Laserbeam wrote: "there's a living, breathing dynamic between the two buildings that might've been choked off had they parked some sort of historical-looking imitation of the furness there."
Hi Ray- Just a thought to add to this discussion-- there is a big difference between advocating preservation and proposing new construction in an imitative style. The former is about many things, including utilizing existing resources from a "green" or recycling perspective. It can be about trying to save specific buildings because they may be exceptional. It is also about living in an urban fabric that contains examples from throughout a city's history, so that we may be grounded in an experience of both the past and the present. The latter idea is one that I'm not involved in myself, and is based on a different attitude. I don't care for that kind of thing. My favorite buildings are typically adaptations of old industrial buildings... That's how I got into this line of work. -Elisabeth ELISABETH DUBIN Hillier ARCHITECTURE One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636-9999 | F 215 636-9989 | hillier.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of L a s e r B e a m (r) Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review Anthony West wrote: > Elisabeth wrote: >> Tony says that we need to "treasure the best from the past while >> letting the rest go." The problem is that "best" is a matter of >> opinion, and in this country we tend towards not being willing to regulate taste. > > That is the problem indeed. But when we try to sidestep the crucial > issue of taste, we wind up creating fake judgement criteria that > smuggle it back in under another name. "Historicity" also boils down to taste. > That's because ALL buildings have history and all buildings exemplify > history. Anybody can write a two-page release about the period that > any building represents. In practice, the history that gets preserved > is the history that people like. One way or another, taste will be expressed. > > The question is: who gets to say which buildings they like and which > matter less to them? Who gets to choose now history, now modernity? > I'm not sure I have a one-sentence answer. But in general, public > tastes matter when it comes to public property. And in general, the > public likes some things more than others, just as individuals do. And > in general, no building stands forever. Sorting out the particulars > case by case is what makes public works projects such a fun spectator sport. (see, I guess this is why I've been asking the questions I've been asking.) * * * btw, I've been admiring the new glass-skinned buildings going up in the area -- the faceted cira center, the circular chop, that slender wedge over on market right next to the old furness bank. I love how glass surfaces integrate new and old -- reflecting the old buildings while quietly asserting their own structures, in a vocabulary that's both inventive and borrowed (ie, in terms of changing skies). and I especially like how the glass wedge on market so perfectly pays respect to the furness building -- by being so utterly different from it, superficially, and angling away from and around it, structurally. there's a living, breathing dynamic between the two buildings that might've been choked off had they parked some sort of historical-looking imitation of the furness there. ......... laserbeam(r) [aka ray] ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
