PDA

View Full Version : Honoring community history: attitudes about architecture



catherine
10-6-20, 12:18pm
This is just random but I experienced an interesting juxtaposition of attitudes last night, from a webinar on the Bowery I attended, followed by a scroll through Facebook.

1) The Bowery webinar was really interesting--obviously its roots go way, way back to Peter Stuyvesant days. The presenter was a passionate history buff so he ended the slide show with a picture of the Bowery today and he lamented the fact that all the 18th/19th century buildings there are making way for new and shiny--the little world of 5 Points, and Harry Houdini and Stephen Foster and Chinatown and Vauxhall Gardens and Skid Row is being rapidly gentrified, now fashionable and very expensive, as is most of Manhattan at this point.

2) So from there I browsed over to Facebook, where I saw this post (https://www.facebook.com/lakechamplainislander/)from my local newspaper. It's about the last "Honeymoon Cabin" going way back to an old inn on the island which built five of these little cabins to draw honeymooners to the island. This is a little shack, basically, but it represents a piece of the history of the island, and they treasure it so much that they transported it to the main thoroughfare of the town where they are going to restore it.

What a difference in attitude toward history worth keeping and history cast aside. Especially from the architectural POV, it so annoys me to see old buildings disregarded without any sense of their historical value. When I went to Rome, I saws buildings built on top of piles of rubble for Pete's sake. They valued the rubble. We don't even value Grand Central Station.

What are your thoughts on the historical value of old buildings?

As for me, I LOVE South Hero for honoring this little cabin.

early morning
10-6-20, 12:39pm
I am a huge champion of old buildings and their associated histories. I get that they can't always be preserved in their completely original state- I understand the need for sprinkler systems and handicapped accessibility in public spaces, etc. But tearing down or "rehabbing" beyond recognition is something I don't get at all. And it speaks to the pervasive ethos that NEW, BIGGER, SHINIER is always better. Thank you Madison Ave. We have little architectural history here in the US, and we seem intent on keeping it that way. (Attitudes, now, those seem much more calcified, lol.) Personally, we haven't any money to throw at old buildings, other than trying to keep our own old farmhouse from rack and ruin, and we recently re-joined a group that promotes saving and sharing the buildings and heritage of specific utopian communities. It's awesome, catherine, that your community is concerned with saving reminders of its heritage.

iris lilies
10-6-20, 12:51pm
You know I love old houses, love them.

I see the new people moving into my neighborhood with the same attitude that I had kinda/sorta 30 some years ago, although I have always loved Victorian architecture. Always!

They look at each building for its individual significance. I actually had somebody Seriously explain to me over on the Mr. Money mustache forum that a building is not “historic “if nothing of historical significance happened there. I assured him he did not need to live in my neighborhood nor did I want him here. Ha ha.


Anyway, what I didn’t really get in the early days and the new people here Do not understand is that the fabric of an old neighborhood is formed by each individual piece. My own house is insignificant, it’s not unique. But my house standing shoulder to shoulder with houses like it, considering the height of the buildings, their width, voids to mass, and the relation to the street is what makes it a Victorian neighborhood.

New people do not see our historic code as the compromise it is. It recognizes new construction methods and new materials, and it emphasizes certain things while ignoring others. To their mind it is a set of Byzantine inscrutable rules. They don’t see that the details matter.

My next-door neighbor lives in a small row house about 17 feet wide and probably about 1300 ft.˛ total. It’s from the 1880s. There are three of them in a row on my block. His is the only one that has original ornamentation and of course it is very simple because that was not the house of a rich person. But it is charming. And that stupid a** will not paint his house. He’s going to lose that ornamentation. And that goes back to a basic idea of our historic code in that it calls for simple maintenance routines to keep these whole houses up. Tuckpointing not painting facades. Keeping wood trim covered from the elements with paint. Not painting limestone trim because that introduces an element of decay. Etc.

But poor neighborhoods tend to be hysterically outspoken about adopting standards for their neighborhoods Because they find them restrictive potentially expensive. For the most part, unless you’ve got a slate roof that needs replaced, maintenance on small Victorian houses according to historic standards shouldn’t be that expensive. Granted, some of the standards are not about preservation but about aesthetics such as allowing only wooden fences and not chain-link.

iris lilies
10-6-20, 12:59pm
Wonderful Facebook article! That is the original tiny house.The big stone building that’s now a bank is so handsome!

catherine
10-6-20, 1:04pm
Wonderful Facebook article! That is the original tiny house.The big stone building that’s now a bank is so handsome!

I know! That stone building is gorgeous! I wish it were still an inn and not a bank, but at least they kept its architectural integrity.

I love your points about each building being one piece in the sum of the whole neighborhood. So true.

Jane v2.0
10-6-20, 1:05pm
I lament the destruction of old architecture. IMO the standard should require that well-crafted old buildings should be moved, if necessary, to accommodate various projects, instead of razed.

The Carnegie libraries are lovely, their replacements not so much. Our recently completed branch looks like a minimum security prison. >:(

iris lilies
10-6-20, 1:15pm
I lament the destruction of old architecture. IMO the standard should require that well-crafted old buildings should be moved, if necessary, to accommodate various projects, instead of razed.

The Carnegie libraries are lovely, their replacements not so much. Our recently completed branch looks like a minimum security prison. >:(

The Carnegies are expensive to maintain. In one of our city branches, a turn of the century building, there was a big suspended plaster ceiling that was just a prayer from falling. We didn’t know that until we tore into it for a building repair. That caused us to question the construction of at least two other buildings of this exact era—were they also going to drop tons of plaster on the heads of unsuspecting library users? Drama.

Out in suburbia land in the county they build new buildings for a Small per square foot cost and are proud of it. That’s neither here nor there and it certainly is appropriate for their incredibly boring mileaus, but ugh.

razz
10-6-20, 1:17pm
Interesting article to read once IL alerted me to it. I am amazed that the lumber is still stable. I think the solid wood of the past came from old slow-growing dense trees rather than the flimsy lumber of today. I have seen some community halls, tobacco kins, train stations and grain mills preserved and moved when necessary but a honeymoon house is quite unique. Thanks for the thread.

Jane v2.0
10-6-20, 1:18pm
I joke that we have a library on every block around here (slight exaggeration), but very few of them are remotely handsome.

SteveinMN
10-6-20, 2:08pm
The Carnegies are expensive to maintain. In one of our city branches, a turn of the century building, there was a big suspended plaster ceiling that was just a prayer from falling. We didn’t know that until we tore into it for a building repair. That caused us to question the construction of at least two other buildings of this exact era—were they also going to drop tons of plaster on the heads of unsuspecting library users? Drama.
A couple of sessions ago, there was a kerfuffle in the state legislature about funding extensive remodeling for the state capitol building -- the deep cleaning inside the building never got after many decades of use and tobacco smoke, a real hard look at the (leaky) copper roof, updates to electrical wiring and HVAC for the 21st century. Remodeling properly, as you know, is far more expensive than tearing down and rebuilding. But rebuilding rarely offers a building with the same charm. This building is architecturally notable and it wasn't too far gone. The money was spent. But a certain political party (oddly, mostly "conservatives") went on and on about how much it was going to cost. This is the same group that complained in campaign ads about the cost of the "luxury office building" built near the Capitol -- as it turns out, the same building they (as legislators) occupied for the years the Capitol was updated. I've been inside it. It isn't anything special; it's about what you would see in any Twin Cities industrial park.


Out in suburbia land in the county they build new buildings for a Small per square foot cost and are proud of it.
They're proud of it because low building costs help keep expenses lower which helps keep taxes lower. Governments know people have a thing about giving them money.

There's also a boatload of expenses associated with construction that didn't exist back in the old days, like environmental impact statements, asbestos abatement, and addressing building/lot coverage percentages and many zoning and building codes to be met that older buildings often get to defer or skip outright. All of those requirements drive up the cost of construction, so the nice labor-intensive details and the really nice materials usually get lined out of the contract. But they'll get a do-over later -- the cheap construction will be too expensive to fix in another 40-50 years. Rinse and repeat.

I'm a huge fan of modern architecture (Gropius, Wright, Johnson, Herzog & deMeuron). But I do appreciate a mix of architectural styles and materials as well. I admire a well-kept Victorian (we have a few in the neighborhood) though I would not want to live in one or maintain one. The mix gives a place more of a lived-in feel. I'm not up for the wild-west zoning you see in places like Houston but I'm also not a fan of the "planned communities" you see in suburbs developed by one builder in a flurry of house-building ("ticky-tacky houses all looking the same"). Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be as big a budget for "nice things" as there used to be.

catherine
10-6-20, 2:38pm
Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be as big a budget for "nice things" as there used to be.

But you think about it and we have such better technology. You'd think that could be put to use. Years ago they never even had a car engine and they were able to build cathedrals.I don't know if people value craftsmanship the way they used to. Lewis Mumford wrote about "the prosaic mentality"--and I think he meant that these days there is no poetry in buildings or cities. They're just... buildings. I'm not saying I love Gothic architecture or yearn for gargoyles on my cabin, but I just think in many places there's an overall lack of appreciation for good planning from both a practical and aesthetic perspective.

razz
10-6-20, 5:19pm
But you think about it and we have such better technology. You'd think that could be put to use. Years ago they never even had a car engine and they were able to build cathedrals.I don't know if people value craftsmanship the way they used to. Lewis Mumford wrote about "the prosaic mentality"--and I think he meant that these days there is no poetry in buildings or cities. They're just... buildings. I'm not saying I love Gothic architecture or yearn for gargoyles on my cabin, but I just think in many places there's an overall lack of appreciation for good planning from both a practical and aesthetic perspective.

Would the cost today be a factor?

catherine
10-6-20, 5:29pm
Would the cost today be a factor?

Well, you always find money for the things you value. I'm not sure. It's true that slaves built the pyramids and we have unions now, which is a good thing, but I think it's more of a question of what your priorities are. For example, part of what I'm talking about here is urban planning. I think that too often money is prioritized over benefit to the community. Take away a park or a boardwalk and sell it to a developer.

In a way, maybe having money and affluence has actually disincentivized craftsmanship. I have to think this through, but you raise an interesting point. I think I have to dig out my old Mumford books.

iris lilies
10-6-20, 5:58pm
Well, you always find money for the things you value. I'm not sure. It's true that slaves built the pyramids and we have unions now, which is a good thing, but I think it's more of a question of what your priorities are. For example, part of what I'm talking about here is urban planning. I think that too often money is prioritized over benefit to the community. Take away a park or a boardwalk and sell it to a developer.

In a way, maybe having money and affluence has actually disincentivized craftsmanship. I have to think this through, but you raise an interesting point. I think I have to dig out my old Mumford books.
Or, don’t let developers in to “spoil” an Pristine area when they want to build dense housing for those who can’t afford palatial places with acreage.

It works both ways.

catherine
10-13-20, 7:14pm
So, the same organization that sponsored the Bowery webinar is doing one on Penn Station--the old one. Read the description--it talks about exactly what this topic is about--abandoning beauty and craftsmanship for the mundane. I might sign up for this one, too.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/pennsylvania-station-the-most-beautiful-train-station-ever-built-webinar-registration-123000522875?aff=ebpromote&fbclid=IwAR3-VAyOmBpy_Osza1BTeolXMXD3ieVdLPo9UHFE39RcSEgeI5zJ1a HsFPs

jp1
10-13-20, 10:05pm
As someone who suffered the current Penn Station 1000's of times I may have to sign up for that. The new one (can something that's older than me really be called new...) is a gawdawful tragedy and the pictures I've seen of the old one always just look so... gorgeous.

pinkytoe
10-14-20, 10:20am
I think a lot of gorgeous old city buildings were probably destroyed during the days of "urban renewal." Was that the 1960s?

catherine
10-14-20, 11:14am
I think a lot of gorgeous old city buildings were probably destroyed during the days of "urban renewal." Was that the 1960s?

Yes, that's right.