Christopher-
If I may weigh in on the Schermerhorn Row project a bit...
I was a member of a documentation team which was assembled by the NY SHPO
office to document the Row and assist the Pokorny office in determining what
materials would be appropriate for replacement, find sources for the new
materials, and assist in determining what level of intervention would be
appropriate. Mind you the information which we compiled went through the SHPO
office, through the blender of assembled clients, and was ultimately
manifested in the product which was eventually produced. Having taken part in
a good part of the meetings, I know that the design process involved much
participation on the part of the several clients, Jan's office, Jim Fitch,
Landmarks, SHPO, and a host of others. The eventual restoration satisfied the
public safety issues, which were numerous, and provided the client with
usable spaces within an acceptable envelope, while conforming to the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards as closely as was realistic and
acceptable at the time. The Ruskinian "Scrape/Anti-scrape discussion was one
which went on ad infinitum.
Mr. Goldberger's article mentions among other things, the "streets already
crawling with vitality" and contrasts the Row to the Water Street block.
Well, the Row was, when built, a contiguous collection of countinghouse
buildings, with a continuous, very flat street facade, unlike the Front
Street buildings, which were an accumulation built over a period of 100
years, reflecting the exigencies of each new design. Concerning the vitality
of the area, having spent upwards of two years documenting the exteriors and
interiors of the Schermerhorn Row, and living at the time in the
neighborhood, I can assure you that the condition of the facades and
storefronts was catastrophic, and any attempt to save the fish stall
storefronts would have been merely nostalgic pastiche, and a hazard.
Concerning Mr. Clark's comments, my immediate visceral response was that the
only thing keeping his head from going further up his ass is the chip on his
shoulder. However, a cup of tea and a little reflection allowed a more
reasoned reaction. Having spent time on "both sides of the hammer" I have
been to the table both with "Big A small c" architects, and "Big C small a"
contractors. Mr. Clark has placed himself sadly, into the latter category,
for whatever reasons known unto himself. I personally find this unfortunate
in that I consider all of us in this field to be much in the same boat. I try
to enter each project keeping in mind the Golden Rule when dealing with the
other personalities on the project- try it sometime, Mark.
Mr. Clark comments on a project he has never seen, and makes declarations
about an architect whom he has never met. Concerning the former, please refer
to my previous (unfortunately long winded) paragraphs. Concerning the
latter, I am now a partner of Jan Pokorny's and I would venture to say that I
have not met a more self-effacing or thoughtful gentleman in the profession
of architecture. His concerns, on any of our projects, lie in the submission
of thoughtful and meaningful products, and not making money or satisfying his
ego. Would that we could all be of his ilk.
Finally, before I step off the soapbox, a final comment on Mr. Goldberger's
article. It is a fact that Mr. Goldberger, when questioned by two persons who
must go unnamed - but in responsible positions both within the AIA and the
Seaport administration - questioned his rather rough statements concerning
the project, admitted that in his push to meet the Times' deadline for the
article, had not even visited the site! A well done piece!
Let the arrows fly!
Twybil
(Mike Devonshire)
|
