Blog 10

Tonight I attended the Humanities Symposium’s showing of “Little Castles.” (Unfortunately there were technical difficulties and I was unable to view “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.”) The thirty- minute video that was played in the Reading Room was very interesting because it discussed in great detail the concrete formation of form stone; a major characteristic of Baltimore’s architecture for the past sixty years. Historically, form stone changed the city of Baltimore from red to grey after the Second World War when many people could afford it. Many inhabitants of the areas of Baltimore stemmed from Eastern European countries, who found the stone appealing and resembling to their own “castles” back home. The demand for form stone, although slow and not very profitable at first, increased dramatically and drove numerous people into work and competition.
Form stone, found all over the city of Baltimore’s buildings, was created to cover up bricks to reduce the maintenance of painting them every year. Red painted bricks outlined in white paint were soon covered with a concrete mixture that was sculpted into look-a-like stones that were spray painted and called form stone. Form stone equaled low maintenance and cost the same as three coats of brick paint. In other words, form stone was “America’s #1 Beauty Treatment.” To have form stone on your house “was to be a nobleman; to have brick on your house was to be a ‘nobody’,” said one Baltimore resident. Many older folks raved about the character it brought to Baltimore and how it was a trademark of the city along with the Orioles and Baltimore crabs; however another population “doesn’t particularly like it.”
I found the opposing opinions of form stone very humorous because on one hand there was form stone all over Baltimore, especially the row houses which give character to the city, and on the other hand, the residents of the homes and buildings didn’t like the look of it. One movie director from Baltimore explained what form stone was according to his view. He started off that he didn’t particularly like it because it reminded him of a fake wall in a movie set. He then continued to say that he was so used to it, how ugly it was that he actually liked it.
People’s mixed opinions about form stone were seen throughout the entire thirty minutes. To many it symbolized the working class of Baltimore and the hard work they put into their homes. It became a way of living for many. To others, they would remove it if they had the money. Many new buyers of form stone buildings and homes dislike the look of it and do not appreciate it for its low maintenance, high quality job, but rather just see it as something ugly covering their residence. These newcomers don’t see the need to preserve the character it adds to Baltimore. I find this interesting because as an outsider to Baltimore’s community, I would feel the same way. I never knew the history of the “fake looking stone” (as I always called it in my head) that covers the city in which I go to school, but now I do and I will look at the city in a new way. This movie gave me a great insight that knowing a few simple facts makes one’s view of something so much different.
“Little Castles” was a great movie to attend as a part of Loyola’s Year of the City because the movie went into the community of Baltimore to ask what they thought of the city’s appearance. As an outsider, I never knew such opinions and controversies were discussed, nor did I have any clue that such a topic of discussion was so important to residents of Baltimore. Loyola’s Year of the City event opened my eyes to see that there is more underneath things than what simply meets the eye. Now that I am aware, I can appreciate what the rest of the community, with whom I temporarily live, the importance of form stone. I will now look at the “beautiful” yet “phony” form stone of Baltimore as a member of the community instead of the outsider I used to be.