Still Modern After All These Years
Groups of 1950-ish Modernist buildings usually mean Corbusian-style autotopias of heroic proportions (New York’s Empire State Plaza in Albany comes to mind). Plymouth Circle on Madison, Wisconsin’s leafy west side proves the opposite. Here, perched above a sea of generic bi-levels is a collection of, can we say “nifty”, yet modest, Mid-Century Modern homes with a distinctively local pedigree. More than just a collection of rare houses, the neighborhood represents something almost existential: a decades-ago marriage of enlightened consumerism and environmental ethics. So is this suburbanism as it was always meant to be—light on the land, lighter still on the ranch dressing?
The houses, some 35 of them in all, were built between 1952 and 1959. Most are roughly 1,200 square feet in size. The project was the brainchild of a high-minded land speculator of whom very little is known today except that he had a thing for modern architecture and what has lately become known as context-sensitive design. Instead of the houses being isolated in space, as with so many other specimens of the genre, they are etched snugly into small wooded lots creating a green-fringed gallery of styles ranging from neo-Prairie to Bauhaus-inspired ranchettes. Deed restrictions were placed on the lots mandating contemporary design and the preservation of prominent land features.
The neighborhood stands as a synthesis of the converging philosophies on architecture and the natural world that had coalesced in central Wisconsin during the early to mid 1950s. Many of these ideals were embodied in the work of famed area denizen Frank Lloyd Wright himself. This was the tail end of Wright’s Usonian period and its celebration of the ascetic. It was also the early beginnings of America’s first environmental movement many of whose forbearers, including the naturalists John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and Senator Gaylord Nelson, all had a strong connection to the area. Together, they exerted a major influence in shaping a local land ethic that the neighborhood strongly channels.
Although Wright himself had no direct involvement with Plymouth Circle, many of the homes were designed by several of his student-apprentices at his nearby studio in Spring Green, WI. And while none of them ever attained the same level of renown as other Wright disciples, a few did become recognized as main stalwarts of the Wrightian style.
So why should we care about this place now? Well, for one it disproves that front porches are a prerequisite for neighborhood conviviality as some in the planning world seem to think. Here, it seems, social capital is reflected in subdued expressions of shared values rather than through affected, smiley-faced architecture. The Priuses (yes, there are many) are discreetly parked under carports or in underground “bat-cave” garages.
Second, the homes debunk the notion that the entire post-war suburban landscape, much of it now endangered through age and poverty, is all scorched-earth architecturally speaking. The stylings of these particular houses gave rise to a regional vernacular aesthetic that, bastardized though it has been, still exerts a strong influence among local architects and tastemakers. The same probably can be said of much surviving California Modernism.
Finally, the neighborhood represents an early model of green construction when that meant a general sympathy to the land and before today’s obsession with materials and technologies. Plymouth Circle reminds us that some of the most basic green design principals are also some of the simplest and least expensive ones.
As much a cultural timepiece as architectural curio, Plymouth Circle was built at a moment when a few began to think differently about their lifestyles, consumption behavior, and the environment. Times not unlike our own. So could it stand-up as a model for suburban living in the post recession era? “The New Suburbanism” anyone?
Greg Flisram is a Wisconsin-based planning consultant and writer specializing in urban revitalization and redevelopment. He is a Principal-Affliate with the Kendig Keast Collaborative in Chicago and has worked on urban regeneration projects throughout the U.S. He can be reached on Facebook or at flisram@sbcgobal.net
Political Hardball: Part 2 Updated
Remembering Frank Lloyd Wright’s Bijou
It’s Show and Tell Time for Building Product Manufacturers
Q&A: Kevin Shanley
Political Hardball: Part 2
SOM and CASE Invent a New Interface
A New Humanism: Part 18
The Green Team Part 13: Game, Sett, Match
On the Road with the Rudy Bruner Award: The Steel Yard - Providence, RI
Designing from Nature
BACK TO TOP
I grew up in a similar house…and love them.
But I gotta say…a flat roof in the northern midwest looks cool, but is just plain a bad idea.
Comment by Anne — May 4, 2011, @ 11:33 am
Great article! As a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright, it is spelled: Usonian not Usionan!
Comment by Susan — May 5, 2011, @ 10:38 am
We’ve made the correction. Thanks!
Comment by Avinash Rajagopal — May 5, 2011, @ 11:48 am
The house with the coral doors is mine! How lucky that a neighbor saw this article and told everybody else. Yes, flat roofs are problematic, but the style inside is worth little things like that.
Comment by Nancy Rathke — May 5, 2011, @ 12:01 pm
I have visited friends who live behind the red doors - the house is lively and inviting, as are the owners! Here in Maine we have nothing like this…
Comment by Gene — May 5, 2011, @ 1:45 pm
This model of development which, except for the heights of the buildings themselves, is identical to a “Corbusian-style autotopia” as both foster dependency on the automobile and both favor inward-focused style. Even if a resident of Plymouth Circle wished to get just a cup of coffee on foot, they’d need to invest quite a bit of time to walk the 1.5 miles round trip. If they needed anything else (there’s not much available in the neighborhood), they’d need to walk much farther. And this would need to be during the four or five months of good weather. I doubt that these folks walk beyond their happy circle. If modernity is to acknowledge the time and place that we’re in, then it must acknowledge the reality of energy use and its effects. A resident living here would need (1) a vehicle, (2) lots of fuel for their vehicle, and apparently (3) lots of money to fix the leaks from roofs that were designed for a much dryer climate. This is hardly an example of “enlightened consumerism” or “environmental ethics”. This is not environmentally, economically, or socially sustainable. It’s just smiley-faced architecture, but without the smiles.
Comment by Christopher — May 5, 2011, @ 2:25 pm
I’ve found flat roofs to be a blessing. Properly done there is a slight pitch of course, so water does not accumulate. But the lack of valleys, troughs, overlapping shingles and seams - none of which stand up well to the freeze and thaw cycles in upper Midwest winters, makes for a low maintenance roof. Also, a flat roof is much easier to maintain without the perils of doing the work while standing on ladders or a steeply sloped roof surface.
Comment by Kort — May 5, 2011, @ 3:01 pm
Christopher,
I don’t disagree with most of your points re: sustainability, inward etc.; however if we are forced to accept that a certain (large) portion of the population will never choose to live above the storefront as most of us planners would like them to, then does PC work as a more benign model of suburban development than 99.9% of the drivel that has been built in the post WWII era? I think it probably does. Note the unabashed use the term “suburbanism”. I’m not suggesting that this is the optimal way to develop. However, i also don’t think that PC is any more suburban than most NU developments.
BTW there is a great coffee shop and tavern within a few blocks walk.
PS: not a lot of fuel needed since everyone has a hybrid!
Comment by Greg Flisram — May 5, 2011, @ 6:27 pm
It is true that previous flat roofs were problematic with ice, snow, freezing, thawing, and deluge rainstorms. We have replaced the tar roofing with a polyurethane coated 35 mil polyester fabric used for pond liners. Rather than gluing the joints, all seams are heat welded and provide an impervious roof coating until a branch or some other thing punctures the membrane. Repair is simple with a heat gun welded patch.
Recent hail storms have not affected the roof.
As we become accustomed to rising fuel costs, perhaps more people will use their feet or other environmentally friendly means of traveling.
Comment by Fred — May 5, 2011, @ 8:45 pm
Loved the photos and article showing my childhood friend’s home. We have a very similar small area of homes nestled in a woodsy, ravine area in Worthington, Ohio. These homes could be considered “cousins” to those in Madison!!
Comment by Sally — May 6, 2011, @ 10:00 am
I grew up in one of the houses pictured. It’s true there’s not many businesses in the immediate vicinity, but we did walk and bike many, many places, especially those of us who were not old enough to drive. As for driving habits/energy consumption practices on Plymouth Cir., it’s probably more than someone who lives in a downtown condo, which is to be expected, though not any more than almost madison neighborhood, and substantially less than suburban commuters who drive 45, 60, 90 minutes or more from the awful suburbs of Chicago (where I used to live) or New York City (where I now live). I can say from personal experience, Plymouth Circlers are indeed “enlightened” when compared to Napervillains or Long Islanders.
Comment by Nick — May 6, 2011, @ 10:56 am
Aesthetically, Plymouth Circle is beautiful. I do admire how the forms are tucked into the landscape, and so it’s more pleasing to look at than typical suburban design. It’s the development pattern that I don’t think should be held up as a model for the future. The coffee shop and tavern at the corner of Mineral Point Rd and Glenway St are great assets, but they are isolated and over a mile round trip from the center of Plymouth Circle. All other trips require a car, which requires fuel. Any model that requires a personal vehicle and fuel for 99% of trips (suburbia) won’t hold up to the future American challenges of energy and mobility. The modern American reality demands freedom of choice, and this model offers only one option: the personal car.
Comment by Christopher — May 6, 2011, @ 1:09 pm
My brother just moved into this neighborhood on Plymouth Circle and I immediately thought “Frank Lloyd Wright” when he sent me a photo of his new house. He loves it there! He even has his own bomb shelter (popular in the 50’s). Very interesting article!
Comment by Scott — May 6, 2011, @ 9:23 pm
As the owner of one of the houses pictured, I have to comment that Christopher’s postings ignore the fact that this neighborhood is within a 2 minute bike ride of one of the most extensive bike path systems in the country. This mode of commuting is used extensively in our area and neighborhood. Furthermore, the city buslines run within a block of the neighborhood in one direction, and 5 blocks in the other. Finally, many of the neighborhood inhabitants live within walking distance of campus where they work.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2011, @ 9:52 pm
I live in one of the PC homes and do not frequent the tavern or coffee shop just a few blocks away, but I will disagree with Christopher’s statement that “all other trips require a car.” That simply is not true. A walk to Whole Foods Market is easy; one may even get there by way of a beautiful path through a city park. I recently walked to Hilldale Mall, which has many shops, restaurants, barber and hairdresser, a large supermarket, a new Target, and a farmer’s market twice-weekly beginning in late spring and continuing on into the fall. Even if Christopher wants to argue that most PC residents would not make this walk, many of us also use bicycles and have access to the University and our downtown within minutes via a beautiful bike path. One more option: we are on metro bus lines.
Comment by Sue H. — May 7, 2011, @ 10:04 am
I too live in one of the homes. My spouse and I walk or bike the 2.2 miles to our offices on the UW campus every day; and every Saturday I walk the 1.5 miles to my exercise class. We don’t walk to get groceries but not driving to work every day and not driving our child to school (we are within walking distance of the high school) substantially reduces our dependence on automobiles. We became a one car family 10 years ago and have seldom missed having a second car.
Comment by Leann T. — May 9, 2011, @ 7:19 am
One other fuel-saving asset of the neighborhood is the shade provided by all of the mature trees. Our home does not have air conditioning. We get through most summer days and nights without breaking a sweat thanks to our screened porch and “ground level” family room.
Comment by Leann T. — May 9, 2011, @ 8:18 am
love them all! I want one of the owners to adopt me :O)
Comment by ed — May 9, 2011, @ 2:14 pm
Am i missing something or does the author just say these are green homes and give no rational for them being “green”? Pretty? Yes. Architectually significant? Yes. Green? Why?
Comment by patrick — May 10, 2011, @ 9:16 am
They’re green in the simple sense that many of them are correctly oriented to the sun allowing for passive solar gain. They are also relative small by today’s housing standards and were built with locally abundant materials. Most were sited and designed to minimize the need for significant site reengineering, and to minimize the loss of trees and other vegetation.
Comment by Greg Flisram — May 11, 2011, @ 12:57 am
Regarding Christopher’s negative comments … I live near Plymouth Circle & I walk all the time to the NEARBY post office, bank, pharmacy & coffee shops! Great exercise! I love the neighborhood!
Comment by Susan — May 11, 2011, @ 9:30 am
Regarding my “negative” comments… It’s great that some people walk and bike. The nearby bus route(s) would be an asset only if the Metro Transit bus system had decent connectivity. It does not. A three mile round trip (post office) or a four-to-five mile round trip commute (UW) isn’t realistic for many people (elderly, disabled, children, anyone who doesn’t bike, etc.). This neighborhood may work for some people, but any “model” should consider all members of our society (not just those able to walk or bike these distances), and it should be able to be replicated in the “post recession era” in such a way that it addresses the modern challenges that we face (energy). I’m not convinced that this “model” does that. It’s getting there, I’ll give you that.
Comment by Christopher — May 11, 2011, @ 7:05 pm
I live near Plymouth Circle. I was in the Ag Economics Program at the UW in the 80’s. Professor Sydney Staniforth (now deceased) told me that this was his project — he owned the land and held on to it for many years and made lots of money when he developed it. his widow, Euna, still lives in their house on Plymouth Circle.
Comment by Cindy — September 4, 2011, @ 8:07 pm