I'm a couple of weeks behind reading my Pinhead digests,
but I think I have something for Rudy Christian.

A friend of mine, a lawyer with a strong interest
in planning and preservation, was told by one of the partners
in SOM, back around 1975, that the Sears Tower 
(or whatever its new name might be)
is "a 75-year building."  I guess as of 2009 
it's about a 40-year building.

Apparently in "modern" architectural "theory"
one sets out the expected lifetime of a building,
which then affects the planning of its systems.

This is one of the ways in which 20th-century architects
made progress over the cathedral builders.  Or not.
Possibly the recycling culture will cause
some rethinking.  Or not.

But I ramble ... Have you all (or all y'all)
heard this kind of tidbit about other buildings?

>Date:    Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:27:44 -0500
>From:    Rudy R Christian <[log in to unmask]>
>
>OK. I’ve stayed out of this so far but can no longer resist.
>What is the target date for required maintenance
>on everything we create or restore? Shouldn’t we be looking at
>both new build and maintenance as something we judge in centuries not decades?
>
>Grumpily confused Rudy
>
>> It would not be uncommon to do 100% repointing on a building of this age ... .

Martin C. Tangora
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask]

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>

*Please vote for ICORS every 24 hours* <http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp>