I have to wonder if what we like about historic structures is not the
     fact that they are old, but that they are visually and kinetically
     interesting, unlike so much of what is built today. By "kinetically
     interesting" I mean that moving through the space provides various
     feelings that may be subliminal but are nevertheless, felt as
     pleasurable.

     What brings me to this thought is my house. It is only twelve years
     old and a tract house, at that. But it has nooks and crannies and
     various ceiling heights and all sorts of other visually and
     kinetically interesting things going on. And it is not a
     pseudo-Victorian. It is a simple, contemporary house. This is exactly
     the kind of thing that goes on in the older buildings.

     So-called modern architecture was meant to be a solution to providing
     workers with clean, sanitary homes without it costing the employer
     scads of money. Then the bottom line people saw the spare designs as a
     way to get something built without having to provide spaces that are
     interesting. We are left with straight lines, sharp corners, no nooks
     and crannies.

     Glass buildings are a good example of what I mean. Most are merely
     children's' building blocks in glass. But here in Fort Worth are two
     glass buildings that are visually interesting because they have all
     sorts of in and outs. The straight lines are broken up with various
     interesting devises that are integral to the structure but still make
     it visually attractive.

     These two examples have caused me to notice the similarities between
     many of our historic buildings and interesting modern buildings. Sense
     deprivation causes discomfort, the greater the deprivation, the
     greater the discomfort. Maybe we can save some of our buildings by
     appealing to the seeming need for an interesting visual environment.
     -Grace




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: An extension to "why do we preserve?"
Author:  "george kramer" <[log in to unmask]> at internet
Date:    8/4/98 12:11 PM


At 01:56 PM 8/4/98 -0400, Pam wrote:

So, here's my question, which I see as an offshoot to discussing why we
>preserve.  Why do we feel it's necessary for our children to grow up in the
>same house their entire lives, whether it be a weathered old Victorian
>mansion or a pre-fab that looks like every other cookie cutter house on the
>block?
>
I think the key to this question is the way we define "we"....WE (meaning
those of us crazy enough to be involved in preservation to the degree that
we've actually subscribed to a listserv like this one) find some sort of
value in staying in the "same house" or a weathered old Victorian or
whatever, or we wouldn't do what we do (and even encourage others to do the
same)  My initial query on this thread, asking why don't WE (meaning the
American public in general) preserve was essentially a lament that we
(meaning you and I) ain't exactly in the main stream and wondering about
how that came to be or could be changed....

It seems when I lecture to folks about the value of preservation that my
training and the political climate dictates that I stick to marketing
issues, sound bottomlines and, lately, environmental responsibility.  What
I REALLY want to talk about is pride and sense of community and a
value-based response to the past that doesn't normally play well in public
forums... or at least isn't what we "supposed" to talk about lest we get
branded sentimental and lacking a connection to the "real world."
(Parenthetically I'd point out that  it is easy to attack preservation as
being out of touch with reality because what we all too often define as the
acceptable brand of "good" preservation, at least for my money is)  If
there is in fact a value problem here I'd lay the blame at our own
doorstep, not the media or the corporations or at some intrinsic deficit in
the average American property owner.

My answer then, to Pam, is that WE don't like cookie cutter houses 'cause
there is something in us that recognizes an inherent value in old places, a
sense that I believe is sadly underdeveloped in the larger WE of America.
And as a result I think that we ought be concentrating our collective
professional efforts to a larger degree in developing that sense if we
don't want to spend the rest our careers swimming upstream and fighting the
same old philosophical battles with the vinyl-siders again and again and
again.......

Not meaning to sound despondent (If I do)......cuz I'm not, actually.  I
just think preservation folk have a greater appreciation of place, a
commitment to a community, and tend to recognize the value of continuity in
quality of life more than most folks.  I think those values get lip-service
from many others, as they're busy packing the u-haul to move their fourth
home of the decade (but interest rates are so low right now and this one is
in a BRAND new neighborhood where each home actually has a neo-traditional
front porch!...we're going to stay here at least 'til the youngest is
through with middle school)

George Kramer, M.S.
Historic Preservation Consultant
Ashland, Oregon