In a message dated 10/19/98 4:05:16 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
<<a few stellar historic
districts with remarkable integrity should ever be considered to be
administered as museums, with no change or deviation from the paradigm of
"period of significance.">>
Period of significance is an idea who's time has come and gone. Few museum
types advocate this as a blanket approach to preservation of significant
buildings. We lost too much good stuff when we did that. And I try to avoid
the whole issue of what made the building signicant...just make sure it is
before I show up. Then, let me work on preserving the knowledge of who built
it and how and what they were thinking and what materials they were using. No
change or deviation? Every new generation of preservationeers shows up with
new tools gadgets, newly annointed professions with secret knowledges, new
interpretation of materials....and then there's the same argument over and
over again...underlayment with that wood shingle roof?
"Bad designers end up being required to copy the old stuff so
that at least it doesn't detract from what is there" ????
All architecture students are taught to copy old stuff...even 15 minute old
stuff...the reason given is so that they don't try something new and have it
fail and kill someone...there is some truth in this. (I'll never admit that
where my old professors can see it.) But masons, carpenters, plumbers and
electricians are taaught to copy...hell it even used to be part of an artist's
training...still should be.
I must be getting old. -jc