On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Met History wrote:

> > Buildings, especially in an urban context, have to meet the needs of
> > multiple constituencies.
>
> Did our earlier buildings - the Chrysler Building, rowhouses, 1920's
> apartment buildings - meet "multiple constituencies" more than the corollary
> buildings of the present day?  How?

Christopher Alexander has an answer for this which I don't have handy to
quote, but the gist of it is that, in the old days, architecture happened
within a context of shared values and expectations which no longer
obtains.  Lacking that, the best we can do for our historic districts is
the bureaucratic solution.

The Chrysler Building and many of the other achievements of the 20th
century happened at a time of the breaking down of those shared values, a
crisis time that was both exciting and abusive.  I'm not suggesting that
historic districts need to be locked in time, but they do need to be
protected from the "revolution".  Grafitti may be artistic and modern and
has its place, but I'd rather not have it scrawled across the facades of
my favorite buildings.

                                  Larry

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106

--
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>