][<en,

>>It was my decision, not any architect or government employee's
decision to stay with the 1940's alterations.<<

You're right. I have adjusted my memory by oversimplifying. Bad habit.

>>My reason was that we "knew" what the 1940's version was, as it was
what we were dismantling and it was a relatively true reading of the
current bldg. Any "returning" to a pre-1940's version meant several
things,...<<

Actually we knew what the 2002 version was. We could only speculate what
it was in 1940, although the nature of the building and the existing
fabric did indicate little had changed since 1940 other than the paint
color. Maybe that's why Portland cement was one of Henry's favorite
"preservation" materials. It was a good way to "preserve" the way "HE"
wanted things as long as possible.

>>...1) the return would be speculative, as there were no records to
substantiate an assumed, even if intelligently assumed precondition --
an argument that could have been carried further and substantiated,<<

Isn't this the essence of restoration vs. preservation? This is one of
my particular pet peaveys (something timber framers tend to have). The
"philosophy" of the conservation project is all too often left to the
interpretation of the individual in control at any given time. In this
case the architect (who was actually great to work with) was even
confused. On the cover sheet of the project drawing set the project is
title "Thomas Edison's Laboratory Building 11 Relocation & Renovation".
But on the rest of the drawings the title reads "Relocation &
Reassembly".

I probably should have taken that mixed message at face value and not
suggested we consider "restoration" at all, but I tend to have a
mischievous nature at times. Ken made the right choice in not being
swayed by my whim, but it was worth running up the flag pole for me.

>>2) there was something poetic in the interpretation of how the 1940's
version came to be (along with most of the bldgs. at Greenfield Village
which were altered or bastardized at Ford's fickle will in an assortment
of methods that we may now find somewhat unpleasant)...<<

This is where my memory substitutes the "50 year" mantra which I do hear
parroted in many "preservation" philosophy discussions. Is it the fact
that it was done in 1940 that makes it poetic, or is it the fact it was
done under Henry's Disneyesque command? Will the fact that the building
is actually Henry Ford's reconstruction of Thomas Edison's dowdy lab
returned from Greenfield Village be the interpretation at the Thomas
Edison Historic Site? I hope so.

I wonder what would happen if Donald Trump were to relocate a
significant historic structure to Trump Village and ten years later we
were asked to return it to its historic site. Would we leave it in its
glorified Trumpesque form because Donald did it, or would ten years not
be enough time for it to become poetry?

>>3)... and lastly, if we were to open up the question for debate there
would be no end of discussion and chaining through various levels and
interpretations and variety of viewpoints. Then there was the simple
fact that it was in my power to make this decision, like a mini Robert
Moses, and feel comfortable sleeping at night.<<

The best argument I've heard in a long time for getting trades people
involved in "conservation" projects as part of the lead team. A true
Dream Team approach would put you (][<en) in the same room with the long
list of prestigious names on the cover sheet of the conservation
documents from day one.

The fact that you can sleep at night should be a matter of course not
choice. Your opinion and judgment is of the highest caliber and should
be an integral part of the "variety of viewpoints" on as many projects
as possible. By addressing the questions of interpretation and
philosophy with the inclusion of the "trades" in the process,
troublemakers like me wouldn't have a leg to stand on, or a need to
stand on it, since we (by representation) would be part of the process.

I enjoyed the Edison Lab project beyond my wildest expectations. It was
indeed a learning experience and truth be known my favorite part was
seeing our team of technicians so swept up in the "caressing" process
that they were making a conscious effort to "preserve" the repairs of
their 1940 predecessors. Now that's respecting the artifact!

Excuse my pumping the rumor mill. I still don't think my interpretation
is that far off target.

Sign me either stubborn or stupid,

Rudy

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