Sorry to vere a bit off topic here but I had to comment on this -
Wulf9 said:
A comment on the 19th century building facade and a highrise behind (called a facade-ectomy by historians). A building face without the rest of the building is not really historic. The purpose of preservation is to allow future generations to see what buildings and cities were like in the past. A free-standing facade is like looking at a photograph of the building's exterior. You can't really get the feeling of what it was like to be inside the building or how people lived or functioned in the building.
OK, don’t want to ruffle any fur here, but this type of thinking (which is preferred by the Nat. Park Service) is disastrous and has actually caused the destruction of fine architecture.
Under no condition of preservation is it possible for you to “get a feeling” of what the past was like by building representation. From a comprehension point of view it is the 21st century, it is highly improbable that one could “understand” the 19th century in day-to-day life in an urban environment, outside of a total emersion museum a la Williamsburg Virginia.
Do we forego modern HVAC systems in lieu of coal fired boilers or wood stoves? No, but we waste millions on wood reproduction windows that weather poorly and are not environmentally sound (no thermal breaks). Wood clad aluminum or vinyl would achieve the same look without the waste.
This policy has hastened the destruction of some buildings when well meaning owners are unable to develop historic structures do to constraints proposed by some state and local agencies and the NPS, who have the ultimate approval on historic tax credits, which are the ultimate preservation incentive. Some good buildings have gone to the headache ball because the original design if preserved was not adaptable (H.R. recognizes the fact that not all developers of historic buildings are well meaning, but many are)
Case study – The new Renaissance Grand hotel in St. Louis is a new structure attached to the 20 story Gateway hotel built in the 1920’s. The original plan by RTKL called for a 35 story addition that would contain ballrooms and suites. This was rejected by the park service because it was feared that the new building would overshadow the original structure. As you probably have observed you only experience or aware of bout 40’ feet of a building façade at street level (about 3 stories) That’s right no one would have noticed the building. Instead the developers took 15 stories off the top to match the height of the adjacent building, the ballrooms went across the street via a tunnel, adding cost to the project, and tearing down a structurally sound and occupied 19th century warehouse – way to preserve there fellas.
How about this, a warehouse built in 1920, in 1986 Richard Haas the acclaimed mural artist paints an incredible, and much loved (an oddity for modern public art) mural on three of the 4 walls, the park service was going to demand the removal of the mural before tax credits were to be issued, reasoned prevailed, but only after much wringing of hands.
How about a building built in 1900 with a great 1930’s art deco façade renovation that replaced a lifeless original facade, do you tear off the good addition in the name of stylistic purity?
Go to Europe and will find the magic word adaptive reuse exercised in smart fashion. That is buildings that still retain their historic flavor but logically adapted for the way we live today, Norman Fosters brilliant Reichstag is an excellent example, burned in the late 30’s by the Nazis, further decimated by the allied bombing and the Russians, it classically restored façade and new high tech glass dome says more about the German people and the last century than a perfectly restore replica could. As they should, these buildings belong to the current and future generations as well as the past.
Obviously certain historical architecture should remain period, Monticello, Mt. Vernon, and Falling Water and the like need to look pretty much as their designers intended them to, the circa 1900 warehouse down the block needs to adapted to todays stadnardes for offices or living, I am not talking about tearing off a façade, but give the architect some freedom in design, we are talented people, honest.
My intent is too save as much of the past as possible, not to create museum pieces. Those purists who wring their hands over so called “façade-ectomies” miss the point, would they rather the office buildings sprawl over the countryside leaving the center city with beautiful abandoned architecture destined for the wrecking ball?
We cannot replicate the past, and we cannot let it rot. Museums are for the dead and archaic, architecture is alive and breathing and needs to be teaming with 21st century life.
Howard Roark is now off his soapbox.