A School on Stilts
Image courtesy World Monuments Fund.
The Phyllis Wheatley Elementary School in New Orleans looks like no other school anywhere else. Designed and built in 1955 by the architect Charles Colbert specifically for the historic African-American neighborhood of Tremé/Lafitte, the now-decrepit modernist glass box appears to float above the ground. Colbert managed to set back the columns needed to hold the building above flooding levels, creating dramatically cantilevered class rooms and an empty common area for the kids underneath. Huge windows let in plenty of sunlight, and kept the building surprisingly cool in hot and humid New Orleans. The building was celebrated for these features at the time, but fifty years of neglect and a hurricane have taken their toll. In July last year, the Recovery School District (RSD)—which works to rehabilitate underperforming schools in Louisiana—finally decided to tear the dysfunctional building down, and build a new school in its place by 2013.
A Plea For Modernism from Evan Mather on Vimeo.
The non-profit preservation group DOCOMOMO is up in arms against the move to demolish Phyllis Wheatley. The film above, made by Hand Crafted Films, presents their compelling argument for choosing adaptive re-use over demolition. For one, Phyllis Wheatley will soon be the only standing representative of 30 schools built in New Orleans during a wave of progressive modern architecture in the 1950s—destroying it will wipe out a significant period in local architectural history. In a neighborhood filled with Creole cottages, the school is undoubtedly an architectural landmark, but the students who studied there also formed a deep bond with their alma mater (in the film, alumna and actress Phyllis Montana-Leblanc touchingly insists on referring to the building as “she.”) The school’s passive ventilation and ability to weather floods make it a fine example of regional modernism, and show the potential for transforming it into a sustainable 21st century school.
Hands around Phyllis Wheatley, on 17th April. Photo: Thaddeus Zarse, courtesy DOCOMOMO Louisiana.
But the RSD’s decision wasn’t taken in a vacuum, of course. The first call to demolish Phyllis Wheatley was actually sounded way back in 2008, as part of a master plan created by the RSD with the Orleans Parish School Board and the planning consultants Concordia. Over 200 community meetings went into that plan. The RSD then commissioned a feasibility study which also recommended demolition, and a further five community meetings were held in the neighborhood of Tremé/Lafitte. Unfortunately, it appears the neighbors weren’t as enamored of their modernist icon. At a New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission (HDLC) hearing held on March 18, community members —including a teacher and the grandmother of a student—explained that the architecture had stopped working for them. The large windows actually let in too much sunlight, and years of neglect had made them unsafe. The cafeteria had no ventilation. But of all the things said at that HDLC hearing, the most illuminating was a complaint from Lona Edwards Hankins of the RSD:
“In 2008, when the Master Plan was announced, we met with DOCOMOMO and they said they were going to bring resources to bear to help us figure this out and that never came. So we had to come up with funds out of our pocket to spend money on the feasibility study because the challenge we had at that time was, if we spent money to study this, then that’s a roof I can’t replace on an active building. We didn’t have any of the funds. So the time has passed, as far as I’m concerned. My concern is about buildings for children to get them off the buses and reduce our operating costs. So, I don’t believe we can delay this process anymore.”
Image courtesy World Monuments Fund.
This is ultimately a story of neglect. Phyllis Wheatley’s windows once had shades and curtains (visible in the image above), so teachers could decide how much sunlight to let in. We can imagine how as budgets shrank, the curtains went first, then the windows grew grimy and maybe a couple of them cracked. The teachers didn’t like teaching there anymore, the kids weren’t happy either. The community and the school district began seeing the school as it is today, not as it could be. The preservationists who could have told them otherwise didn’t get involved until it was too late. And even then, they seemed to be seeing the building just as an architectural masterpiece, when the school was also a vital cog in the urban machine that had to be fixed speedily. This is a cycle of events we have seen before, with other modern buildings facing demolition. The tragedy of Paul Rudolph’s Riverview High School in Sarasota County comes most readily to mind. Preservation efforts ultimately failed to change the school board’s mind, and the masterpiece was razed to the ground—a fate that Phyllis Wheatley can hopefully still avoid.
What made Charles Colbert’s school such a success when it was built—and why it should be saved now—was that Colbert worked with local context while still seeing a vision of the future. That’s a lesson both sides of this preservation battle could learn from. DOCOMOMO sees a better fate for this school; they needed to engage earlier in the process with people on the ground, and change their minds. The RSD’s decision to demolish the school is the most practical solution, but it also seems like they gave up on a local icon without really acknowledging that the building might have the strength to weather the storm. Phyllis Wheatley Elementary School deserves to stand because it embodied a combination of pragmatism and hope, and we could use some of both now.
For more on historic preservation and modernist school buildings, we untangled the story of Paul Rudolph’s Riverview High School in our film, Site Specific: The Legacy of Regional Modernism.
UPDATE: Phyllis Wheatley Falls
If we love it, will it last?
Re-imagining Infrastructure: Part II
Getting to the (living) future… or 100% for all?
The Big Apple vs. the City of Lights
Lab Report: XXVIII
Something old, something new
Nine Lives of Green
Q&A: Nina Rappaport
Tough Love
Made in America
BACK TO TOP
This may be off the topic but lets revisit the first paragraph,”Colbert managed to set back the columns needed to hold the building above flooding levels,” Hint Colbert knew in 1955 that you design with flood levels in mind in New Orleans. Not saying this would have prevented the 2005 disaster but come on New Orleans!!! Smart design people!! MrCotain
Comment by Lance Moore — May 27, 2011, @ 3:32 pm
This truth behind the Wheatley building is that it was built quickly and cheaply during the baby boom era to avoid desegregation. It may be a fine example of mid-century architecture, but it was a poor excuse for a school even in the 50s. Young children had to go outside to get to restrooms and cafeteria. It doesn’t have a first floor for early childhood classrooms, so those babies had to be housed in trailers. Child in a wheelchair? Forget about it. The people who actually live in the neighborhood and have children want it gone and want a functional school building that serves children rather than tickling the fancies of architecture lovers.
Comment by Monique — May 27, 2011, @ 9:07 pm
The comment above is typical of what we’ve been hearing from the RSD, its consultants and sympathizers for over two years, and they are on the verge of winning. If Wheatley was inexpensive to build and served as a public school without any renovation from 1955 to 2005 is that a problem?
The racial argument is also illogical: why was designing a terrific neighborhood school in a historically African-American neighborhood bad? As Phyllis Montana-Leblanc stated, the kids loved to go outside! By the way, all of the new buildings at Tulane feature outdoor circulation as well.
This outstanding building is a prime candidate for renovation and addition into a campus appropriate to twenty-first century education.
Particularly since Katrina, New Orleans has been demolishing our heritage; let’s stop this extraordinary stupidity and wastefulness.
Comment by John P. Klingman — May 28, 2011, @ 4:09 pm
Why destroy this school when it could be renovated and repaired? An elevator for children in wheelchairs could be added as well as other updates. As a public school parent, I believe adaptive re-use is the answer. I’ve spoken with many of the neighbors and they would love to see the school repaired. STOP demolishing our city’s heritage! Didn’t Katrina destroy enough?! SAVE PHILLIS WHEATLEY SCHOOL!
Comment by NOLAmom — May 29, 2011, @ 3:48 am
Wheatley Test
RSD is committed to improving education via standardized testing, so here is a quiz:
1. Does the Wheatley School design of 1955 by Charles Colbert have significance?
A. This question is irrelevant. Why would anyone in New Orleans care about architectural significance?
B. Yes; it was nationally and internationally acclaimed and awarded for its appropriate climatic and structural innovations.
C. Maybe it did, but it is falling down although no engineering reports document this.
D. Yes, but it was completely flooded during Katrina proving this was a bad design.
2. What did the neighborhood children think of the School?
A. They hated a unique new building because it wasn’t desegregated.
B. They loved the building with its special appearance, great play spaces below and its openness above.
C. They were terrified of being so far above the ground.
D. They enjoyed the building more after the school system stopped proper maintenance and then left the building as a ruin for five years.
3. What are the opponents of demolition arguing for?
A. They want to recreate an obsolete 1950’s building that is too small and doesn’t meet current building codes.
B. They want to incorporate the elevated 1955 building as part of a new complex affording twenty-first century public school education.
C. They want to force children into a building without elevators or accessibility for the disabled so they will hate Modern Architecture.
D. It doesn’t matter: a “one size fits all” school is necessary for fairness.
4. What is the RSD arguing for?
A. A distinguished, progressive existing building on a school site should be demolished in favor of a generic structure; otherwise, children may develop values reflecting our diverse interests.
B. New Orleans’s architectural and cultural heritage is irrelevant to the education of her children.
C. As FEMA proposes, the architectural significance of a building that served three generations of students can be commemorated sufficiently with a plaque on the wall.
D. All of the above
5. Which statement most accurately reflects the cost difference between the opponents’ proposal and the RSD proposal?
A. The opponents’ proposal is ten times as high.
B. The opponent’s proposal is five times as high.
C. The opponents’ proposal is twice as high.
D. Within the margin of uncertainty, the proposals are similar in cost.
Comment by John P. Klingman — May 30, 2011, @ 10:43 pm
As a former school designer, non-profit director, and current state inspector for large buildings (including historic schools), I feel as if I’ve got a foot firmly planted in each argument. And indeed, nothing is so squirmy and contentious as deciding a school’s fate.
Current school requirements (especially on restrictive sites in urban areas) often grow beyond their former containers to where renovation is, unfortunately, cost-prohibitive. Which isn’t to say that good buildings should be razed. Such structures can be transformed into offices, residential facilities, or other uses with more flexible programs. But new ADA requirements, air-conditioning, asbestos/lead/mold remediation, data systems, etc. often makes retrofitting the equivalent of squeezing ten pounds of you-know-what into a nine-pound bag.
And just to squeeze in my own personal critique; I love the form and aesthetics of the Wheatley. But whenever I see large expanses of glass requiring a generous use of curtains, it always strikes me as the results of a soft-boiled ego hitting the brick wall of reality. Perhaps the former teachers who might’ve dealt with issues like glare, solar gain and the divided attentions of easily-distracted students could offer the best input.
Comment by shtrum — May 31, 2011, @ 1:12 pm
GOATstudio has a proposal that is gaining some traction: http://noherd.blogspot.com/
Comment by Colin Van — June 9, 2011, @ 2:22 pm
This is a failure of neither preservationists nor the school board nor architecture, but of a societal and political structure that allows public schools to suffer.
Truly, this is a sick society. No school, no matter the architecture, will survive if it is allowed to decay in the manner of this one.
Comment by Tom Young — July 8, 2011, @ 6:42 pm