sbmarcus wrote:
>
> I guess that I am destined to play the odd man out in this crowd.
> Understand that I cherish preservation as much as the next guy/dame. I just
> think that you are blaming the wrong thugs here.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Both these statements seem to me to resonate with an us-against-them
> mindset that obscures your vision. Maybe we need to come to a mutually
> acceptable definition of "modern" architecture (Hey, lets jump back into
> the discourse pool), but if one were to consider the term to mean
> architecture of this Century that includes a great variety of styles and a
> goodly number of valuable structures in those styles that I can't accept
> being labeled "dehumanizing".
>
> > 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?"
>
> The "stars", the Mies, Gwathneys, Johnsons are a mere handful of the total
> population and have far less influence, I think, on what gets seen in the
> common environment than does the guy who designs the mall that achieves
> 100% occupancy nearest the mall to be designed next. And that is as likely
> to be "historical" in some sense, Spanish Colonial in Florida and
> California,  American Colonial in New England. I've seen malls meant to be
> taken for Tudor towns, Danish villages, Venice, Japanese temples and
> western towns, all in Northern New England.
> >
> >
> > >  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.
>
> Or, the case could be made that Edward Durrell Stone, who designed the
> building for Huntington Hartford's vanity museum, was a flashy but vapid
> artist who designed a structure that was totally wrong for the sight. Any
> way that's my opinion.
>
> > 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.
>
> Now you are getting to the real villains. The cause of encouraging a
> satisfactory built environment and protecting what is left of our past,
> including open space, would be fall better served by railing against
> Walmart and developers than against Bauhaus and Mies.

> >
> > >  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.
>
> I  don't know exactly what you are referring to here, but I suspect that
> the banks and the syndicators are far more to blame.
> >
> > We should not be subject to development without representation.

-----

To quote someone,
"these statements seem to me to resonate with an us-against-them mindset
that obscures your vision. Maybe we need to come to a mutually
acceptable definition of "modern" architecture (Hey, lets jump back into
the discourse pool), but if one were to consider the term to mean
architecture of this Century that includes a great variety of styles and
a goodly number of valuable structures in those styles that I can't
accept being labeled "dehumanizing"."

"Which is what 90% of (Developers) architects do. The vast majority earn
their livings producing viable structures in styles that their clients
are comfortable and familiar with. The metaphorical building next door
may be Lever House or a mock-Tudor Greenwich home or a Colonial or
Garrison in a development or a redwood treehouse, but most consumers of
architecture are an
ill-informed gang and the field of architecture very much reflects
that."

Do developers design structures? I don't think so. They pay someone to
give them ideas, advice and to provide designs that satisfy commercial
needs. Who generally does that?

Also, much of what we are preserving now was the result of developers
activities from the past. The mills, warehouses, department buildings,
train stations, gas stations, McDonalds, etc.

Using the logic stated above for architects and architecture, don't the
developers meet the same criteria. All they are doing is providing
people with easy access to items that they need in a setting that they
are familiar with and comfortable in.

This is one blatant example of were "Can't we just get along" was not
appropriate. There is a local developer with an old historic tavern on
the site he wants to develop. The question is whether to incorporate it
into the commercial project. His architect declared the building a ruin
and recommended to have it torn down. The architect promotes his firm as
running a preservation conscious practice. The structure is in great
shape once you look beyond the six inches of paper and other garbage on
the floors. If you look into the few holes that vandals have kicked into
the walls you see sound framing and split, lapped lath. Below the
peeling paint on the stair case is well done intact graining. What is
wrong with having enough knowledge and conviction to sometimes be in an
us-vs-them situation. Saving the building won. The process worked
because the old building was able to be shown as an asset and not a
liability. Once the developer started promoting his project with this
tavern as an asset he found businesses willing to locate in the old
structure even before knowing what the rest of the development would
look like. Maybe its not coming up with mutually acceptable definitions
but rather understanding the language and the context of the other side.

Adversarial conditions can have their place and purpose. I believe it is
more useful for BP to examine differences for awhile. This allows a
diversity of ideas to come up. Being "mutually acceptable" may not
always be the best place to start.

This rambling may be a bit off the target and maybe not.

>From the discourse pool,

Bryan