by T. Gale <Homedad@worldnet.att.net>, Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999
For fans of Ally McBeal, can we call this another Fishism? ;^)
Retarding time may be the feeling of Mr. Fish (and unfortunately many others) and, at 60, it may represent his current mortality angst but I don't feel it represents the motivations of preservationists I am familiar with. I think one can get a better understanding of the motivations by looking at the Secretary of Interior's Standards for designating a property as historic. Some reasons properties are designated as historic are that the property represents the work of a master or is a good representative of a period or style of architecture, is associated with an important individual or event in history or may yield important historic or prehistoric information. I don't want to get too philosophical but we all intuitively understand that man can not reinvent the wheel with each generation. Our advancement and development is based on the handing down of experiences and knowledge from past generations and the appreciation and understanding of that information by new generations. That understanding gives us a sense of who were are, where we have come from, and what we are capable of. I think that preservation of important archeological and architectural sites is an important element in that understanding. Is it hard to understand that we don't want to replace Monticello with a housing subdivision, Plymouth Plantation with a mini mall, or Ellis Island with a office complex? We are not just trying to "retard time". I think we hope to go forward with enlightenment built on the understanding of our past. Who would question the ability of a historic property to transform an abstract historic fact into a concrete understanding of that history?
Do we question the value of preserving other works of humankind such as paintings, sculpture, or music? Architecture must be also seen as an art form. I find it is interesting that, unlike other types of art, architecture addresses one of the basic requirements of survival, shelter. Consider too, that although historic, a building does not have to become a museum but can continue to be used for its original or adaptive new purpose.
There is also the environmentally friendly benefits of recycling associated with the reuse of historic buildings. Although there are potentially hazardous materials found in older buildings, many times the best solution is to encapsulate them in place rather than deal with the environmental risk of their disposal. Consider too that the repair and maintenance of existing buildings places far less burden on the earth's natural and renewable resources than new construction.
We can not forget the economic benefits of preservation. Studies have shown that money invested in preservation projects does more to stimulate the economy than other projects. There is also the potential to attract tourism dollars to places that have preserved their historic character or significance.
I think that "efforts at preservation" have to be understood as much more than "an effort to retard time". There are many concrete reasons for protecting our historic archeology and architecture. They are more than romantic and nostalgic and need serious consideration. We shouldn't forget that while we can attempt to recreate lost historic elements, we will never again be able to fully replace them. Nor can we overlook the importance of the study and understanding of our past in our advancement as a society.
web page provided by OPENAIR-MARKET NET
return to Preserve Maxwell Street