Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Daniel M.

Abramson
Obsolescence: Notes towards a history
(2003)

Word Count: 2816

Source: As republished in Kiel Moe and Ryan E. Smith, eds., Building Systems: Design
Technology and Society (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 159-169. Originally published in
Praxis: Journal of Writing + Building, no. 5, "Architecture after Capitalism," 2003, pp.
106-112.

The Austrian economic historian Joseph Schumpeter in 1942 offered this classic
definition of capitalism, based upon the study of American heavy industry:

That incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly


destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative
Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in
and what every capitalist concern has got to live in.1

In American architecture, near the time when Schumpeter arrived in the United
States, H. H. Richardson's famous Marshall Field Wholesale Store (Chicago, 1884-1886),
only forty-four years old, tumbled in 1930 beneath the wrecker's ball, to be replaced by a
parking lot. In Chicago again, two years earlier, another pioneering modern structure, the
steel-frame Tacoma Building by Holabird & Roche (1887-1888), met a similar fate at the
age of forty-one, replaced by a taller skyscraper. These demolished landmarks and others
in the central business districts of Chicago, New York, and other American downtowns
had been generally unaffected by the normal physical wear and tear of depreciation.
Instead, they passed into functional and, most importantly, financial obsolescence from
external "causes outside the physical condition of the building itself," unable to produce
maximum profits for their capitalist owners.2 The loss of these buildings and the issue of
obsolescence generated considerable study in the first decades of the last century.
Defining obsolescence's difference from physical depreciation, the accountant Joseph
Klein explained in 1922:

Obsolescence, on the other hand, connotes much more sudden and uncertain
displacements or losses in value ... we think of it as resulting in destruction of
values due not to physical uselessness, but rather to decreased worth predicated
on a comparison of the greater efficiency of new devices over older ones.3

The fates of the lost buildings, alongside Klein's definition of obsolescence


emphasizing economic worth, "efficiency," and "sudden and uncertain ... destruction of
values," recall Schumpeter's definition of capitalism as a "process of Creative
Destruction." Indeed, it is possible that the visible churning of the American urban built
environment at the moment of the emigre's arrival shaped his theorizing upon capitalism's
fundamental process of change. Obsolescence as a paradigm for comprehending and
managing change—based upon principles of innovation, competition, measurable
performance, supersession, and expendability—may be said to be the capitalist model of
development par excellence: a ceaseless process of production, consumption, discarding,
and reinvestment. Under obsolescence in a capitalist economy, buildings come to be
perceived as income-producing commodities with finite life spans, to be erected,
destroyed, and replaced in tempo with capitalism's chaotic "Creative Destruction." Yet as
central as obsolescence may be to understanding architecture under capitalism, there has
been no study of the early-twentieth-century origins of the discourse of obsolescence.
Nor has obsolescence's general relevance to twentieth-century architectural design and
theory been much explored, despite obsolescence's thematic presence in work as varied
as the extreme flexibility of Archigram's Plug-in City or Louis Kahn's poeticizing his
buildings as ruins.4

The analysis of obsolescence

The early-twentieth-century discourse on obsolescence aimed in part to explain


the unexpected demolition of a series of late-nineteenth-century commercial structures. In
New York the sixteen-story Gillender Building at the prominent corner of Wall and
Nassau Streets came down in 1910 after a mere fourteen years of life.
In Chicago the Women's Christian Temperance Union Temple (1890-1891,
Burnham & Root) fell in 1926, the Tacoma Building (1887-1888) in 1929, the Marshall
Field Wholesale Store (1884-1886) in 1930, and the Home Insurance Building (1884-
1885, W. B. Jenney) in 1931. Each of these major losses occasioned a study of the
demolished building's obsolescence published by the Chicago-based National
Association of Building Owners and Managers (NABOM).5 Surveying in 1930 the
dramatic overall impact of obsolescence in New York and Chicago's central business
districts, NABOM asserted that there were few if any buildings over forty years of age
left on Lower Broadway near Wall Street, and that "practically the entire Loop district of
Chicago had been rebuilt twice" since the Fire of 1870, and much of it three or four times
over.6 The results of NABOM's obsolescence studies were widely disseminated in the
architectural and popular press, being seen of general importance to understanding
contemporary architectural and urban developments.7 Additionally, the pioneering book-
length study of obsolescence, preceding NABOM's efforts, entitled Building for Profit:
Principles Governing the Economic Improvement of Real Estate, by the New York
engineer Reginald Pelham Bolton, went through three editions between 1911 and 1922.
The analysis of obsolescence aimed above all at understanding the causes of
commercial buildings' "financial decay," as Bolton wrote—"the progressive deterioration
of the earning capacity of buildings."8 Already in 1911 Bolton was able to identify a list
of key factors: "the influence of fashion, change of habit, competition, development of
new territory and shifting of the centers of population and business, altering of lines of
transit."9 Other factors identified by Earle Shultz's 1922 NABOM building owner survey
included changes in district character, newer buildings with better services, inadaptable
interior layouts, and neighboring buildings blocking light and air.10 The specific building
studies of the late 1920s and early 1930s substantiated these general analyses.
Richardson's Marshall Field Wholesale Store suffered already in the 1890s in its Midwest
wholesale trade from the competition of chain and mail order stores. Then the building
itself proved inadaptable to more profitable retail use due to Richardson's high six-foot
masonry base (which could not accommodate sidewalk-level storefront windows and
entrances) and to sagging interior floors caused by incomplete understanding in the 1880s
of the necessary depth for the foundations. As the engineer John Robert observed in
1930, "The Marshall Field Wholesale building was obsolete probably ten years after it
was completed."11 The Tacoma office building fell in 1929 due to a different combination
of factors, which included inflexible interior arrangement stymied by load-bearing, wind-
bracing walls; unstylish and inefficient lighting fixtures; and a "general atmosphere of
antiquity." But, explained the engineer Paul Holcombe, "probably the most notable
instance of obsolescence in the Tacoma Building was the elevator equipment," which was
too small, too slow, and open at the top and so dropped grease on passengers.12
Ultimately, the accumulation of obsolete parts in the Tacoma Building proved simply too
expensive too fix, and so "although the building was earning an adequate return on the
investment ... the return figuring present values of the property was very small."13 In
other words, an antiquated building underexploited a lucrative site.
As Holcombe's last observation indicates, a building's site appeared to represent
the key factor in its obsolescence. Shultz concurred: "Office building rents are, in the last
analysis, determined by the building's strategic location with regard to the center of
traffic,"14 and he concluded his 1922 study by suggesting that the best way to extend the
profitable life of an office building was to build "on the edge of the present business
center in the path of its future growth."15 The other main generalization from these
studies was that, as Bolton put it, "the useful or economic existence of all classes of
buildings, in the rapid march of modern conditions, is constantly shortening."16

The Ideology of obsolescence

The analyses of modern obsolescence were backed up by an impressive array of


charts, tables, and graphs. In Bolton's seminal analysis, each building type from banks to
hotels received its own "life in years," or "assumed life" number based upon projected
changes in use and fashion: forty-four to fifty-five years for banks to fifteen to eighteen
years for hotels. Other tabulations broke a building down into its dozens of structural and
mechanical parts, from foundations and frames to plumbing and paintwork, with each
component assigned a "date of expiration of life," or "expectancy of life" anywhere from
seven years for paint to seventy-five years for fireproof steel.17 But the apparent certainty
of these actuarial tabulations obscured the fundamental uncertainty of the analysis. "It is
almost impossible to calculate the proper annual write-off for obsolescence," explained
the accountant Klein in 1922.18 And indeed, estimates of an average building's lifespan
varied across the studies. Bolton came up with figures of 35.52 and 48.36 years.19 Shultz
settled on 30 years, a figure publicized by the New York Times in 1931.20 The real estate
executive George T. Mortimer claimed, "It has been my experience that most buildings
over 20 years old cannot be made to pay."21 Nevertheless, the tables and charts, precise
numbers and decimalizations, lent in total an air of scientific objectivity to the discourse
on obsolescence.
Alongside the display of apparent quantitative certainty, the obsolescence studies
in their rhetoric also employed poetic metaphor to persuade readers of the naturalness of
obsolescence. Shultz concluded his 1922 study by asking, "The county provides a home
for poor and aged human beings, but what shall we do with the obsolete and unprofitable
office building?”22 Bolton, too, used an anthropomorphic simile to drive home a crucial
point:

[A]ge is in itself a bar to complete desirability and full effectiveness, and a


building though in excellent condition, if it be out of fashion, out of date,
antiquated, or insignificant, is just as liable to fall behind in the race, or tofavor of
younger rivals, as the still vigorous man or woman similarly circumstanced.23

Similarly, H. J. Burton in 1917 declared that obsolescence was "as certain and
ever-present as the forces of nature."24 And Bernard London asserted in a 1932 book
titled Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence, "We must work on the
principle of nature, which creates and destroys, and carries the process of elimination and
replacement through the ages." 25These metaphors served the rhetorical purpose of
naturalizing the discourse on obsolescence. To associate the "life" of buildings with the
human life span rendered inevitable the "death" of the building. The naturalistic rhetoric
denied the specific human agency behind the demolition of the buildings. In combination,
the scientific-quantitative and poetic-rhetorical discourse on obsolescence could have two
important effects: (1) to reassure the writers and their readers of the natural certainty of
the phenomenon of obsolescence, and (2) to direct attention away from the particular
economic and social interests directly served by the discourse on obsolescence.
In fact, the economic interest of NABOM in advancing an analysis of
obsolescence was hardly hidden, at least from its membership of building owners and
managers. Starting in 1918, United States law allowed obsolescence to be factored into
the depreciation allowance building owners used to reduce their owed corporate income
tax.26 From this point on, it was of vital importance for NABOM to produce membership
surveys and statistical analyses of obsolescence to convince the US Treasury
Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue and local tax appeal boards to raise the
standard obsolescence allowance.27 Less "life" in the eyes of the law meant more profit
for owners; though at the same time, owners in the actual management of their buildings
would be trying to fend off obsolescence to lengthen the financial life of their property.
NABOM's obsolescence studies were thus thoroughly political. They were a strategic
discourse to create the illusion of statistical truth and short architectural "lives" in the
eyes of the law, in order to influence public policy towards a greater tax subsidy for real
estate capitalism. The building owners got their wish when, in 1931, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue set an office building life span number of forty years.28 […]

Promiscuity and sustenance

From the perspective of understanding architecture under capitalism, the


discourse on obsolescence focuses attention on buildings' increasingly composite
character, made up of a myriad of components and systems, not all controlled by the
architect's design process and each having its own limits of usefulness and durability.
From a critical perspective the discourse on obsolescence focuses attention on
capitalism's economic definitions of architecture and in particular the legal-fiscal nexus
of tax law and policy that created the axiomatic but now clearly capitalist notion of a
building's "life span." Above all, the discourse of obsolescence focused on architecture's
temporality.
The temporality of architecture under capitalism is the time of use, and
particularly financial utility for the capitalist owner. But the temporality of use may be
the dimension of architectural time most challenging to contemporary practice, having
little to do with the traditional architectural temporalities of history, nature, or experience
in space. At least since the Renaissance, the architect's ideal role has been to sire
architecture: to beget a building by design and then to move on to further acts of
procreation. The designing architect does not, and is not encouraged and rarely paid to,
sustain, nourish, and nurture the building through its useful life and obsolescence.
Promiscuity thus lies at the heart of ideal Western architectural practice, a temporally
brief social exchange between architect and client at a building's conception and then
abandonment by the architect for future productivity elsewhere. This is a situation that
suits both parties. Capitalist ownership brooks no interference in the subsequent
exploitation of its architectural property, whatever the consequences for society. And
architects' economic livelihood and self-identity is a function of the quantity of
production rather than of the sustenance through time of a few well-raised offspring. But
the discourse of obsolescence teaches above all that the life of the building matters, and
implicitly it makes the sustenance of this life its highest priority.
Perhaps, then, for contemporary architecture to work through its situation under
capitalism it will be necessary to question promiscuity and to find a place for sustenance.
The architect would try to do more than serve for a brief time a building’s legal and
economic owner. She or he would instead try to sustain the building’s usefulness and
meaningfulness throughout its life, for its inhabitants, for its community, and for its
society. This would be the response not of a victim, celebrant, or ideologue of capitalism,
but of a critical realist understanding architecture's historical relationship to capitalism
and redirecting capitalism's social effects through architecture.
                                                                                                               
1  Joseph  Schumpeter,  Capitalism,  Socialism,  and  Democracy,  3rd  ed.,  New  York:  

Harper,  1950,  p.  83.    


2  John  Roberts.  "Obsolescence  in  the  Marshall  Field  Wholesale  Building,"  Bulletin  of  

the  National  Association  of  Building  Owners  and  Managers  150,  September  1930,  p.  
41  (hereafter  cited  as  BNABOM).    
3  Joseph  J.  Klein,  "Depreciation  and  obsolescence,"  Proceedings  of  the  Annual  

Convention  of  the  National  Association  of  Building  Owners  and  Managers,  1922,  p.  
240.    
4  But  see  the  work  in  progress,  Daniel  M.  Abramson,  "Obsolescence:  The  fate  of  

architecture  in  the  twentieth  century."    


5  "Study  obsolescence  in  W.C.T.U.  Temple,"  BNABOM  107,  October  1926,  p.  43;  Paul  

E.  Holcombe,  "Depreciation  and  obsolescence  in  the  Tacoma  Building,"  BNABOM  


137,  June  1929,  pp.  13-­‐32;  John  Roberts  and  Paul  E.  Holcombe,  "Historic  landmark  
passes:  Home  Insurance  Building,  Chicago,"  Skyscraper  Management  16,  no.  11,  
November  1931,  pp.  14-­‐17;  and  16,  no.  12,  December  1931,  pp.  13-­‐16.  In  1922,  
NABOM  published  its  executive  Earle  Shultz's  national  study  The  Effect  of  
Obsolescence  on  the  Useful  and  Profitable  Use  of  Office  Buildings,  a  sequel  to  the  1917  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
volume  edited  by  H,  J.  Burton,  Valuations  and  Depreciations  of  City  Buildings.  See  also  
generally  The  Bulletin,  National  Association  of  Building  Owners  and  Managers,  
Proceedings  of  the  Annual  Convention  of  the  National  Association  of  Building  Owners  
and  Managers,  and  Skyscraper  Management.    
6  "Ask  for  more  equitable  obsolescence  allowance,"  BNABOM  153,  December  1930,  

p.  107,  including  "Chart  1:  Chicago  office  buildings  demolished  to  make  way  for  new  
structures."    
7  "Obsolescence  of  modern  skyscrapers,"  The  Architect  and  Engineer,  January  1931,  

p.  125;  "Thirty  years  average  life  span  of  modern  skyscrapers,"  New  York  Times,  18  
January  1931,  Real  Estate  section.  For  NABOM's  1922  obsolescence  study  reported  
in  the  American  national  media,  see  "Obsolescence  report  widely  distributed,"  
BNABOM  66,  20  September  1922,  p.  15.    
8  Reginald  Pelham  Bolton,  Building  for  Profit:  Principles  Governing  the  Economic  

Improvement  of  Real  Estate,  New  York:  De  Vinne  Press,  1911,  pp.  70,  75.    
9  Ibid.,  p.  75.    
10  Shultz,  Effect  of  Obsolescence,  pp.  206,  218-­‐220.  
11  Roberts,  "Marshall  Field,"  p.  44.  See  also  Deborah  Fulton  Rau,  "The  Making  of  the  

Merchandise  Mart,  1927-­‐1931:  Air  rights  and  the  plan  of  Chicago,"  in  John  
Zukowsky,  ed.,  Chicago  Architecture  and  Design,  1923-­‐1993,  Munich:  Prestel  Verlag,  
1993,  pp.  108ff.  
12  Holcombe,  "Tacoma  Building,"  p.  29.  
13  Ibid.,  p.  32.  
14  Shultz,  Effect  of  Obsolescence,  p.  
15  Ibid.,  p.  220.  
16  Bolton,  Building  for  Profit,  p.  68.  
17  Ibid.,  Tables  Band  D;  "Report  of  Committee  on  Taxation,"  Proceedings  of  the  

Annual  Convention  of  the  National  Association  of  Building  Owners  and  Managers,  
1924,  pp.  588-­‐594.  
18  Klein,  "Depreciation  and  obsolescence,"  p.  242.  
19  Bolton,  Building  for  Profit,  p.  22  and  Table  C.  
20  Shultz,  Effect  of  Obsolescence,  p.  220  and  "Thirty  years  average  life  span."  
21  Quoted  in  Burton,  Valuations  and  Depreciations,  p.  6.  
22  Shultz,  Effect  of  Obsolescence,  p.  220.  
23  Bolton,  Building  for  Profit,  p.  51.  
24  Burton,  Valuations  and  Depreciations,  p.  78.  
25  London,  Bernard,  Ending  the  Depression  through  Planned  Obsolescence,  New  York,  

1932,  p.  12.  


26  Klein,  "Depreciation  and  obsolescence."  
27  See,  for  example,  "The  obsolescence  questionnaire,"  BNABOM62,  January  1922,  p.  

131.  
28  US  Treasury  Department,  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue.  Bulletin  "F"  (Revised  

January  1931).  Income  Tax.  Depreciation  and  Obsolescence,  Revenue  Act  of  1928,  
Washington,  DC:  US  Government  Printing  Office,  1931.