> -----Original Message-----
> From: Met History
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Compromise WWHD? (What Would Howard Do?)
> 
> 
> I don't think you need to "subscribe to the Howard Roark 
> theory of architecture" to hold the opinion that, the thicker 
> the bureaucracy, the more finely  minced is the artistic impulse.

This is a matter of community "preservation personality" and the
leadership that exists in the community. One can subscribe to many
different philosophies as to what approach to take toward new
construction in historic districts. As a public servant, I am acutely
aware that I am here to serve the citizens' desires for what they would
like to receive from the preservation program provided on their behalf.
The way I administer a program in Raleigh would be different from how I
would administer a program in another community. I would have to take my
cues from that community. 

Here in Raleigh, we do not have a "museums" approach toward the
preservation of our properties and districts. If we were to impose
strict preservation/restoration standards across the board, we would
face insurrection and rebellion. Here, we view our work as a shaping of
the evolution of the districts, but recognize that each generation will
leave its imprint on the resources. They were handed down to us through
the lassez faire actions of preceding generations and the accretion of
their decisions; this begs the question as to why we should suddenly
need to freeze-frame them in a sterile cocoon of changeless suspension.
Very few resources here would warrant that kind of strict
interpretation.

Likewise, with new construction, we prefer that it should reflect its
own time period, but do so in a respectful manner toward the context.
Again, the design review process here, as governed by state statute that
states "the commission shall take no action except to prevent that which
is incongruous with the special character of the historic resource or
the historic district." This is not the make-it-the-best-it-can-be
process, it is the prevent-bad-things-from-happening process. We have
some tepid, unimaginative, derivative new construction, that mimics the
historic styles; we can't deny that, even if we would prefer something
else, as it is pretty difficult to say that something that looks exactly
like what is around it is incongruous. But we also have some pretty
exciting contemporary new construction in our historic districts. It
depends a great deal upon what the designer brings us, and it depends a
great deal on how adventurous the client is.

Denise Scott-Brown, no fan of design regulations, has stated: "If you
want good design, hire good designers." Dan Becker's corollary to that
is: "Design guidelines are containment facilities for bad designers." A
design review body can only work with what is placed before it. It is
the personality of the community that influences the kinds of proposals
that are presented, and it equally influences how the design review body
evaluates the proposals.

I believe that communities that have a lot of conflict in their historic
preservation programs have a preservation commission that is out of step
with their constituency's "preservation personality." They have set a
preservation standard that is substantially higher than the lay public's
view of what is reasonable. This is regulation by zealots, not
regulation on behalf of the citizenry. If you don't believe that people
"get it," it is a painful route to take to force them to submit through
regulation, as opposed to instituting a good educational program in
partnership with your historic resource stewards to raise their
understanding of why it might be better to do it "our" way. Then, they
will start to bring you better proposals.

We waste a lot of good-will capital going to the mat over what are
ultimately really inconsequential small details, which the reality is
will only make a difference in the lives of a few academic researchers
in 50-100 years. They are meaningless to the people that have to use the
buildings in their daily lives. I'd like to preserve the good experience
of buildings with human scale that have associative meaning to folks;
every building in a historic district is not worthy of a microfine
museum level of conservation of every scrap of stuff for "what it may
tell us in the future." Most of us are going to be too busy in the
future to ask. 

Choose carefully the buildings and areas to preserve as monuments; let
the rest live.

______________________________________________________
Dan Becker,  Exec. Dir.    "Let us, while waiting for 
Raleigh Historic              new monuments preserve 
Districts Commission          the ancient monuments."
[log in to unmask]                      -- Victor Hugo  
919/890-3678
 

--
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>