---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   [log in to unmask] (Boylan P)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask]
To:     [log in to unmask] (Stephen Kelley)
CC:     [log in to unmask]
Date: 97-11-15 05:13:32 EST

"Facadism" of this kind is unfortunately all too common and becoming more
so. As planning authorities fail to take responsibility for balancing
priorities between preservation and renewal of the townscape this is the
easy cop-out.  (Even the devoted wife of an architect friend of mine
describes the result of one of his projects in which the planning board
insisted on preserving a not very distinguished 19th century reproduction
of an early 18th century style on a new office block as "Queen Anne front
and Mary-Anne back"!).

I suppose the most famous example was the centre of Warsaw, when the
authorities decided that the famous pre-World War II faades had to be
reproduced on the fronts of the re-built town square etc. - perhaps
understandable and justifiable then, but not necessarily at all
appropriate elsewhere.  Nor does it seem particularly unusual for the
preserved facade to be moved to another site and building as is proposed
in your case.  In one notorious English case (the medieval city of Exeter
- in the 1960s - railway lines were laid temporarily to move two sides,
still joined, of the facade of a 15th century building around 150 yards so
that the inevitable 4 lane high speed highway could cut uninterrupted
through the centre of the Roman and medieval quarter).

As someone who served on public authority conservation committees for a
total of nearly 20 years I can't offer any advice, except perhaps the
apparently very negative view that with the exception of the Wawsaws of
this world (where there were obviously special issues of national
identity etc.) it is probably better to "let go" competely if the on-site
conservation argument is lost, and perhaps hit the developer for money
something near to an equivalent sum of that saved for other conservation
projects, public landscaping or some other "development gain".

On commemorative plaques, for many years the London "Blue Plaques" were
often attached (or transferred) to new buildings.  (There is one on a late
1960s "brutalist" teaching block of our University commemorating the fact
that the house and studio of the 19th century artist and print-maker
Baxter was pulled down to make way for it, but nowadays Blue Plaques are
strictly limited to the original buildings.

Patrick Boylan

=====================================

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Stephen Kelley wrote:
>
> I am sending the following enquiry as a representatve of the Landmarks
> Preswravtion Council of Illinois (LPCI).
>
> We are facing a possible preservation issue with one of our
> skyscrapers in Chicago.  The city is allowing the total dismantlement of a
> 17 story building and reconstruction of the front facade in a new
> building on the same site.  The language of the ordinance is vague and
> is being interpreted that it is not mandatory to save the original fabric
of
> the facade.  If the fabric is damaged during removal, it can be replaced
> with new fabric.  In effect the building can be demolished and a new
> facade with new materials can be created  with some ornamental
> detailing incorporated.
>
> As the ordinance reads, " The reconstruction shall be carried out in a
> manner that substantially replicates the existing significant facades, bas
> reliefs, and the roofline.  If the facade and bas relies can not feasibly
be
> retained completely intact, the portions not retained shall be replicated
> and incorporated into the new construction."  The new building will then
> become an official City of Chicago Landmark.
>
> We are concerned that the outcome will be a facade recreation  will
> then have a historic plaque applied.  We believe that this is
> unprecedented.  Are you aware of any precedents or similar examples?
>  Can you offer any sound technical advice?
>
> Please respond to
> Steve Kelley
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>