In a message dated 98-01-09 17:16:53 EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> The link here I see with architecture is the still dominant ethos among
>  architects that "modern", "ahistorical" architecture is a moral
>  imperative, and that (say) a dentil cornice is as verboten on a modern
>  building as a rhyme and meter scheme is in a modern poem.  (Venturi and
>  the "postmodern" movement would allow it, if-and-only-if it's
>  transparently fake, as an ironic gesture.

I find it ironic that the resulting architecture is dehumanizing. Worse yet,
that the vernacular population finds the architecture as meaningfull as a
sterile gesture.

>  Some years back, many years ago now, a Greek Revival townhouse in
>  Greenwich Village, NYC, was blown up by someone experimenting with bombs
>  in the basement.  The lot (in the middle of a row of similar houses) sat
>  vacant for several years while a screaming argument went on about what
>  should happen on that property.

I know the building. To me it looks out-of-place. The irony is that the design
of the facade only seems to make sense as a reminder of someone having blown
up the building. In other words, the design only has meaning when it is
negated in the understanding that it should have never been built. It becomes
a memorial, the question is, was the event worth memorializing?

>  What everybody (except architects) forgets now is that the aspects of the
>  house that made it intensely disreputable in 1970 were the things that
>  look good about it (to us preservationeers) today.  The literal copying of
>  a historic cornice from the buildings on either side (the same cornice the
>  destroyed building had) was a shocking architectural heresy.
Which betrays a lack of enlightenment, a bit of hubris, on the part of
architects who are not heretics. I'm of the impression that the "leading"
architects have some pretty heavy egos and prefer to preach to the masses.
I'll hold off on examples here. And that the general field of architects runs
after the ideas of the leading architects. A lot of group-think and a lot of
flaming for any _artist_ that would wander in their own vision, with economic
pressures to conform to the predominant ideology. Preservation would be served
to get on the psychic map if there were an architectural critic/educator that
could sustain themselves in presenting a viable theory for not always
designing the new and to establish the morality of conservation. I think
architects are afraid to embrace existing fabric in part because of a fear
that it would erode their economic support. Who wants to pay an architect to
say, "copy the building nextdoor?"

>  That same ethic governs the building codes that prohibit stoops in NYC,
>  that everywhere prohibit all kinds of other features that are absolutely
>  essential to the fabric of almost any historic urban neighborhood; these
>  laws guarantee that new neighborhoods will never be like them, and usually
>  guarantee that replacement buildings in historic neighborhoods will be
>  intrusive and different.
Bad urban planning.

>  Another NYC building which is still hated -- and will probably soon be
>  destroyed -- because it was and is a heresy against modern architecture is
>  the former art gallery at Columbus Circle.  Buildings are not supposed to
>  be playful, nor are they allowed to take history seriously.
Another building I know. I think the demise will come from an inability to
determine a viable adaptive re-use. I heard one plan was to cut holes in the
facade to allow for windows.

>  But apparently Ann Arbor's architectural establishment was not amused: as
>  I understand it, they sent a committee to quietly but vehemently protest
>  this utter heresy.  The project's sponsors were cowed, and quickly caved.
>  All the interesting features were removed from the plan, and a dumbed-
>  down, very boring, postmodern building resulted.  This on a major site at
>  the south end of downtown.
The architects should be held publicly accountable for the demise of the south
end of town. Easy to have a professional opinion when there is no
accountabliity. Looks like a story for a local journalist.

>  I grew up during a time when every interesting old building in the
>  vicinity was being destroyed or threatened.
I think this accounts for all of us on BP. I also think that it has been a
grass-roots motivation from seeing our environment denuded and sterilized that
has caused many people to take action and work to preserve their favored
buildings. Then again, Walmart has done a job on small town America and we
have given over our environmental destiny to multi-national corporations. If
people believed what is happening they would protest. Instead we are barraged
with "rights" while our local communities are being stripped by developers.

>  a vast
>  region of empty blocks left for a future expansion that never happened.
>  This is what Modern architecture and its peculiar bloodless morality has
>  done in my world.

We should not be subject to development without representation.

][<en Follett