Hartford’s Lone Shortcoming
If I (and I'll bet a lot of the citizens there) could change one thing about Hartford, it would be to give it a "town square", so to speak -- a place where people could proudly gather. Every town needs a living room and a "magic mile" along Highway 38, though it also serves a good purpose, makes a poor substitute.
Hartford's leaders have reluctantly watched the downtown dwindle away, and now the town is in danger of losing its most important architectural gem -- the Mundt Building, constructed of quartzite in 1904 by a local merchant. The 40x70 building (seen at the right side of the photo above) is owned by a local antique dealer who would sell it cheaply (maybe $35,000 to cover his taxes and recent legal and architectural costs, incurred to keep the city from condemning it). However, it would cost several times the purchase price to renovate the structure.
One would think that it would be a feasible project, considering it's 10 miles from Sioux Falls where such buildings now are treasured. It could be one of the grandest office buildings in the region. All three stories have possibilities. The basement walls are bare quartzite. The top floor was once a dance hall and is still wide open: tin ceilings, wood floors and rounded windows.
The building is considered an eyesore to most people in Hartford, but in many cities in the world it would be a rough diamond waiting to be polished. If you want to buy it, give us a call and we'll get you in touch with the owner ... we'll waive the finder's fee.
9 Comments
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.southdakotamagazine.com/word/wp-trackback.php?p=721
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bernie, the name “Mundt Building” makes me wonder is there is some sort of connection to Senator Carl Mundt?
If the foundation is sound a grand old building like this should stand for centuries. What would replace it, a vacant lot or perhaps a steel pole barn?
Comment by Nicholas Nemec — January 30, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
The local folks didn’t think John Mundt was any relation to Karl Mundt, the U.S. senator from nearby Madison, but no one was certain. The current owner says he was able to fight off a condemnation of the building by getting a Sioux Falls architect to declare it sound. The architect told the owner that the city needed to learn the difference between paint problems and structural problems. This is one those builldings that might be more expensive to tear down than to save, but still someone needs to step forward with a plan.
Comment by Bernie Hunhoff — January 30, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Karl Mundt’s father was Ferdinand and they lived in Humboldt when Karl was born in 1900. Perhaps the Hartford businessman was an uncle or cousin, as Hartford is just a few miles from Humboldt and I don’t think Mundt was a household name until Karl got into politics. Karl was an arch conservative but as a true conservative should be, he was an outstanding conservationist who established the endangered species list. His role in the McCarthy hearings unfortunately have diminished his fine legacy.
Comment by JK — January 30, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Mundt is another one of my family names. My grandmother, Fannie Bethia Oakes/Oaks had a cousin named Fannie Belle Oaks - their fathers were brothers. Fannie Belle married a John Mundt, I believe had business dealings with one of the many Oaks families (all related to each other) that settled in Hartford. I believe John Mundt owned a store in Hartford in the early years. He may be the source of the name for the “Mundt Building” in Hartford.
I don’t know of a connection of my Mundt family with Carl Mundt but considering they were in the same area, they may have been related. The Mundts in my family came from Denmark I believe.
Comment by Mary Bruce Haunreiter — January 30, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Who wants to see a 100 year old quartzite building, anyway?
The public would be much better served if it were demolished and replaced with dirt and weeds.
Comment by Sarcastic — January 30, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
A Mr. Kunstler from the New Urbanism League ? spoke at USD a few years ago, and did a hilarious slide show on how communities “cover up” their disgraceful destruction of historic properties with a few flowers or benches. “If they really want to avoid criticism,” he said sarcastically, “they do this!” And then he showed about a dozen examples of how they erected a flag pole in the big hole in the center of town. The South Dakota version would now be a war memorial; nobody would ever dare to complain about that.
Comment by JK — January 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
contact Sen. Neapoli, Rapid City to include discussion or allow a historical provision for the assessment of the type of building displayed in Hartford.
Comment by lowdon Heller — January 31, 2006 @ 7:37 am
Yes, please contact SOMEONE before the latest Deadwood debacle is repeated!
Comment by mary — January 31, 2006 @ 8:55 am
There are many places in this world where it would literally be a crime to destroy a building like that — and you wanna know something — those are the towns and cities that don’t have a problem holding onto their young people?!?#@?!
But I’m sure there is no connection between community pride in the past and where our youth want to live.
A Butler building will look just fine there.
Comment by Charlie Z. — January 31, 2006 @ 9:39 am