In a message dated 3/19/99 11:24:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

> The idea of buildings that are not designed to be permanent yet we decide to
>  keep around inspite of their poor materials

.... maybe these are cases where the design concept is more significant than
the actual fabric or construction methods used to execute it. Can there be a
case made for overall replacement of historic fabric (deteriorating caulk,
even EIFS!) where necessary in order to preserve the 3-D execution of an
"artistic" concept?

I know... it bumps up against the philosophy of modernism, where buildings
were to have a maximum useful life of 30 years, then to be replaced with "new"
-- the original intent being that the structure was only temporary. Then does
the "philosophical concept" of obsolescence (as opposed to the design concept)
prevail? Being more in tune with the physical, I would opt for the
preservation of the design, in spite of materials being replaced when
necessary. Don't we sanction this already in the use of things like Fipon
(sp?) architectural ornaments - cornices, columns, etc -- that look exactly
like the original from a distance but are not as susceptible to deterioration?

Mary Krugman