What is Historic?
Saturday May 19, 2007
May is Historic Preservation Month in the USA, so there's been a flurry of walking tours and special festivals to celebrate America's Colonial and Victorian architecture. But over the past few years, preservationists have been saying that we need to push at the boundaries of what we mean when we say historic. Although great progress is being made toward preserving buildings from the 1700s and 1800s, newer buildings often suffer neglect. Do we need to work harder to protect places like the Bauhaus house built by Walter Gropius? Is a building constructed in the mid-20th century "too new" to be saved? What do you think?
Photo © Jackie Craven
Comments
Yes, of course they should be saved, buildings like these built in the 1920’s and 1930’s have just as much, if not more, historical importance than a house built in the 1800’s. To many of these modernist buildings are being neglected caused by architectural ignorance in this country.
Generally, any well-built and architecturally rich specimin of period architecture should be preserved. The issue always is: “who is going to pay for it?”.
Anything that took a significant amount of thought and detail (as opposed to a spec house) is worth saving. However most don’t see a building like the Bauhaus house as rich enough in detail to allow it to stand out. Clearly this particular house should be saved for its foresight, but I must say that many modernist structures are TOO clean of detail and too easy to replicate with today’s construction techniques (unlike many historic structures) to warrant preservation funds.
Of course it’s saddly all about money. 3 years ago, Mies’ Farnsworth estate went on the open market and sold to a developer who wanted to divide the property, moving the house to facilitate that. Last we knew, it was saddly allowed, because no other buyers stepped up to the plate. http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/
Sorry Mies, the general populace only knows Frank Lloyd Wright’s work. They should go visit the aged Talliesin East, and see its’ sad state.
I fail to see how the quantity of ornamentation is a valid criterion for preservation. This turns a quantitative measure into a qualitative judgment.
Would the Beinecke Library at Yale, the Guggenheim, the Seagram Building or Lever House, just for examples, be unworthy of landmark status, while some mediocre Beaux Arts pile deserve it? Preservation should reflect historical significance. Any aesthetic judgment must be made in terms of the building’s merits compared to others built in the same style, not as a preference for one style or another.