In a message dated 2/2/2002 9:39:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I'm not sure we want to allow too much practicality to direct our
 conservation practices. If, for example, a park system decides to replace a
 beech post in an early "scribe rule" barn with another species of wood (say
 white oak) because it will last longer, and they have the park maintenance
 staff "do their best job" of "fitting" it in, what have we done?

 We have replaced a post (tangible), but we have lost the history
 (intangible?). >>

Scenario 1: SHPO decides that the white oak is not an appropriate replacement
material. The park disagrees. The park and the SHPO go into arbitration, and
while arbitration is ongoing, the bridge collapses.

Scenario 2: Park maintenance staff "fit in" the white oak. Unfortunately,
since the staff have never seen actual wood, they don't realize that the
supply company accidently shipped them particle board. The particle board
can't support the load. The bridge collapses.

Scenario 3a: Structural engineers decree that the bridge does not meet
current impact standards, with or without the white oak. The bridge receives
new guard rails, supports and other safety upgrades. It looks like crap, and
everyone hopes it will collapse soon.

Scenario 3b: Structural engineers decree that the bridge does not meet
current impact standards, with or without the white oak. Preservationists
nominate the bridge to the national register. A lengthy Memorandum of
Agreement is drafted between the park and the SHPO after public meetings, a
lawsuit, and a visit by a prominent politician. The SHPO agrees to let the
bridge be moved to another park 5 miles away, for pedestrian use only. After
a 5 million dollar bond grant is awarded for preservation of the bridge, it
is moved to the park, repaired by the great grandson of the original bridge
designer, using aged tulip poplar dredged from a swamp in Georgia.
Unfortunately, the new footings of the bridge weren't poured correctly, they
crumble within 3 years, and the bridge collapses.

Scenario 4: The bridge is repaired, over protest, with white oak. A
sympathetic material, the white oak helps to keep the bridge standing for
another 50 years. At this point, research reveals that it is the only bridge
of its kind left in the United States, and is nominated as an engineering
landmark. Restoration of the bridge commences. Since the bridge has been
supported with white oak for 50 years, preservationists disagree as to
whether the original design should be restored, or if use of white oak, as a
superior material, should be continued. A compromise is reached: white oak,
stained and grained to look like tulip poplar, is used, costing 4 times the
amount of plain white oak, thus ensuring the continued survival of the
bridge, and replicating the look of the original design as exactly as humanly
possible. Unfortunately this bridge uses up so much of the community's
resources that 4 other historic bridges collapse due to lack of funds.

----------------------------------------

I know I haven't had a lot to say recently but I had to chime in here. There
is a huge difference between artifacts (the ax) and buildings (the bridge),
in terms of philosophy of preservation. Buildings and structures generally
survive only if they are in use; whereas artifacts generally only survive if
they are NOT in use. Buildings and structures are designed to have elements
that degrade over time; artifacts are not so designed. The size, scale and
complexity of design requires different preservation philosophies about what
we are preserving.

I remember hearing about a temple in Japan (?) that is reconstructed every
100 (?) years. The temple is rebuilt using the exact same materials in the
exact same design every time. Is it less sacred than the pyramids because the
material isn't original? I argue that today, we don't see the pyramids as
they were originally designed-- much of the original stucco is gone. Yet this
temple is a perfectly intact example of a thousands year old building--
perfect in design and condition. We are perhaps seeing a more truly "exact"
building than many others whose materials have been preserved intact. I do
believe that the history of a building doesn't just lie within the materials
with which it was constructed, but within the design and purpose for which it
was constructed. While they aren't MORE important than the materials, they
aren't LESS either.

-Heidi

--
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>