I collect links that I plan on sooner or later turning into blog posts. As it happens, I have three links that discuss the same issue from three slightly-different angles: “Plan to reduce NYC emissions by 2030 gets landlord backing” from Curbed, “Which cities are liveable without air conditioning – and for how much longer?” from the Guardian, and “Old is new” from the AIA. It’s worth noting that the first was written by a local reporter, the second by international reporters, and the third by a well-known and deservedly-praised preservation architect. You can read the articles for yourselves, so there’s no need for me to rehash them individually. But looking at them collectively serves a purpose.
As far as I can tell, there is no separation between adaptive reuse, historic preservation, and environmental awareness. All three reach the same conclusion: we have to reuse old buildings when we can because tearing down everything and replacing it is wasteful of material resources, energy, and our social context. This doesn’t mean that every old building must be preserved. That’s not possible and, in a society with a growing population, an unwelcome constraint on providing new facilities for new uses and new users. This is not a new idea overall nor is it new to this blog.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with new construction. But a mix of new and reuse of the old is one of the best shortcuts to reducing waste and pollution, and how nice it is that jibes so well with the social aspects of preservation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.