Art-deco ditched: Mauled façade to get historic treatment
Write a letter to the editor
The approved design for the façade of the former Victory Shoe store is a victory for the circa 1921 original façade.PHOTO COURTESY GALVIN ARCHITECTS
Last November, city officials called the un-permitted demolition of the art-deco inspired façade of the former Victory Shoe Store on the Downtown Mall ‘inexcusable,’ the unique curved glass panels destroyed ‘irreplaceable,’ and sought to fine property owner Joe Gieck and force him to rebuild what was destroyed. Outraged Architectural Review Board members called it a “big loss” and an “extremely unique, and a special part of the Mall.” And that was nothing compared to how a family member of the original owners felt.
“It has made me so sick, I can’t tell you what it has done to us,” said Ethel Crowe, whose Russian immigrant grandparents, Isaac and Freda Kobre, opened the store at 219 West Main Street in 1921.
While the City’s Attorney’s office has yet to make a decision about levying a fine, the BAR has changed course and approved a new façade design that looks nothing like the one that was destroyed.
Has an un-permitted demolition led, ironically, to a more historically accurate façade?
When Gieck and property manager Bill Rice faced the BAR during the debacle, they pointed out that the demolished façade wasn’t original to the building, that it had actually been added in 1947 and altered several times since then. BAR members gave them two options: put back what they took out or come back with a design proposal that better captures the 1921 original.
After that confrontation, Gieck hired local architect Kathy Galvin and former city planner Ashley Cooper to craft a design proposal. The two researched the history of the store-front and determined that re-creating the 1921 façade was actually the more appropriate choice.
“The original 1921 façade actually fits in better with the Mall, if you look at it,” says Cooper.
The circa 1947 art deco renovation of the façade was a familiar image on the Downtown Mall…HISTORIC PHOTO
“Along the block, the Victory Shoe store building was the “odd one out,” says Galvin, “and we weren’t just rationalizing. Keeping that curved glass design became debatable as time went on.”
Galvin says that a re-creation of the curved glass façade would have been cost-prohibitive, but more importantly, she says, it would not have been true to the original.
Still, Cooper admits that taking the job involved “navigating a delicate situation.” As the destruction caused plenty of hurt feelings, Cooper led off with an apology before their February 16 presentation to the BAR.
“This was painful on one level,” says Galvin, “but an opportunity on another. The challenge was to convey [to the BAR] that we were earnest in creating an appropriate façade after the mistake that was made.”
For example, Galvin points out that there was a large false wall above and behind the awning on the building, made of thin wood, where there was once a row of glass panels. Indeed, over the façade of nearby Escafé, one sees a similar pattern of windows. The new store-front will also echo other classic Mall store-fronts, like the one at New Dominion Bookshop.
…until it was suddenly demolished over the weekend of November 7 last year.FILE PHOTO BY DAVE MCNAIR
Clearly, BAR members were impressed by the presentation, as Chair Fred Wolf, who had originally suggested that replacement of the art-deco store-front was the only solution, admitted he was impressed with the amount of research and historic detail in the presentation.
Still, while the re-creation of the 1921 façade might make good design sense, wasn’t the unique 1947 art-deco modification the thing that everyone was so upset about losing? The point’s not lost on BAR member and Preservation Piedmont president Eryn Brennan.
“Approving this façade doesn’t diminish the outrage I feel about demolishing a historic storefront on the Downtown Mall,” says Brennan. “The demolished facade was the better facade because it was the historic facade— and it is lost forever, which is a tragedy.”
As Brennan points out, whatever is put in its place, whether it is a 1920s facade or a 1940s facade, it’s a reconstruction. Brennan would have preferred— though she concedes it’s unrealistic— to see the building stabilized and the façade left bare.
“As a reminder that this historic moment is gone forever,” she says, “and that everyone pays the price when a property owner flagrantly disregards protective measures put in place by its own community.”
The new tenant plans on opening a frozen yogurt shop, says Galvin. Construction on the new façade is scheduled to begin sometime in April, and should be completed in the earlier summer.
What of the fine, did that ever happen? If not, why?
Somebody,– tear down that tacky, 60’s Central Fidelity thing. It was ugly then, and it would take a corrupt politicians to allow for it to be re-used today.
What’s the point of all these ordinances if you aren’t going to enforce them . I agree, what about the fine? We need to make people, like Joe Gieck, pay a substantial sum to discourage others from doing this-they know better.
Even if there isn’t a fine it has cost the owner plenty by sitting empty for all these months. Getting the right design is more important. The next owner who thinks that losing 6-8 months rent is a significant hit will view this as a cautionary tale to be sure
Careful St. Halsey, using your brain is frowned upon around here.
I agree with Ms Brennan, that Mr Gieck should have been made to restore what he destroyed. While I understand what the BAR is trying to do here, they run the risk of being seen as too wishy-washy. That’s the last thing we need need in a town full of “intellectual hatin’” black & white thinking property rights nuts.
I suspect this was a difference of opinion between preservationists and designers. Property owners know they have a good chance of going before the BAR and coming away with a soft tap on the wrist. There needs to be a predictably hard fine and immediate restoration of facade. Every single time.
Your chance of getting away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist is much greater if you hire someone with inside connections like “former city planner Ashley Cooper.” That’s a cynical move on Geick’s part. This should be followed closely by anyone who wants to see how things really work around here.
If adults get away with destruction of property, you send a powerful message to kids. There needs to be a significant fine for this behavior.
So the project getting tied up for months didn’t cost enough for you? This, even if the owner is “wrong,” has gone on too long and a large fine now would seem like double jeopardy almost. Maybe if the controls on businesses downtown weren’t so tight there wouldn’t be so many empty stores. I can think of one that would probably be open right now…
Jim, there would have been nothing to “drag on so long” had Mr Gieck not destroyed the facade of the building with malice aforethought. Blame the perpetrator, not the governing body that has to help clean up the mess he made.
CC, point taken regarding Ashley Cooper. But there’s enough conflict of interest among the BAR members alone to insure that their decisions will always be toothless. Architects aren’t going to be too brave if they’re worrying about their future commissions from business owners and developers.
Hazel,
I see your point but that’s not where my argument stems. I’m sure that given hindsight the facade never would have been destroyed. But he has paid plenty for doing it, and is definitely an example of a good reason not to jump the gun altering any facade downtown. That cautionary tale to future downtown business owners is well documented. It seems it would be in the best interest of most of us not having arguments about it on the internet to get it over with as quickly as possible.
There is no doubt that the BAR involvment plays a significant role whenever any business considers opening up downtown. It also plays a big role whenever anyone is thinking of buying real estate there also.
THe board should strive to appear MORE than fair and transpaerent in all its dealings.
Jim, there were plenty of cautionary tales already, but that didn’t stop someone from destroying a protected facade. The biggest problem with those cautionary tales is that they didn’t have subplots speaking of very much pain on the part of people who chose to outfox the process. We can hope, but I doubt this one will be any different.
confused,
Like what? I’m not being a smart arse, I just can’t recall any in 10-15 years that caused this much of an outrcy.
There was the front of the building that is now the Paramount. Lee Danielson let that one fall down and got a slap but nothing more.
In 2002, there was a well publicized discussion of the brown paint that was to be applied to the exterior of Fellini’s. No fine if I recall, but that discussion surely didn’t escape the notice of anyone owning property downtown and it would be clear from that that there were rules that would apply to facade removal.
The destruction of the building that used to house Back Alley Disk on Main Street led to a small fine despite both it’s age and its association with an important local architect. Floyd Johnson I think, can’t recall for sure, nothing to remember it by anymore. Just a slap again. It was done without a permit and hastily, just like the Victory facade. I’m sure others can join in with their memories.
At least the Victory Shoe Store didn’t go down in a suspicious fire, which has provide a few opportunities for redevelopment around here. Some buildings, like the one to the left of Miller’s on the Mall, almost certainly wouldn’t be what they are today if good ole dumb luck, or something like that, hadn’t opened up some development opportunities. Moore’s Lumber on Carlton was another one of those.
Dumb me, not the Paramount, the Regal. Don’t know what I was thinking there and of course I only noticed as my post popped up.