a major interior construction project, sealing it off from
dust becomes more critical. The organ servicing company or manufacturer can best advise on how this should be done and
what kind of costs to budget. The work and related costs then must be included in the overall project, and it is advisable
to also have a contingency for back-up cleaning, just in case.
If proper protective steps aren’t taken, these can be expensive lessons to learn. On one project that involved minor
masonry saw-cutting well away from an organ that had recently been cleaned, the contractor decided not to seal it. The
resulting dust required another $45,000 cleaning, paid for by the contractor. On another project where an addition was
being built adjacent to the sanctuary, a sub-contractor compromised the negative pressure dust barrier, letting in a large
amount of dust and causing an expensive cleaning of not just the organ but the entire sanctuary that was not originally
part of the work.
If the organ itself is being restored, there are a number of things that should also be considered. Sometimes
temperature and humidity differences from one side of a church to another can cause tonal differences and/or tuning
problems in the pipes. At the large Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Facility Director placed
temperature monitors within the large, identical pipe enclosures on the east and west walls and discovered up to a
twelve degree difference between the two. During restoration, small, low-speed fans were placed in the enclosures to
assure an even flow of air within, and the temperature differential is now two degrees. Humidity can also sometimes have a
similar effect. Some organ playability issues became less of a problem after the Basilica’s leaky steam heating system was
replaced by a hot water system and the building was air conditioned a number of years ago. The humidity swings and
playability issues were reduced before the organ was even restored.
Other practical and safety issues come into play when restoring an organ as well, particularly a large one. Pipe
enclosures are generally crowded, difficult to get to, and dark. Access ladders, if exposed, should be safe and designed
in such a way so that children or other unauthorized persons can not ascend them. They should be OSHA compliant if they
extend to a certain height above the ground, and there should be safe places to sit or stand when opening access doors.
Inside, lights activated by a switch near the access door are a must; and if the pipe chamber is multi-tiered, there must
be safe ways of moving around within on walkways and internal ladders.
The physical work involved with actually restoring or installing an organ or its parts also has to be considered.
The width of doorways into the church, the aisles within, and the bearing capacity of the floor structure all may be an
issue when dealing with a large instrument. Again at the Basilica of St. Mary, the contractor had to find a lift that
could fit through a six-foot wide double door, yet be tall enough to lift 32 foot tall pipes into the Choir Loft.
Once the equipment was found, the structural engineer had to confirm that the 100 year-old floor could safely carry the
load.
In summary, when planning any interior construction work in a church, make sure that the organ is addressed even if no
work is planned for it. It must be adequately protected to prevent damage and dust. If the organ itself is going to be
restored, if possible it should be done after everything else is complete. Finally, the means of accessing and maintaining
the organ need to be as safe as possible to make it as easy as possible and to prevent accidents. Easier access should
also equate to lower ongoing maintenance costs.
Minneapolis Featured on the Ten Most Endangered List (5/30/08 to 6/28/08)
From the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, www.mnpreservation.org
On Thursday May 1, 2008 the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota (PAM) officially unveiled its Ten Most Endangered Places
List. The Ten Most Endangered program is designed to spotlight historic properties that face imminent danger through
demolition, neglect, severe alteration, or inappropriate public policy. Through this program the Alliance seeks favorable
outcomes that can be achieved through a preservation approach.
Four Minneapolis properties were listed—the most from one city. The properties are: the Layman’s/Pioneer and Soldiers
Memorial Cemetery, the Oakland Apartments, Peavey Plaza, and St. Anthony Falls Historic District Archaeological Resources.
During the month of June, each resource will be highlighted on this page. If you are interested in helping to raise
awareness about these properties, please look at the Action Steps.
facing Nicollet Mall between Eleventh and Twelfth Streets
Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis, created by renowned landscape architect, M. Paul Friedberg, and constructed in 1975, is a
landmark of modern design. Trees, shrubs and a corner fountain define the edges of the plaza—located in front of Orchestra
Hall between 11th and 12th Streets on Nicollet Mall—and concrete steps directly connect the sunken plaza with the street.
Peavey Plaza serves as an amphitheater for annual events such as the popular Sommerfest, as well as a stage for both
residents and visitors to enjoy the theater of everyday life in the city. As the only urban gathering space in the core of
downtown Minneapolis, and as a unique example of modern landscape design, Peavey Plaza is an urban treasure and an
historical icon worthy of preservation.
Currently, two real and imminent threats endanger the integrity and future of Peavey Plaza. First, the plaza has been
subjected to a combination of neglect and ill-advised renovations that have altered the original design and intent of the
space. Second, the planned remodeling and expansion of the Orchestra Hall lobby threaten to culminate in a wholesale
redesign of the plaza. Advocates for the preservation of Peavey Plaza are hopeful that they can work with the City of
Minneapolis and Orchestra Hall to develop a maintenance plan for vegetation and materials, as well as a design plan for
rehabilitation, to address contemporary needs while preserving historic resources. With advocacy and cooperation Peavey
Plaza will remain an iconic modern landscape and a beloved place in the city.
Action Steps:
- Contact your Minneapolis City Council member to voice your support for the continued maintenance of Peavey Plaza in a way that
is sensitive to its original design.
- Contact the Minnesota Orchestral Association to voice your support for renovating Peavey Plaza in a way that preserves
the original design intent of M. Paul Friedberg.
- Make a donation to the Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (MASLA) in support of Peavey
Plaza (www.masla.org).
The St. Anthony Falls Historic District in Minneapolis spans both banks of the Mississippi River, including several
islands in the channel. The district’s historic properties are the legacy of the early history of city, including the
water-powered industrial development fed by the falls. Significant archaeological resources in the area have been
documented and are visible at such sites as Mill Ruins Park and the Mill City Museum, but equally significant artifacts
and ruins lie buried throughout the district. Some correspond with extant historic structures; others contain the history
of structures long demolished and activities forgotten.
As a prominent local landmark long before Father Hennepin’s visit in 1680, the archaeological record of the falls
district is fragile, but holds the source material for a deeper understanding of Minnesota history. However, construction
projects on both public and private land constitute an ongoing threat to the district’s archaeological record. As in a
forensic investigation, the meaning and significance of artifacts and related data are entirely dependent on their
context. If they are disturbed without proper documentation, their value will be irretrievably lost.
Action Steps:
- Visit Mill Ruins Park on the west bank, and Water Power Park on the east bank, of the Mississippi River in
Minneapolis to learn more about the riverfront’s archaeological resources.
- Voice your support for the preservation of the riverfront’s underground historic and prehistoric resources by
contacting your City Council and Park Board member.
2925 Cedar Avenue South
Layman’s Cemetery was established in 1853 at 2925 Cedar Avenue South in Minneapolis, five years before Minnesota
achieved statehood. In 1928 Layman’s was renamed Pioneers and Soldiers Cemetery in honor of the settlers and early
residents buried there who contributed to the growth and prosperity of the city and the state. Today the cemetery contains
20,000 graves on a twenty-seven acre site and is the only cemetery in Minnesota listed as an individual landmark on the
National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, the absence of a perpetual maintenance fund has left Pioneers and
Soldiers Cemetery in a fragile condition. The wrought-iron fence that defines the boundaries of the site is in need of
restoration, and the effects of pollution, neglect and vandalism threaten grave markers and other elements. Burial records
and other historic documents in the cemetery office building remain to be inventoried and cataloged.
A nonprofit group, Friends of the Cemetery, is working to promote appreciation and revitalization of Pioneers and
Soldiers Cemetery, and the City of Minneapolis has taken initial steps to document important elements, make capital
improvements and prepare a long-term maintenance plan. In 2006 the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission designated
the site as a local landmark. These efforts have provided some relief, but private, nonprofit funding is needed to ensure
the future preservation of Minneapolis’ oldest cemetery.
Action Steps:
- Contact your Council member to encourage the City of Minneapolis to conduct a survey and conditions analysis of the
cemetery and to carry out capital improvements according to the new Maintenance Plan and Design Guidelines.
- Make a donation to the City of Minneapolis toward the maintenance of the cemetery—earmark your gift in the name of the
Pioneers and Soldiers Memorial Cemetery.
- Visit the Friends of the Cemetery website to learn more about this historic site and offer to volunteer for an
event. www.friendsofthecemetery.org
213-215 South Ninth Street
The Oakland Apartments is a three-story, red limestone and brick residential building located on the east edge of
downtown Minneapolis at 213-215 South Ninth Street. Designed by Minneapolis architect Harry Wild Jones in 1888, the
building is an excellent example of the Richardsonian Romanesque style. The building also stands as a rare remnant of
the nineteenth-century residences that once spread across the south and east sides of downtown Minneapolis. In spite of
its significant historic integrity and connection to the renowned local architect, Harry Wild Jones, the Oakland
Apartments is not locally or nationally designated as a historic landmark.
Originally surrounded by similar residential structures, the Oakland Apartments is now one of only two buildings on its
block, isolated among surface parking lots. The building is vulnerable to future development, which could claim the entire
block. Because the Oakland Apartments is not historically designated, demolition of the building could go unnoticed and
unchallenged. Advocates of the building are working to obtain local historic designation for the structure. However, the
nomination will need significant public support to convince the Minneapolis City Council to approve designation of the
building over any objections from the owners. If preserved, the historic apartment building could serve as the centerpiece
of a residential or mixed-use development of the type and scale of similar recent developments in the nearby Elliot Park
neighborhood, which have served to revitalize the area.
Action Steps:
- Contact your City Council member to support moving forward with a local historic designation study for the Oakland
Apartments.
- Attend the June 14, 2008, debut of Harry Wild Jones, American Architect, at the Hennepin History Museum
(www.hennepinhistory.org). Voice your interest in the
formation of the Harry Wild Jones Society, a local group interested in the identification and promotion of Jones’
designs.
Preservation of Historic Churches
Assessing the Overall Project Scope as the First Step
(4/24/08 to 5/30/08)
(originally published on the EnVisionChurch website July 2007, republished here with permission from
EnVisionChurch)
Maintaining historic churches represents a special challenge to worship communities. Often, a church has suffered damage
or general deterioration over time or decorative motifs have been changed. Sometimes a committee is formed to address a
particular issue, and a donor steps forward with a gift to fund it – say interior rehabilitation. There also may be an
urgency to complete work by a special feast day or other significant date. The urge to rush into a project should be
resisted. An entire facility should be reviewed, issues and related costs identified, and priorities established so that
money spent for one project isn’t undone by later work.
A facility assessment and resulting construction should be done from the outside in. Interior damage may be due to
remote or hidden exterior causes that need to be addressed first. Some of the things to look for can be either obvious or
subtle and include:
- Roofing, flashing, gutter, or downspout problems.
- The effects of ivy – it looks charming but can cause tremendous damage!
- Open mortar joints or previous masonry repairs with mortar that was too strong for the brick or stone.
- The lack of adequate ties between outer and inner veneers of masonry walls.
- The quality and characteristics of the stone and brick originally used.
- Leaking piping – particularly steam radiator piping – hidden in walls.
- Rotted wooden floor joists or roof rafters where they attach to masonry walls.
- Hazardous materials (asbestos, lead paint, etc.)
Hiring a team of professionals (architects, engineers, etc.) with a special knowledge of historic materials to prepare
a facility assessment or historic master plan is important so that all of the causes and effects can be assessed before
proceeding with construction. Including a trusted contractor early in the process may also be helpful to provide special
access equipment as well as cost estimating. Furnishing the professional team with as much information as possible is key.
Drawings, specifications, purchasing records, old photos, and other historic information in a church’s archives can provide
valuable insight into problems and how they should be addressed.
At the interior, decorative schemes may have changed many times during a building’s history. Often, these may be
documented in photographs in a church’s archives or by parishioners. Usually, those taken prior to the 1950s or 60s are
black and white photos, so actual colors are unknown. Discovering colors can be done by undertaking a decorative paint
exposure study. Based on the historical information, a qualified consultant helps determine what information is desirable,
where in the church it will be found, what equipment (scaffold, lifts, etc.) will be needed, etc. The paint on areas of
walls or ceilings is then carefully removed, layer by layer, revealing both decorative motifs (stenciling, figures, etc.)
as well as original colors in the various layers. The colors are keyed to a universal color coding system and documented
for future reference. The information gained through this process, coupled with historic photos, can then be used to
restore an interior to a specific period or allow original colors to be known and possibly used in an interior
rehabilitation. Similar procedures can be used to clean visible but dirty motifs and colors, and exposed areas can be
touched up and left exposed to help spur fund-raising.
Another issue is whether a church is officially designated as a historic structure, either on the National Register
of Historic Places or locally by the city. Listing on the National Register alone does not necessarily impose any
restrictions. More likely is listing on a city’s heritage preservation list, which usually brings some form of building
permit review and control over construction work to assure that the historic integrity of the building is not compromised.
Find out whether a church is historically designated and by which agency, what the restrictions and guidelines are, what
submission deadlines are, etc. before proceeding with design work. This will alleviate unexpected delays when applying for
building permits.
A good facility assessment or historic master plan should thus include key historical information, the problems and
issues discovered and to be addressed by construction work, the costs for each item, and the priority in which they should
be accomplished. If necessary, the team can recommend sequencing the work in phases over a number of years to accommodate
funding availability. Particular items can also be identified for special “gifting” opportunities and recognition.
Preservation - Still Green After all these Years (3/19/08 to 4/24/08)
by John Stark, AIA
(originally published in The Minnesota Preservationist, March / April 2008, republished here with permission from
the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota)
“The Greenest Building is the one already built,” is the mantra of preservationists these days. This message needs to
get beyond the preservation community. Historic Preservation is inherently sustainable. Back when life was much simpler
buildings had no choice but to be green. Working with nature was the norm. Common sense kept one from cooking in the
summer and freezing in the winter. Walls were thick and roofs had large overhangs. Properly siting a building, use of
local materials, natural ventilation, shading, daylighting, cisterns, indigenous plants . . . the list goes on and on. It
sounds very much like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines for sustainable architecture
today. The U.S Green Building Council recently adopted LEED-EB as a guideline for Existing Buildings. While a valuable
checklist, it currently falls short of addressing historic buildings specifically.
How is preservation sustainable?
The general public tends to think historic buildings are inherently
inefficient. The opposite is actually true. A study by the U.S Energy Information Administration on commercial buildings
built prior to 1920 show these buildings used an average of 80,127 BTU’s per square foot. In the years between 1920 and
1990, when cheap oil and electricity prevailed, buildings often reached 100,000 BTU’s per square foot. It should be noted
that not all historic buildings are models of efficient energy use. The era of Modernism especially between the 1950’s and
1980’s was an age of experimenting with new materials and assemblies. These buildings were usually not designed to last
beyond one generation. Today’s energy efficient buildings constructed since 2000 use 79,703 BTU’s per square foot.
Ironically this is very similar to those built before the 1920’s.
(Sidebar – The British thermal unit (BTU or Btu) is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. The term "BTU" is used to describe the heat value (energy
content) of fuels, and also to describe the power of heating and cooling systems, such as furnaces, stoves, barbecue
grills, and air conditioners.)
It has been said by the year 2030, half of all existing buildings will have been built after the year 2000. This leaves
the other half as existing buildings over 30 years old. Considering a large number of building today were not built to
last, we will also be demolishing over 1/3 of our current existing buildings or 82 million square feet of space by 2030.
This will create 5.5 billions tons of waste. Fortunately, most historic and many older buildings were built to last
providing them with unlimited renewability.
Embodied Energy
Demolition forever removes the embodied energy found within an existing home as well as all
the resources used for its construction. A new “energy efficient” residence will require thirteen years to recover the
embodied energy found within the existing residence, the energy spent for demolition and hauling away debris, and the
energy used during construction of the new house. Furthermore, trends show that we do not build the same size house as
we replace. When a house doubles in size it will now take twenty-eight years to recoup the lost energy. When embodied
energy is taken into consideration, a new energy -efficient commercial building does not actually start save energy for
the first forty years. If this building replaces an older building that is torn down and hauled away, this time period
stretches to sixty-five years. Few buildings today are being built to last more than sixty-five years.
Buildings create more than 40% of carbon emissions in the U.S. 70% of the energy consumed over a building’s lifetime is
used for its operations. We need to be smarter in how we use our buildings and wiser in land use. Historic preservation
does this, an existing building gets a new life and little or no new land is required. Less waste goes to the landfill and
less energy is consumed.
(Sidebar - In January 2008, a group out of Highland Park, Illinois (the May T. Watts Appreciation Society) went
live with a fantastic website that provides an Embodied Energy Calculator. Check out the calculator at
www.thegreenestbuilding.org – and the associated blog.)
What is being done
Nationally, efforts are underway to align the ideals of preservationists and
sustainability advocates. In October of 2007 a National Summit on the Greening of Historic Properties had preservationists
and sustainability advocates in the same room. The debate acknowledged that the most precious historic buildings must
remain true to their original character; however buildings of lesser historic importance may have less restrictions placed
upon them. It was surprising to hear from both sides when they agreed to revise their documents in order to be respectful
of the others needs. The 1977 Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation will need to be rewritten to
acknowledge the importance of energy conservation. USGBC is completely retooling all the LEED products to better represent
life cycle analysis, cultural values, historic structures, etc. This version of LEED is expected sometime in 2009/2010.
Locally, the Historic Resources Committee of AIA Minnesota will be focusing on the relationship between preservation
and sustainability in 2008. Public awareness and education will be a major activity. Discussions will continue to address
sustainable design issues specific to historic buildings. In addition, the Preservation Alliance is considering sponsoring
a symposium for 2009 intended to encourage collaboration and dialogue between local preservationists and proponents of
sustainable design.
In his speech on December 13, 2007 Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said “When
you strip away the rhetoric, preservation is simply having the good sense to hold on to the things that are well designed,
that link us with our past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them.”
While not well known to others, the message that preservation is green is nothing new to preservationists. The power
of grass roots education and motivation from preservationists will be required. Only the combined power of both
organizations, the U.S. Green Building Council and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, will change the market
place. We will all need to work together to enact policies, expand the historic tax credits for rehabilitation, and
provide incentives to employ green technology in maintaining and rehabilitating existing buildings. Let’s get together
and make it happen.
(John H. Stark AIA LEED AP is an architect with Miller Dunwiddie Architecture. He chairs the AIA Minnesota Historic
Resources Committee, is chair of the Preservation Alliance Advocacy Committee, and President of Preserve Minneapolis.)
Folwell Hall (10/31/07 to 3/18/08)
Folwell Hall is a stately building sprawling along University Avenue at the corner of Pleasant Street SE
(across from the Dinkydome). The building was erected in 1906-1907 as a replacement for Old Main, which burned down
in 1904. State Architect Clarence Johnston Sr. designed the Tudor-Jacobean style building with a generous $410,000
budget from the State Legislature. The building had extensive terracotta decoration and twenty-six brick chimneys.
The building originally housed several university departments, but now is the home of languages departments.
If you’ve been to campus lately, you’ve undoubtedly noticed the work on the exterior of Folwell Hall. Restoration
of the terracotta sculptures, a new roof, and masonry repairs are bringing this grand old building into the twenty-first
century with a new complexion. One of the most exciting features is the return of four eight-foot-tall gargoyles, one at
each corner of the roof. These statues are reproductions of ones that guarded Folwell when the building first opened—they
mysteriously disappeared a few years later.
Phase II of Folwell Hall’s history is about to begin. In 2008, the University will request bonding money from the
Legislature for interior upgrades. The building’s needs are many: accessible bathrooms and elevators, full air-conditioning
for classrooms, additional stairwells for safe egress, and full electrical upgrades. These sound like mundane items, but
everything planned for Folwell Hall is designed to support the most important thing the University does: teaching.
The number of students who have passed through Folwell Hall over the last 100 years is incalculable. Now is the time
to create the next 100 years of Folwell Hall. To support the University’s efforts for Folwell Hall, please visit the
University’s legislative network website at www.umn.edu/groots.
Can an abandoned railroad roundhouse be turned into a new use? (09/21/07 to 10/30/07)
The Shoreham Railroad Roundhouse is one of the few remaining buildings in the once-sprawling Shoreham Railroad Yards in
Northeast Minneapolis. But it has been many decades since it operated, the once-sprawling 230-acre Shoreham Railroad
Yards drastically downsized its base of operations, and most of the buildings in the complex were razed. But the
roundhouse is a survivor, largely due to the diligence and strategic tactics of surrounding Northeast neighborhood
organizations.
A Minneapolis city agency, Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED), is sponsoring a re-use study of the
Shoreham Railroad Roundhouse, conducted by Thomas R. Zahn and Associates. The study is intended to assess the viability
of a productive reuse and preservation of the last remaining roundhouse in Minneapolis. The final report will make
recommendations regarding potential reuse options and will suggest development options instrumental in realizing that
vision.
As the name suggests, traditional roundhouses are circular or semicircular in form. A turntable located within the
center of the circle or arc was used to direct the locomotives into the surrounding bays. Because railroad locomotives
were built to only travel forwards, this system was critical to service yards function to re-direct locomotives from one
track to another. The Shoreham roundhouse construction began in 1887, and various sections were added in the next 30 years.
During its intermittent construction, its style elements changed, and Gebhard and Martinson’s 1977 publication, A Guide
to the Architecture of Minnesota, described the structure as "the Prairie idiom applied to a railroad repair shop
building." Today, the arc of the roundhouse structure remains, in various states of disrepair, but only the outer concrete
rim of the turntable remains.
After a series of legal tussles between the property owners, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) and the City of Minneapolis,
the roundhouse was formally designated by the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission and approved by the City
Council in 2000, which was later challenged by CP in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The appeals court upheld Minneapolis’
action, and the designation has been sustained.
Can a uniquely shaped railroad roundhouse find re-use? Several roundhouses in England, Canada, Illinois and Georgia
have been converted into various arts, theater, multi-purpose banquet and entertainment centers.
For more information about the community meeting, call Kevin Carroll, CPED Senior Project Coordinator, at 612-673-5181.
Attend the community meeting on
Monday, September 24, 2007 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm
Columbia Manor
3300 Central Avenue NE
Minneapolis
Click here for a map.
(text: Bob Roscoe)
"Monster Home" Ordinance (09/08/07 to 09/18/07)
Did you know that the City of Minneapolis has passed a new ordinance to control the construction of new single-family
houses? In response to an increasing number of teardowns in southwest Minneapolis, City Councilmember Betsy Hodges
proposed a new ordinance, nicknamed the "Monster Home" Ordinance. The ordinance went through the public hearing process
and was unanimously approved by the city council. Mayor Rybak signed the ordinance on July 3, 2007. To read more about the
ordinance, click here. To view
an excellent presentation explaining the the former zoning controls and how the new controls will affect construction,
click here.
