In a message dated 3/25/2000 12:57:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Yet, to my eye also, the restored Schermerhorn Row is indeed "flat and
dull".
>   Can anyone  on the list better analyze this discrepancy?

Not to over-analyze, but I think this relates to my discomfort over the St.
Augustine (FL) "restorations" -- i.e. lack of grit (LAG). Although I respect
and admire Jon, I think that preservation sensibilities are always in a state
of evolution. My own opinions about Schemerhorn Row are influenced by what
has followed it. For its time, it was a wonderful project, which went far in
proving that a historic restoration project could be financially successful.
The So. St. Seaport has certainly been that.

However, preservationists today are also concerned about "authenticity." As
in ... how can something that is so glossy and has become so histo-mall-ish
as the So. St. Seaport, be real? Once again, we are faced with economic
vitality supported by over-large Americans dripping ice cream cones on
historic turf.

Schmererhorn is glossy. It lacks the dirt and grit of the reality of its
historic past. History is not neat... it's messy. It's eclectic. The problem
with Schermerhorn Row today is that it has lost this reality. It is no longer
real... it lacks its original function. It lacks its original grit. It has
pegged its survival on the retail sales figures of outlet stores such as the
Nature Company, the So. St. Seaport museum store, and a ready cup of
cappuccino. That does not mean that its architects did a bad job of
restoration, but more that this is the histo presto environment that American
entreprenueurs (and the public?) want.

Oh, what a dilemma....

Mary Julep