We have dealt with some similar issues on the restoration/reconstruction of
the Aluminaire House, now in Center Islip at  the campus of NYIT.  It was
built in 1931 to demonstrate the use/application of mass-produced industrial
materials  in the construction of affordable housing.  10 years ago when
NYIT started the rescue, I obsessed over saving every shred of original
material  so we could restore it.  But then it was pointed out to me that
the idea of the building was as important as the materials used.  It was a
shiny "machine for living" when first built.  By the time of the
restoration it was a corroded grey corrugated metal shed.  I became
convinced that the "right" thing to do was to restore the idea as much as
the building, so we have allowed (and funded) the use of all new corrugated
aluminum sheets as siding.  It looks great and really captures the essence
of what the architects were trying to do when they built it.  "Modern"
buildings challange our commonlyheld beliefs about what constitutes
preservation.  As the Firesign Theater said way  back inn '69 "Everything
you know is wrong.."
Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Harper <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:00 AM
Subject: HP and crummy construction materials


>     Ken wrote:
>
>     "Brings to mind consideration of what happens when HP perspective of
>     dealing with structures is applied to the problems of new structures.
New
>     structures seem to rarely be designed for adequate maintenance, let
alone
>     with consideration of historic preservation. If you think you have
trouble
>     finding a match for historic brick, try finding a match for an
>     out-of-production masonry unit produced within the last 10 years. As
>     flexibility in variety of materials increases, coupled with
computerized
>     production, does the opportunity of future replication and cost
decrease?
>     Or do we eventually reach a point where high custom short-run
production
>     becomes generally economically feasible?"
>
>     I just heard a fascinating report on the preservation of a Le
Corbusier
>     house in Brussels.  Apparently the building materials, windows, etc.
were
>     crummy when the house was built, partly because L'C. was experimenting
with
>     new materials and partly because the modernists were not interesting
in
>     creating buildings with long lives.  For the restoration, they didn't
even
>     try to replicate the early stuff, using modern (maybe better)
materials.
>
>     This seemed to raise all kinds of issues about preservation and
integrity.
>     What is the appropriate treatment for a building that wasn't intended
to be
>     permanent?  Does the act of preservation sometimes change the historic
>     character of a building, resulting, theoretically, in a loss of
integrity?
>     How important is it to retain or reproduce historic materials in these
>     cases?  If the design is the important thing about a building, is it
OK to
>     use any materials as long as the original design is still visible?
>
>     The restored house is gorgeous and the restoration very well regarded.
>
>
>     Marilyn Harper