Ken wrote:

     "Brings to mind consideration of what happens when HP perspective of
     dealing with structures is applied to the problems of new structures. New
     structures seem to rarely be designed for adequate maintenance, let alone
     with consideration of historic preservation. If you think you have trouble
     finding a match for historic brick, try finding a match for an
     out-of-production masonry unit produced within the last 10 years. As
     flexibility in variety of materials increases, coupled with computerized
     production, does the opportunity of future replication and cost decrease?
     Or do we eventually reach a point where high custom short-run production
     becomes generally economically feasible?"

     I just heard a fascinating report on the preservation of a Le Corbusier
     house in Brussels.  Apparently the building materials, windows, etc. were
     crummy when the house was built, partly because L'C. was experimenting with
     new materials and partly because the modernists were not interesting in
     creating buildings with long lives.  For the restoration, they didn't even
     try to replicate the early stuff, using modern (maybe better) materials.

     This seemed to raise all kinds of issues about preservation and integrity.
     What is the appropriate treatment for a building that wasn't intended to be
     permanent?  Does the act of preservation sometimes change the historic
     character of a building, resulting, theoretically, in a loss of integrity?
     How important is it to retain or reproduce historic materials in these
     cases?  If the design is the important thing about a building, is it OK to
     use any materials as long as the original design is still visible?

     The restored house is gorgeous and the restoration very well regarded.


     Marilyn Harper