Discernment of value of old vs. new

[catherine]

http://inhabitat.com/nyc/moma-to-demolish-32-million-american-folk-art-museum-building-after-12-short-years/

I read this article about MoMA demolishing its Folk Art Museum because they can't afford it and also because the design does not fit with its new look. By many standards, it's still a beautiful building and it's such a shame that the value of something like this--beautiful architectural art and design--is so fleeting.

I always marvel when I get the chance to go to Europe on business that you find buildings constructed on rubble. They don't even take away the bits of buildings that have crumbled--they just use it to build on top. In this country we have the opposite mentality and it makes me wonder, when it comes to art and beauty, what is universal and what is "old-fashioned" and worthy of extinction?

We had a vacation in Maine this summer, and it was WONDERFUL!!!! The house we rented was built in 1912 and they haven't done much, if any, updating. It reminded me so poignantly of the cottage in CT where I spent my summers with my beloved greataunt. They had the ORIGINAL Kenmore stove, and it worked beautifully. None of us saw this house as deficient in any way because of its lack of updates--it was beautiful and authentic. It made me sorry that I had not tolerated my 1970s kitchen just a little longer.

What do you think about decorative arts and architecture? Is there a trend that's not a trend? A trend that's universal and classic? How do you define beauty? If you are committed to the value of the original and the "old", when does the "old" have extended value from an aesthetic standpoint and when does it outlive its ability to please the eye?

I'm bummed about the MoMA folk art museum. I'm reminded of the fact that if it weren't for Jackie Kennedy Onassis and other preservationists in NYC, Grand Central Station would have been torn down a couple of decades ago--and that would have been a crime.

Any thoughts?

[redfox]

Well, my first thought is that if I had been a donor to that capital campaign, I'd never give them another cent. What a horrible waste.

[Gregg]

I love old buildings, but I'm not sentimental. I enjoy them because, to survive, they had to have had some qualities (both tangible and intangible) that made people want to preserve them. Big glass towers are the symbol of the current age of architecture. Its hard to see anyone going out of their way to preserve them. Before that we've had everything from cathedrals to pyramids. Some are still around, most aren't.

I've seen the Folk Art Museum and thought it was more a testament to an architect's ego than to a revolution in architecture. The financial aspect is just silly, but to keep some perspective in NYC there are apartments that sell for more than $32M. In fact you can buy the museum four times over for the cost of the latest grand apartment (http://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/2013/04/22/its-official-manhattans-most-expensive-listing-hits-the-market-for-125-million/) to hit the market.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't automatically wax nostaligic about early 20th century buildings. Have you ever lived in an old building that was poorly maintained (probably for decades) by your slumlord (uh I mean landlord)? It's pretty bad.

I can't really tell from the pictures on the 'net of that museum whether I like the building. It seems to be going for a natural facade like a canyon. I like that. I like nature - so riffs on nature are beautiful to me.

I wouldn't want to be a donor to that museum and have millions wasted on tearing down that building. It doesn't really excuse it that apartments there can cost that much (they probably cost millions of our money it being the home of the vampire squid >8)). And yes I do think tearing it down is likely incredibly environmentally wasteful (just keep it up we have all the resources in the world to burn ...). There's a difference between being indifferent to tearing down some crumbling early 20th century apartments and tearing down an almost new building.

As for the old versus new, you dont' resolve that. It's like yin and yang, it can't be resolved, only accepted that both have value. We preserve old building and things, so we can get a sense of the past, in addition to whatever beauty they may posess, and that has value. On the other hand you don't want the old to totally exclipse and crush the possibility of the new (the living versus the dead).

You can see it as a New World versus Old World thing if you like. Though the New World is too far gone politically and probably culturally at this point (though I was made for America, I prayed for America ... because of the idea of the new!). And the dig against the U.S. versus Europe is usually also that the U.S. places utility and money over beauty. The old versus new debate is older and more timeless than any current cultural and geopolitical configurations though :)

[creaker]

Consumer society - you have to get rid of the old to make way for the new. Even if the old was just fine.

Couple that with the way any large business works - involvement with "new" projects are key to recognition and advancement, no one gets big rewards from maintaining an old project no matter how well they do it - and you're going to have folks ripping stuff out to put in new stuff regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.

[Rogar]

Things like this leave me scratching my head. In my book 12 years isn't old, but just getting broken in. Here in my town we have Coors Field as our professional baseball stadium. It was finished in 1996 and I was told (not verified) that is the third "oldest" baseball stadium in the nation. Where did all the older stadiums go? I've seen some local mid 1900's and later structures locally that are re purposed and others torn down with not a lot of rhyme or reason. Shopping malls that must have cost big money in their day seem to have an especially short life span and get ripped down. It at least seems like a lot of the nice old historic brick architecture is being restored and preserved.

I love old architecture and buildings but must confess there were some buildings that went up in the 60's and 70's that were cheap and sterile and other even older buildings that were energy suckers or too expensive to bring up to modern standards of utilities and state of repair. So I guess I can make sense of some of it, but I don't get much of it.

[Gregg]

Here in my town we have Coors Field as our professional baseball stadium. It was finished in 1996 and I was told (not verified) that is the third "oldest" baseball stadium in the nation. Where did all the older stadiums go?

Not sure about the 3rd ranking specifically, but the sentiment is certainly true. I was on a mission in the 80s and 90s to try to see a game at every park in the majors. Got pretty close, too. Well into the 20s. If I want to complete my quest I will basically have to start over now because except for Fenway and Wrigley (and Coors Field) every team has a new park. Love the rock pile, btw.

[Gregg]

It doesn't really excuse it that apartments there can cost that much...

It doesn't, but the point is that everything is relative. You can buy a whole lot of anything for $32M out here on the prairie, but in mid-town Manhattan you don't get many bargains. There have also been a whole lot of other 8 story buildings that have come down to make room for 80 story buildings so this isn't really anything new. Maybe they could make the building's bronze skin into plow shares for Somalia to gain some karma for the new tower.

[iris lilies]

.... Where did all the older stadiums go? I've seen some local mid 1900's and later structures locally that are re purposed and others torn down with not a lot of rhyme or reason...

I'll tell you where they went: they were torn down! our iconic Busch Stadium of the 1960's was blasted to the ground, only to build a lame faux-old stadium. It's supposed to evoke memories of yore and that is the standard now for baseball stadiums. What's amusing to me is that better than 50% of today's game-going crowd will not remember that old-style stadium. I only barely remember that type from the college in Des Moines when I was a kid.

Let the market reign and The St. Louis Cardinals are a commercial franchise so let them do as they will, but I can complain about their actions. And when they come to local gobmnt for handouts, I'll protesting that vigorously and vocally.

[SteveinMN]

Yup. It seems that almost any ballpark or stadium built today is "functionally obsolete" in about 20 years. How Fenway and Wrigley and even Yankee Stadium and Candlestick made it as long as they had is almost a freak of nature. I'm thinking the new stadium for the Vikings that was shoved down our throats should be made out of Elmer's Glue and corrugated metal, because, sure as anything, whoever owns the Vikings in 15 years will start whining about how this now-old stadium is a financial albatross on the team. :|(

I don't think there ever will be agreement on which buildings should be preserved and which should not based solely on esthetics. Despite my penchant for clean design, I love the Chrysler Building (http://www.tishmanspeyer.com/properties/chrysler-center?cs=true)'s art-deco look. On the other hand, I think the Sony Tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_Building_by_David_Shankbone_crop.jpg) looks ridiculous. And I think the people of Boston would be only too happy if they ever decided their Brutalist City Hall (http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Boston_City_Hall.html/cid_2405229.html)should come down. Yet all of these are good examples of styles of architecture that I believe should be preserved, in more than pictures whenever possible.

I don't think the decision on tearing down an old building should be based solely on esthetics, either. Base it on function? Probably, though we need to address the fact that teardown and build again is too much cheaper than remodeling because we don't price materials cradle-to-grave. Base it on the greater good? Maybe, though as long as we define "greater good" as whoever can spend the most money to push their point of view and as long as government is deep in the pockets of moneyed interests, "greater good" is a corrupt notion.

And, honestly, commercial buildings are just one (albeit very expensive) manifestation of American perspective. Radio stations change formats frequently in an effort to capture the most valuable audience. Give the new format a couple of months and if it hasn't caught people's ears, blow it up and start over again. Ditto for raking over the coals public companies which have succeeded at modest levels of profit for decades or even a century or more: gotta get that dividend up this quarter, regardless of the effect it has on the company's culture and employees which somehow managed to make it successful all along.

It's the way Americans see things. There are limitless raw materials. Youth of any kind is venerated. Reinvention reigns supreme. Too bad that means the good stuff about older things tends to get left in the dust.

[pinkytoe]

It's the way Americans see things.
Traveling through my neighborhood of ongoing teardowns and remodels, I was thinking about this. Why do we feel compelled to renew/replace so often? I have the compulsion too but I don't know if it is learned, ie cultural or something else.

[catherine]

I'll tell you where they went: they were torn down! our iconic Busch Stadium of the 1960's was blasted to the ground, only to build a lame faux-old stadium. It's supposed to evoke memories of yore and that is the standard now for baseball stadiums. What's amusing to me is that better than 50% of today's game-going crowd will not remember that old-style stadium. I only barely remember that type from the college in Des Moines when I was a kid.

Let the market reign and The St. Louis Cardinals are a commercial franchise so let them do as they will, but I can complain about their actions. And when they come to local gobmnt for handouts, I'll protesting that vigorously and vocally.

I went to Busch Stadium a couple of times when I was staying at Union Station for 3 months, and I marveled at how I could WALK there in just a couple of minutes! Unlike battling traffic and confusing webs of highways like you do when having to get to Yankee or Shea (now Citifield) Stadiums. I was bummed when I heard they were demolishing it--but I'm glad they rebuilt on the same spot. Great for the citizens' convenience!

[Gregg]

I think the notion of what is beautiful evolves so our tastes change and what we desire naturally follows. Our little house that was beautiful when it was built in 1954 did not evoke that same sentiment when we bought it in 2013. Hopefully it will again when the renovation is complete! In addition to tastes and styles new products are continually coming to market and some really are improvements over what was available in the past. If incorporating those adds to the quality of your life, then why not, even though the original item might still be perfectly serviceable?

[catherine]

If incorporating those adds to the quality of your life, then why not, even though the original item might still be perfectly serviceable?

Yes, that's how I resolved my conflicting feelings about my kitchen, Gregg. It is just SO much more functional now!!! I use to have to crawl on the floor to find dusty old cans of food underneath the cooktop--now I have a slide-out pantry.. I used to have to push aside all kinds of little spices on one of my shelves--now I have a slide out with four skinny spice shelves making everything visible at once. I used to have to cross the kitchen to throw stuff away--now I have a roll-out trash, which DH LOVES because he uses the cutting board on the counter above the roll-out and then just shoves stuff into the garbage. In fact, we are looking for some kind of a tray or inset for the trash can, so that we can shove our vegetable throw-aways into the tray rather than the trash and then take it right out to the compost

There is SOMETHING to be said for new and improved, but I still tend to be very attached to the history of the originals. Here in the Princeton area, my stomach turns when I see little cape cod push-downs making way for big McMansions.

[ApatheticNoMore]

My default position, a decision I seem to make all the time, is to veto adding new replacement products to my life when I have servicable old ones (no something like clothes don't count - because it's ok to have more than 1 shirt - there's actual value in variety there. I'm talking replacements of things I don't need multiple of). Not playing the planned obsolesence game. Use it up... eh you know the saying.

I have to have pretty good reasons to override that. (though if the "new" product is itself used the barrier isn't so high - it's just buying one product from the thrift shop and donating another - nothing new gets created, maybe goodwill makes money :)).

[IshbelRobertson]

My home city has houses and buildings from the 1400s and before!

i'm grateful to live in a country where the old is still valued,although whole swathes of the city were razed to the ground in the 50s and 60 s.

[iris lilies]

My home city has houses and buildings from the 1400s and before!

i'm grateful to live in a country where the old is still valued,although whole swathes of the city were razed to the ground in the 50s and 60 s.

The beauty of Edinburgh is sublime.

[AmeliaJane]

I'm really sorry that they couldn't find a way to preserve the Folk Art Museum. I visited years ago, and personally I thought it was lovely. Overall, though, I sympathize with enthusiasm for the new (while still loving the people who find a way to preserve the old.) Fenway is a jewel-box of a park but it has a ton of obstructed-view seats, the crowd exit situation scares the heck out of me (modern stadia can get a lot of people in, and more important, out, in a very short period of time), and tickets to the Red Sox are pretty hard and expensive to get because they have so few seats. I used to live in a city with a lot of Deco office buildings downtown and they are pretty but really hard to put modern climate control and communications tech into. Now I work in a historic building (1920s) and by far the biggest cost for our organization is facilities and maintenance...and this is for a building that was built with the highest quality materials and workmanship, and has been lovingly kept up since built. Some of that is costs we would have in any building, but still...

I'm glad we're getting better at adapting and preserving the old buildings, but...I get it. Some people and organizations just don't have the resources, or an older building isn't a fit for what they want to do.

[Miss Cellane]

Having worked in Boston City Hall years ago, the building does not function. The public areas are confusing and poorly laid out, and so are the more private office areas. People who work in the building get confused when they have to go to parts of the building they've never been in before. And with the added security that has had to be added post 9/11, it's a mess. The building was designed to be open to the public, so adding metal detectors and funneling people into them has been a problem. If they were to tear it down tomorrow, I'd be nothing but happy.

How Fenway Park has managed to keep going is a mystery. There's no parking, it's tiny compared to most other ball parks, and as PPs have mentioned, the tickets are expensive and many seats aren't good. I'm all kinds of nostalgic about Fenway--I went to college with the sound of the organ playing on warm September afternoons, my cousins have all worked there. But game days create a traffic nightmare for blocks away from the park. And yet, even though as AmeliaJane has pointed out, it doesn't work as well as other stadiums, I'll be sad when it finally gets torn down.

It's a constant balancing act. There is much good to be preserved in older buildings. But the improvements that new technology can provide shouldn't be ignored, either.

[Gardenarian]

San Francisco seems to replace it's museums on a regular basis, and then they don't have the money for decent exhibits or staff.
Apparently donors prefer to give money to structures rather than ephemeral things like salaries.
I have never been to the Folk Art museum, but the newish California Academy of Sciences, de Young museum, and Exploratorium are all failures in my book.

What I see a lot of in California is tearing down buildings before giving them a chance to mellow - like wine, many building become more valued with age. Instead they tear them down and put up the latest thing.

[pinkytoe]

What I see a lot of in California is tearing down buildings before giving them a chance to mellow - like wine, many building become more valued with age. Instead they tear them down and put up the latest thing. Yes, and they keep moving here to Austin and doing the same thing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

That's actually not what I see a lot of. What I do see a lot of is *additions* to buildings to make them bigger. But teardowns? Uh not really. Most of the housing stock is OLD OLD OLD. A new apartment building around here goes for a pricey penny indeed (that's why I say my stove doesn't even have a pilot that shuts off when not in use - what *hasn't* been around for ages and ages?). I guess big glass buildings go up and are torn down fairly regularly, but not housing.

But the very old apartment I posted about living in (with ZERO nostalgia for early 20th century buildings), partly termite eaten and all, was from the 20's, that building was around in the Great Depression. It amused me to rent in the peak of 08 when rents of everything else were becoming unaffordable, because I figured I'd wait out another great depression in it (because really, who didn't suspect that was coming?). But then the housing market crashed with everything else, and so I could get somewhere better at the same price.

[catherine]

... (that's why I say my stove doesn't even have a pilot that shuts off when not in use - what *hasn't* been around for ages and ages?).

Hey, I JUST got rid of mine last month! My dear old 1970's Harvest Gold cooktop and wall oven with the ever-burning pilot, which would sometimes NOT be burning and I'd have to pull apart the burners and get it going again. It was just fine--as my frugal dear Scottish MIL would say "There was nothin' wrang wi' it"... It bothered DH more than me, but I do have to admit, our new range feels like getting an iPad after not knowing there was anything better than a manual typewriter.

[SteveinMN]

But the very old apartment I posted about living in (with ZERO nostalgia for early 20th century buildings), partly termite eaten and all, was from the 20's, that building was around in the Great Depression.
When I moved out of the house pre-divorce, I chose an efficiency apartment in an older building -- Depression era, too, I'm pretty sure. But move-in was delayed because they were updating the apartments as tenants moved out -- three-wire electrical (though still not enough outlets), new plumbing, and some kitchen updates (though the aqua pilot-lit gas cooktop apparently was in good enough shape to leave as-is). Kind of the best of both worlds -- the wabi-sabi of an older place without all of the hassles. I wasn't crazy about having to live with XW for a few more weeks, but I still remember that apartment fondly.

[Spartana]

San Francisco seems to replace it's museums on a regular basis, and then they don't have the money for decent exhibits or staff.
Apparently donors prefer to give money to structures rather than ephemeral things like salaries.
I have never been to the Folk Art museum, but the newish California Academy of Sciences, de Young museum, and Exploratorium are all failures in my book.

What I see a lot of in California is tearing down buildings before giving them a chance to mellow - like wine, many building become more valued with age. Instead they tear them down and put up the latest thing. I was just in SF and visited most of those museums. Liked them all with the exception of the De Young. Such a modern building seemed at odds with the more traditional setting of the Golden Gate Park and SF in general.