Re: Jennifer's inquiry concerning Architecture Transformed: New Life for
Old Buildings by Nora
>Ricther Greer 1998, and Hugh Hardy's comment: "Neither pure
>conservation nor total restoration recognizes the realities of contemporary
>building codes, lighting levels, environmental systems, security concerns,
>or the needs of present-day activities". The rest of the foreword he argues
>for adaptive reuse, because architects are torn between tradition and "stark
>buildings" and because preservation  "enriches our understanding of
ourselves".

HHPA, and Hugh and Malcolm in particular have demonstrated that adaptive
reuse can be practiced at a high level of artistry.  Malcolm has gone on
record effectively dismissing pure conservation and total restoration as
"good behavior" unmeriting award and honor.  I strongly disagree with this
narrow a view (here comes another Sermon), holding that preservation is an
art demanding of a high level of sensitivity and creative skill, and
recognizing its best practitioners as artists.  Sure there is a great deal
of science in conservation and preservation, and I will admit that ANY
intervention in the life of an old building is by definitiion an act of
alteration, but I know that for historic structures to remain relevant and
beloved in contemporary society (1999, and eventually 2001, 2030, 2345, ie
future contemporaries or generations), we must acknowledge and embrace our
heritage as an expression of our own care.
Hugh is correct though in recognizing that our contemporary eyes see light
differently; our contemporary sense of taste and duty may demand that we
upgrade what is deteriorating or unsuitably deficient by contemporary
standards.  It's a stretch to infer that pure conservation is ignorant of
realities, however.
Again, Hugh argues for adaptive reuse, because it is what he understands
and does so well.  But don't read that "stark" authenticity needs to be
altered so conspicuously from its original form or "intent" by our own
intent to become validated.  And I use the term "intent" with great
trepidation--how can we today speak for the intent of a Cass Gilbert or
Frank Lloyd Wright any more than for a Frederick Church or Robert Frost in
the expression of their art.  One can argue that it is irrelivant what the
intent was or is, when the walls might otherwise speak for themselves.  But
like so many acts of love and life we still try to derive a personal
meaning, and therefore address intent...particularly our own in the life
history of a building which must and can last for generations to come.
Not all old buildings are the work of masters, and should not be treated
the same, so on sheer numbers the resources of the past are more than
likely subject to adaptation change, and rightfully so, loss.  Our
priorities are just as evident in pure conservation as in adaptive reuse.
It's a matter of selectivity.  And there is room for a variety of
approaches, and artists.
And who can argue with the notion that preservation "enriches our
understanding ofourselves".
More about that in upcoming Sermons.  --RevJimmy