From the AIA, a review of two books – The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation Is Reviving America’s Communities and Why Preservation Matters – that also serves as a philosophical discussion about the meaning and use of historic preservation, here.
In short, if preservation is nothing more than saving and restoring the appearance of pretty buildings, then it’s more or less worthless. We’d be better off spending the effort on new architecture. If preservation is in the service of gentrification, than it’s worthless. If preservation puts ordinary buildings on pedestals where they are to be admired untouched, it’s worthless.
Now that I’ve said what I’m against, what am I for? Preservation buildings (and districts and landscapes) in the service of the surrounding communities and history. As I touched on when I was talking about the goals of Old Structures, preservation can strengthen a community by saving its history, by keeping its feeling the same for the people who live there, and by integrating the past into the present though adaptive reuse. The picture at the top is Flushing Town Hall, built in 1862 for the then-independent town, and now an active arts center in one of the densest neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. We worked on it a bit some years back, mostly on the grounds with some foundation repair thrown in, and I’m proud that we helped keep this building as an active contributor to the community that it has been a part of for so long. That building is not going to win awards for its beauty and it’s tiny compared to the apartment houses that make up so much of the neighborhood, but if it’s not worth saving and reusing, what is?
You must be logged in to post a comment.