Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.
|
I'm not advocating for a bunch of soulless architecture. I just think that imitations diminish the authenticity and value of the original. I think it's much better to have contrast that highlights and draws attention to the authentic. I think this benefits preservation efforts because it's common sense that people are much less likely to get rid of something that is obviously unique than something that without more scrutiny appears to be ubiquitous.
This same sort of thinking is the reason why the design guidelines for new construction in the Michigan Avenue Historic District ask for contemporary designs that do not replicate historic designs.
Quote:
replacing non-contributing buildings of the current streetwall. The composition of historic and contemporary architecture can be dynamic, resulting in a richer visual environment, adding new life to the streetscape.
New construction must understand the relationship of its location and deal sensitively with the district’s historic resources when designing infill buildings. The Commission encourages sound contemporary design that respects the district’s existing architectural and historic qualities, but does not necessarily replicate historic designs.
|
from
Guidelines