A. 50 Monroe Street
Owner: Lawrence Guss et al, Ronald Cohen Management Co.
Address: 50 Monroe - IBM Building, built 1958-1959 and one of 9 urban renewal conservation buildings preserved in the City Center in the 1960s.
Application: DEM2006-00064 (Application for Demolition)
Planner Christensen identified the location of the building and noted that its original frontage was on East Montgomery Avenue before the Mid-City Urban Renewal Project. The reconfiguration of streets during urban renewal resulted in the building’s current frontage on a public park. She said that the stylistic source is International, inspired by architect Walter Gropius’ Bauhaus movement. The IBM Building was designed by Bethesda-based architect Stanley Arthur. Ms. Christensen showed photographs of each façade of the building, east and south entrance features, and some interior pictures. She also showed a 1959 photo of the building from the architect’s portfolio. Ms. Christensen read a listing of all of the records entered into public hearing record to date, including correspondence from citizens.
Ms. Christensen stated that staff did not find that the building met the test of exceptional significance necessary for a property less than 50 years of age. However, staff would likely find that it met the significance criteria if it were over the 50-year mark. Ms. Christensen stated that the building had all of its windows removed recently and put into storage but it is believed that they can be re-installed. Much of the building’s interior has been altered but the HDC does not have jurisdiction over building interiors. The site is severely compromised as it now only offers a public view of the less impressive vernacular north (rear) façade. The rear façade does not have the strings of window courses and yellow porcelain enamel panels that once made the building stylistically interesting and are hallmarks of Bauhaus design.
Ms. Christensen noted that, since the last public hearing, she had changed the staff recommendation on the architectural significance of the building to Not Exceptional rather than Low Significance because of the added criterion required for buildings less than 50 years of age. She said that the building is a late 1950s interpretation of its style in Rockville and locally innovative in its use of colored exterior panels and window strings on the façade. If it were more than 50 years old it would have met the architectural/design criteria in that it was a stylistic forerunner of mid-20th century architecture in Rockville. Stanley Arthur would not be considered a master as compared to Gropius and other modern masters who changed stylistic trends in the 20th century. He was, however, a respected, versatile and prolific architect who could be found significant locally as a designer of schools, institutions and offices that contributed to the built environment in the mid-century.
Staff also changed its opinion on the building’s historical/cultural significance from Low Significance to Not Exceptional, as the significance criteria for buildings less than 50 years old requires. The IBM Building was spared demolition during the urban renewal period because it was one of several buildings that were not within the footprint of the new mall and did not require demolition for that project. The IBM Building was new and in good condition at the time so it did not meet the standards for compensation. It is the last building to preserve frontage on the former East Montgomery Avenue, but the public view has been greatly reduced and the most distinctive features of the building are no longer visible from the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Hitchcock asked if something could be considered exceptional if it were not a prototype and Ms. Christensen replied that it could. Commissioner van Balgooy asked it if met the criteria of possessing high artistic values and Ms. Christensen responded that it was not exceptional. Mr. van Balgooy asked about the architectural styles of two other commercial buildings mentioned in an urban renewal era list included in the earlier briefing materials. Ms Christensen said that both of the buildings had been demolished and she was not able to find pictures of them that would indicate their styles.
Commissioner Hartranft asked it there was anything occurring in Rockville during the 1956-1959 period that would have any effect on what might have been built in one year versus three years later. This question was later addressed by Eileen McGuckian of Peerless Rockville.
Barbara Sears, attorney with Linowes and Blocher, represented the property owner. Ms. Sears referred to questions raised by the commissioners at the September meeting, including whether or not the building was a speculative building or built specifically for IBM. The applicant’s representative hired the firm EHT Traceries, Inc. to assist with additional research. Ms. Sears said that they also had some discussions with Peerless Rockville on ideas for commemorating the building within a redevelopment project. Ms. Sears introduced Laura Hughes, a senior Architectural Historian and Director of Research and Preservation at EHT Traceries, Inc. Her role was to provide a more complete context of 1950s-1960s office buildings as requested by the commissioners at the previous meeting.
Ms. Hughes said that she was guided by National Register Bulletin #22 in Traceries’ research which explains that buildings less than 50 years of age must meet the additional criterion of being exceptional. The research included a sampling of buildings, newspaper articles, and a windshield survey in Montgomery County to find buildings similar to 50 Monroe Place. This research led to the conclusion that 50 Monroe Street is one of many buildings in the county that were designed by respected modernist architects. It is not unique in having its structural skin exposed or in its use of porcelain enamel panels. Traceries found numerous other examples of buildings from the era with a similar appearance. This style was embraced by corporate America in the 1950s and it became a common new face for commercial buildings.
Stanley Arthur was one of many prolific and respected architects of the time, along with Chloethiel Woodard Smith and others. Traceries spoke with people who had been employed by his firm and found that Stanley Arthur had worked in Louisville and Cleveland before coming to the Washington DC metropolitan area. He had designed a variety of building types, including bus terminals that used the enamel panel design element.
Traceries also looked at other IBM buildings throughout the country. They found that 50 Monroe Place was a speculative building and that it was leased by IBM just prior to construction completion. The current facility in Gaithersburg eventually became the company’s true metropolitan area headquarters. Prior to completion of the Gaithersburg headquarters, IBM housed its employees in numerous Montgomery County locations.
As a comparison, Traceries described the 1966 DC public library that is the only building in DC designed by Mies van der Rohe and is currently under consideration now for historic designation. Ms. Hughes compared it to 50 Monroe in meeting the test of exceptional significance and felt that the former met the test as being the only example of a master architect and the latter did not meet the test.
Commissioner Hartranft asked how many buildings in the Traceries survey were in Rockville. Ms. Hughes replied that they had not concentrated on Rockville because City staff and Peerless Rockville were focusing primarily on Rockville buildings. Commissioner Moloney asked which of Stanley Arthur’s buildings were most representative of his work. Ms. Hughes said that his school designs probably were most representative because they showed some of his design innovation, although many of them have been altered. Commissioner van Balgooy asked if all of Traceries’ survey examples have porcelain enamel panels and glass curtain walls and whether that combination was common. Ms. Hughes responded that all of the examples had the glass curtain walls, but not all combined glass with porcelain enamel panels. She said that there are examples showing use of porcelain enamel panels from 1952-52 and several from 1956. Commissioner van Balgooy asked why Traceries had used the rear of the building (the view that people now see) in their photographs. Ms. Hughes answered that the photos accurately indicate that the most important features of the building are not readily visible from public view.
Ms. Sears concluded the applicant’s presentation by supporting the staff recommendation that the building not be recommended for historic designation, as it does not meet the criteria of exceptional significance. She offered to have one of their consultants present ideas for commemorating the building, possibly by retaining a portion of it. Commissioner Moloney said that his request at the last meeting was to present ideas for adaptive reuse of the existing building rather than ideas for commemorating the building. The HDC stated that they were still in the process of evaluating the building and would not hear ideas for commemoration at this time.
Eileen McGuckian, Executive Director of Peerless Rockville, provided more context for Rockville in the 1950s. She said that the 1950s was a decade of rebuilding. The economy was good and there was energy coming back to the homefront, citing the interstate highways system and other major post-war projects. The federal government was expanding and veterans were returning home, creating a need for more houses, schools and services. Montgomery County reaped many of the benefits because of its proximity to the federal government’s home base in DC. Rockville’s population increased by 238% during the 1950s and the land area increased through annexation. Rockville was an attractive location because of its easy access to DC provided by the Rockville Pike and Veirs Mill Road corridors, and later I-270. The eastern part of the City developed more quickly. Construction of the Rockville Bypass in 1951 had the effect of closing Baltimore Road off from the western half of the City. Residential development on the west side (Woodley Gardens, New Mark Commons, etc.) was stimulated by the construction of I-270. Industry moved from railroad areas to more outlying areas and federal agencies, such as NIST, relocated to the I-270 corridor. The City’s commercial area, which encompassed the location of 50 Monroe Street, was concentrated on Commerce Lane and Montgomery Avenue. This area was a mixture of Victorian houses, smaller buildings, reused barns and some 1920-1940s commercial buildings. During the 1950s, there were still several family-owned stores with residential apartments above them, eateries for the increasing number of lunchtime patrons, and several car dealerships. Modern shopping centers appeared in the late 1950s and 1960s. Congressional Plaza was established in 1959. These shopping centers took away from retail establishments in the downtown area and urban renewal soon followed. A survey of all properties in a 47-acre area was done prior to urban renewal and Peerless has obtained some of the appraisals and photographs from that era. Period newspaper photos of East Montgomery Avenue around 1960 and a 1930s postcard of North Perry Street were presented. Ms. McGuckian identified the additional urban renewal conservation buildings on Perry Street: the Oxley Building, the Kelly-Smith Building and the Rockville Firehouse in the 1930 postcard and the Abby Building and East Montgomery Avenue landmarks in the reproduced newspaper photos.
Ms. McGuckian addressed Commissioner Hartranft’s earlier question about significant events that may have occurred between the mid- and late 1950s that might have influenced architecture. She said that there was really nothing unusual during that time period that set things apart, but rather that the entire decade was a period of strong growth and expansion.
Dr. Terry Lachin, Peerless Rockville, discussed Stanley Arthur’s career and work. She agreed with earlier statements that Mr. Arthur was a prolific and versatile architect. She said he designed a variety of buildings in the metropolitan area, primarily in Bethesda and Chevy Chase. His work in Rockville was during the 1959-1971 time period. Dr. Lachin showed other examples of Stanley Arthur’s buildings, including the Bethesda Medical Building (1955) which has a similar scale to 50 Monroe; the Vaughn Building in Bethesda (1956) which has similar yellow porcelain enamel panels as those on 50 Monroe.
Dr. Lachin said that Stanley Arthur was born in 1912 in Louisville, Ky. and received a bachelor’s degree in architecture at the University of Illinois. After working in Louisville and Cleveland, he opened his own firm in Bethesda in 1951. His work was diverse and included residences in Ocean City, schools, country clubs, Safeway supermarkets, Greyhound bus terminals and parking garages. Dr. Lachin stated that 50 Monroe Street was Mr. Arthur’s most architecturally daring building and it was the largest office building in Rockville at the time.
Stanley Arthur was commissioned by the Mayor and Council of Rockville to design the Rockville Civic Auditorium in 1960, which has since been substantially altered. In 1964, he designed the campus style facility for the Unitarian Church. In 1969, he designed Maryvale Elementary School (formerly Southlawn Elementary) that is largely unchanged. Mr. Arthur designed Wootton High School in 1970. It recently underwent a major renovation. In 1971, he was the architect for the Rockville Regional Library. He retired in 1978.
Commissioner van Balgooy said that the election of 1954 transformed the City and that there was, in fact, a significant difference between 1949 Rockville and 1959 Rockville. He added that there were several large buildings constructed in Rockville in 1959, along with the IBM Building. He said that the 1950s did appear to present a watershed time period for the City.
Dr. Lachin agreed that the construction of the IBM Building did signal the connection of Rockville to a larger and more sophisticated world. The City had a newfound connection to the international world through its IBM corporate connection. In that same year, the courthouse got a new wing and it was a banner year of commercial architecture. The Georgian Revival building at 22 West Jefferson, the Abbey Building on North Perry Street, and the Brown Building were all built in 1959. The IBM Building was the most sophisticated of all the buildings that were built that year.
Commissioner Moloney asked Dr. Lachin for her opinion about which of Stanley Arthur’s works were his best examples. She replied that Maryvale Elementary School, the Rockville Library (mostly because of its complex siting) and the Bethesda Medical Building were his best works in Montgomery County.
After hearing from all who wished to speak, Chair van Balgooy closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Commissioner Hartranft quoted from the Maryland Historical Trust form to show that 50 Monroe Place does have cultural significance, in that it reflected corporate America at the time and that the building signaled that Rockville was part of the larger Washington, DC metropolitan area. She disagreed with earlier statements that the visual interest of the building is out of public view. She said that it is easy to see the front of the building from the park which is itself a remnant of East Montgomery Avenue. Commissioner Hartranft said that she did not believe that the fact that the building is slightly less than 50 years old should prevent it from being found significant because there were no major architectural shifts in the City during the three-year period from 1956-1959. Ms. Christensen stated that her recommendation was based on the National Register criteria that provided examples of exceptional importance such as Graceland in Memphis.
Eileen McGuckian noted that the Peerless Rockville Board did not find the building at 50 Monroe Place met the criteria of exceptional significance for a site less than 50 years old.
Seeing no other citizens wanting to testify, Chairman van Balgooy offered the last word to the owner’s representative, Barbara Sears. Ms. Sears said that she hoped the HDC would agree with the staff and Traceries conclusions that the building is not of exceptional significance and importance to Rockville.
Chairman van Balgooy closed the record of the public hearing portion of the record. He noted that the time was now near 10 p.m. and asked the commission if it wanted to continue or defer its decision to the next meeting. The commission wanted to continue the official business and postpone the discussion items. Chairman van Balgooy then asked the HDC to go through the list of criteria and state if the building could be an exceptional example.
After a great deal of discussion on the issue of local versus national exceptional importance, the HDC found that a site could be found to be exceptionally significant or important locally and was not required to be exceptional on a national level. The commission found that it exemplified the cultural economic, social, political or historic heritage of the County and Rockville as a definitive point signaling the break between Rockville as a traditional rural County Seat and Rockville as an urban city that reflected international style.
In addition, under architectural and design significance, the building was found to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction in its exceptional and unusual use of the glass and porcelain panel curtain wall on three sides, that it was the most sophisticated building in Rockville to that date, exhibiting an international style and attracting a forward-looking, high technology international firm in IBM. As for its integrity, the building was found to be substantially unaltered but the original site and setting had changed. The site was found to be locally significant.
Commissioner Hartranft said that although Peerless did not support the designation, the language in Dr. Lachin’s history used superlatives to describe the building, stating that it was the last building on East Montgomery Avenue, and stating that it signaled that Rockville had become a part of the D.C. metropolitan area, and was no longer a small suburban town.
Commissioner Moloney said the building characterized a period of critical transformation in Rockville. Commissioner Powell concurred with both commissioners.
Commissioner Hartranft also noted that she disagreed that the building was not visible to the public, it can be seen both from Monroe Park and from Monroe Street and it is correctly stated to be the last remnant of East Montgomery Avenue. She cited passages from the MHT history that of the five modern buildings constructed in 1959 in Rockville, this one was the most “architecturally daring” and “sophisticated.”
Chairman van Balgooy noted that exceptional was often put in terms of “first, last, best, or only.” He said the building was the first example in Rockville of this international style and the only one left of this period of transformation of its quality. He also noted that it was exceptional in design as most structures shown of this type had only the front glazed with panels and glass while this one had three facades. It was also the largest office building constructed in Rockville up to 1959. He concurred that it met the test for exceptional.
Commissioner Hitchcock concurred.
MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved, seconded by Commissioner Hitchcock, to find the building at 50 Monroe Place eligible for designation as exceptional to the history and architecture of Rockville and recommend it to the Mayor and Council as eligible for historic designation. [The HDC directed staff to prepare a draft of the motion that includes the findings for final approval at the December 15, 2005 meeting.]
VOTE: 5-0
