Historic versus Architectural Values
David W. Raber
I would like to hear some opinions on the tension in the preservation
movement between historic and architectural values.
*Casey*
Hi,
I don't know if I agree with the premise, the "tension".
I would see the "preservation movement" as the reconciling force between
those who are motivated by "history" (politics, ideals, truth, justice,
etc.) and those who are imbued with an awe of "architecture" (aesthetics,
tangible qualities.)
Casey
David W. Raber wrote in message <01bd64bb$dbe63100$4f4ddacd@default>...
JCFrey
I too would disagree with the terminology of "tension" regarding historic
values versus architectural values. I think some of what you are referring to
is in response to the perception of architecture as progressive and
preservation static; in my opinion nothing could be further from the truth.
In a sense, historic preservation comes about from a collective judgement of
what is important or significant-locally in many cases, and
nationally/internationally in others. This collective judgement comes from a
host of sources, including architects, preservationists, historians,
sociologists, etc. The practice of preservation recognizes and accepts this,
and attempts to balance the opinions and interests of all these sources.
John Leeke
>I would like to hear some opinions on the tension in the preservation
>movement between historic and architectural values.
Very often both the historical significance (Thomas Jefferson lived here, or
my great-grandfather built this log cabin), and architectural character (Ionic
style porch columns, or hand-planed wood paneling) are recongnised in the same
building. This is seldom a matter tension or conflict and very often the
historical significance and architectural character are complementary (Thomas
Jefferson designed the Ionic columns and his slave carved the volutes on the
column capitals).
John Leeke, Preservation Consultant
26 Higgins St., Portland, ME 04103, USA
207 773-2306
Old-House Journal, Contributing Editor
Practical Restoration Reports, Publisher
www.HistoricHomeWorks.com
David W. Raber
The tension I have in mind arises, for example, on the question of what to
do about additions to historic buildings. The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards mandate an addition that is harmonious with but clearly distinct
from the original building (I paraphrase), with the end in mind that the
addition will not muddy the historical record, i.e., no one in the future
will miss the fact that the addition in fact is a later addition. This is
a mandate in favor of historical values. Purely in terms of architectural
values, probably the best type of addition would be one that a good
architect contemporaneous with the original building would have designed
for the original building, and such an addition would muddy the historical
record--would be in conflict with historical values, in other words. So
what's more important, giving the public a proper history lesson or giving
them a beautiful building to look at and live with? It's not that these
goals are mutually exclusive, but they are definitely distinct goals, it
seems to me.
JCFrey <jcf...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804111417...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
*Casey*
Hi,
Thanks for adding this clarification, now we have something to chew on, not
an abstraction.
David W. Raber wrote in message <01bd6673$a88b1000$314ddacd@default>...
>The tension I have in mind arises, for example, on the question of what to
>do about additions to historic buildings. The Secretary of the Interior's
>Standards mandate an addition that is harmonious with but clearly distinct
>from the original building (I paraphrase), with the end in mind that the
>addition will not muddy the historical record, i.e., no one in the future
>will miss the fact that the addition in fact is a later addition. This is
>a mandate in favor of historical values.
OK, but let's be clear what the standards are intended to do. They are
"activated" when: A recipient of Federal $$ will effect an (identified)
historic resource, by activities such as roadbuilding, urban renewal (boy,
there's an oxymoron!), and especially, tax credits on certified restoration
projects.
The standards, in my reading of them, go so far as to require the addition
to be unmistakably new, obvious to even a casual spectator from a block
away.
In my (limited) experience, the SHPO architect has to sign off on these
additions. Isn't a decision like this really hard to make? And how many
meetings and site visits do they attend before making this decision?
Purely in terms of architectural
>values, probably the best type of addition would be one that a good
>architect contemporaneous with the original building would have designed
>for the original building, and such an addition would muddy the historical
>record-
Not to mention, impossible without the benefit of a seance or
"channeling"...
Seriously, though, doesn't that argument beg the question of the design not
being correct to begin with, if the original designer had to modify it
"contemporaneously"? The "good architect" would have created the appropriate
design to begin with, in need of no augmentations. Any addition we make
today is a product of today. The sec'y just says to make it visually so,
creating no confusion between old & new. But neither to overemphasize the
difference with clashing colors, massing, materials or fenestration.
-would be in conflict with historical values, in other words. So
>what's more important, giving the public a proper history lesson or giving
>them a beautiful building to look at and live with? It's not that these
>goals are mutually exclusive, but they are definitely distinct goals, it
>seems to me.
This assumes that the structure is pristine to begin with, and that every
observer knows what the h*** they're looking at. Incorrect paint colors,
inappropriate landscape,encroachments, and cars, all detract from whatever
authentic context we might wish we still posessed in RE a beautiful
building. In the best cases, architecture needs (can be enriched by)
interpretation. In the case of a historic structure, this may be in the form
of a local guidebook, a historic-district-walking-tour booklet, or other
teaching aid.
casey