Studebaker Engineering Building

[studebiker]

On a visit to South Bend earlier this fall I saw the now abandoned Studebaker Engineering Building. This 1920's vintage cast concrete structure looks like a structure that would be a good candidate for rehab considering it occupies a redevelopment site that is intended for use as a technical and design center; a use that is much the same as what it was used for 3/4th a century ago.

The 1920's Art Deco design and its basic floor plan looks like a natural for this type of use and I'm both surprised and disappointed that the only solution anyone can come up with is a wreaking ball. I know it’s a former Studebaker building and there is some left over baggage regarding the failure of the Studebaker manufacturing enterprise that once contributed so much to the local economy but all that is a long time ago and while the city of South Bend and you folks have done some excellent restoration and preservation projects I think there are some left over Studebaker era buildings that deserve more consideration for their intelligent rehab and reuse.

One advantage of course aside from what if it was cleaned up and restored would present a very attractive and distinctive facade (Think about a pair of big bronze looking Deco style lights washing those pilasters along with creative use of color!) and very usable spaces both inside and the courtyard would be look at how much less junk would be contributing bulk to some landfill somewhere. To rehab this structure preserving its Art Deco façade would make far more economic, cultural and environmental sense than to knock it down, transport it to the landfill and build a replacement.

This is something for Studebaker lovers who want to see this building preserved and who are in the South Bend area to do. The Website for the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides a forum for help and support for preserving historic buildings. One way to attract attention to the plight of a valued but endangered building is to contribute a photo of that building with a supporter holding a sign reading; “This place matters.” For more information go to http://www.preservationnation.org/ and click on the block labeled “This Place Matters!” have a look at what others are doing and what you can do.

You can also join the National Trust for Historic Preservation to support their efforts to preserve our cultural and built heritage and also maybe submit photos of other historic buildings you value like a local surviving Studebaker dealer building. Remember it’s not over until the building is a vacant lot.

[Skip Lackie]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But. For whatever reason, there has been a continuing reluctance by the city of South Bend to preserve or restore very much of anything remaining from the Studebaker era. Notable exceptions are the museum (which has obvious tourist value and still took 20 years to get established) and the Administration Building. In the early years, this reluctance was attributed to bitterness over the economic hit that South Bend took when Stude departed the city, but that explanation doesn't make much sense any more. Many of those in the city that are the most enthusiastic supporters of demolition weren't even born in 1963. Maybe the anti-Stude feelings were the catalyst, but now demolition has almost become a local religion. The city has made it clear for quite some time that it preferred empty lots to anything, no matter how potentially useful, left over from the Stude era. I hope the anti-demolition forces are successful, but they will have to be local in origin to have any impact.

[studebiker]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But. For whatever reason, there has been a continuing reluctance by the city of South Bend to preserve or restore very much of anything remaining from the Studebaker era. Notable exceptions are the museum (which has obvious tourist value and still took 20 years to get established) and the Administration Building. In the early years, this reluctance was attributed to bitterness over the economic hit that South Bend took when Stude departed the city, but that explanation doesn't make much sense any more. Many of those in the city that are the most enthusiastic supporters of demolition weren't even born in 1963. Maybe the anti-Stude feelings were the catalyst, but now demolition has almost become a local religion. The city has made it clear for quite some time that it preferred empty lots to anything, no matter how potentially useful, left over from the Stude era. I hope the anti-demolition forces are successful, but they will have to be local in origin to have any impact.

Redevelopment promoters normally want clear lots to develop. Rehabbing existing infrastructure takes a little imagination and there usually more profit for builders to demolish and build new. These folks aren't holding these views out of their desire for good citizenship or for that matter good urban planning values. As they say: "follow the money." It takes active citizens who care about their community and how the present relates to the past and the future and who will be there long after the redevelopment folks have created their resumes and moved on.

Here in my home town of Bakersfield Calif. the redevelopment director is a Riverside Calif. cast-off and at least to me appears to me to be most interested in resume building rather than holding any special concern for the city. I'm retiring here in place and she will try to move on. Our city manager who has no special love for me also has been floating his resume and almost got a job in a city in another state but when that fell through is continuing to stay to enjoy his lucrative contract here. Some activist friends and associates and I got the scheduled demolition stopped on several buildings with a combination of publicity that involved coverage by newspaper columnists, the paper itself in factual news stories about activities that without a little publicity would have slipped under the wire.

A local non-profit is now negotiating with the county for use and responsibility for one building that would have been demolished by now had we not acted, others have been adopted by local cities from the county getting them off the hook for their care and maintenance and a good mid century modern was saved because of a little publicity and exposure that some statements by the redevelopment agency about the building's condition and the practicality of reuse simply were not true.

Here in California we have an office of historic preservation that with out CEQA (California environmental Quality Act) that requires consideration of the historic and cultural value of man-built structures and sites before demolition can take place. This includes first American sites like grave and camp sites with remaining artifacts along with architectural artifacts from earlier times. St. Joseph County has a historic preservation commission http://www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/departments/SJCHP/index.htm and local citizens can attend their meetings and make the point that it's time to drop the anti-Studebaker bias and move on. Judge buildings by their cultural. historic and architectural merit.

In Indiana and St. Joseph County to have an effect on redevelopment polices it requires citizens to attend redevelopment agency meetings that by law are open to the public and speak up. Get the help of architects and engineers who can refute with facts the contention that threatened buildings need to be demolished for what ever reasons. No matter how you slice or dice it to save local heritage it requires active citizens. You can fight city hall and win.