Tresha's Thoughts

Preservation is a movement that is gaining popularity and becoming more prevalent in the American culture. As we continue to expand our building efforts and build bigger and better buildings, we have come across the need to protect the past from demolition. Communities and the government are beginning to take charge to ensure that parts of the past are available to future generations. With so many people on board with the idea, one would think that preserving old buildings and historic landscapes would be a simple act. However, conflict, big businesses, and miscommunication have a tendency to slow down the process.

Everyone has his or her own idea of what is worth preserving and why, but not everyone may agree with someone else’s idea. In the case of the buildings in downtown Milwaukee, some people see them as junk while others consider them a significant piece of Milwaukee history. The Marriot developers see the site as a way to make money, and to generate jobs for the Milwaukee area. This example shows how the community often has to battle developers when it comes to preserving historical buildings, and how sometimes a peaceful compromise can be obtained. Many people see it as something worth fighting for, and it has a rich cultural payoff when future generations are able to see and appreciate buildings from the past.

Before today’s class I was onboard with the idea of preserving the façade of the old buildings downtown because I am a fan of old buildings. However, now that I have seen them in person I have changed my stance. Despite their historical significance, the buildings they plan to keep are an eyesore, and someone will have to put a lot of time and money into making them look appealing again. Why not save this money and apply it to something more important or meaningful? Sometimes the best thing to do is to let go of the past in order to make way for the future.

To Preserve...

Preservation is a blanket term. It can be associated with nearly anything from old cars to relationships, from thoughts and secrets, to archaeological sites. Preserving means simply to keep alive or in existence. Murtagh takes the word preservation and uses it to explore and understand the importance of America’s past through art and architecture.

Opinion is a key issue when it comes to the topic of preservation. Many people, for instance, look at preservation as a way to replicate the new. A building or structure that is dilapidated can be rebuilt out of new materials and components. On the other hand, some believe that keeping a structure in its original state, with the ravages of time, is the way to preserve. When there are such separate viewpoints arguments do arise making preservation in America an ongoing battle. Thus, preservation is a word based purely on opinion making it a difficult problem Americans face.

Looking further into Murtagh’s text, he explains that Americans have recently taken an initiative to this idea of preserving the landmarks and structures from the past, and created a larger role with government to rely on preservation. He also explains that at first, major landmarks were the single main priority to preserve but do to official involvement areas such as parks and urban environments have also become subjects of preservation. Just as the protection of single buildings and landmarks were the goal of early preservationists, government has continued this idea and branched off with preserving America’s natural resources. With preservation becoming a more important subject with urban planning and such the need to lay down building blocks such as terms to understand preservation, is a must. Murtagh explains, “Over the years, certain terminology has been established by use and common consent, even though confusion and differences of opinion over exact meaning still tend to persist in the public mind” (Murtagh 2006). To combat this, breaking preservation down into other words helps to better explain the idea. Preservation, for instance, means measures to sustain existing form. Restoration, another important term, means to recover the form. Reconstruction means reproducing by new construction, and finally, rehabilitation means returning a property to the state of utility. With preservation broken down into these terms, the public as well as preservationists have a better way to communicate the saving of America’s history.

With Preservation defined, the plans for the new Marriot hotel in Milwaukee have caused a debate on the topic. With some arguing for the Hotel and others arguing it will destroy two of Milwaukee’s oldest buildings, many meetings were arranged to come to a compromise. With the final design put forth, preserving the facades of the original buildings, the history of the Milwaukee people see will continue to live on in a new setting generating economic growth through the production of jobs and revenue. Thus an old inefficient site is being used to continue Milwaukee’s history and help the city grow. It is a win – win situation for the residents. This is just one example of how preservation is still debated on and examined today.

With examples such as the Marriot Hotel, the terms used to describe, and the many points brought forward by Murtagh, Preservation is a key issue in American society today.

What to Preserve?

I agree strongly with A.N. Didron when he stated that "It is better to preserve than to restore and better to restore than to reconstruct." That being said I feel that by keeping the facade of the old buildings along Wisconsin Avenue we are more so reconstructing than preserving.

The damage done to the original facade of the building has been severe and no longer resembles the original surface that used make Wisconsin Avenue what it was in that era. It is obvious that no efforts were made to preserve the facade when previous merchants occupied the location, so what is the big deal now? Is it it because the entire building is being threatened to be torn down, what good does it do to preserve the facade if the interior is no longer there to support it?

It does not make sense to spend the extensive time and money that would have to be put into updating, or rather, reconstructing the original facade when the Marriot would add a fresh look to Wisconsin Avenue; and more so when the Johnson Bank building on the corner, which is very well preserved, is going to still be standing in that location, offering a glimpse of both Milwaukee's past at its future.

Preserve & Marriot

Preservation is an important part of our lives. It talks about sustaining our present to give homage to the past with the objective of maintaining an identity that relates to a specific place and time. In the book of Lamentations the author starts by saying that everything is worthless, it is all vanity. While these words seem a bit harsh, its essence proclaims an outward perspective that humans have to focus so much on the surface of ourselves and the many things in life that surround us. But this isn't all that bad. It is for the benefit of harmony that we seek a pleasant view in our journey through life, because it's good for us. Living in a clean environment, etc.

In preserving a place however, it is great to read the quote from the first chapter of Keeping Time that says "That which exists and that which definitely existed." To me this talks about an experience where a group of people agree is valuable to society, hence the reason it is preserved. In other words, the bigger the moment is, the bigger the reason to keep it alive. Preservation also is an educated approach to maintain things. Maintenance. The type of thing that is needed to sustain and keep something in its nature-most state of existence.

With regards to the new Marriot Hotel I agree with the comments made in class today that support its construction because the current building are too damaged to provide any benefit to the area where it is located. However, I would appreciate it more if the hotel changed the color of the facade to a charcoal color because it would add nice contrast to the corner building that is going to be kept. I look forward to reading more about preservation and learn more on the subject. Great class!!

On Preservation.

I would like to believe that there is a time and a place for everything. “Not everything that is old is historic.” For example, in my hometown there is a house museum that replicates history back in the 1800s when the city was formed. This house is old and well preserved. It’s authentic, it has the creaking wooden floors and the smell to go with it. Do I think it needs to be preserved? No, not in any sense in a small suburb outside of Chicago important.

When preservation is broken down into its elements: renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, it becomes much more confusing for everyday people. How I know something is historic or preserved a plaque usually denotes the year it was built. For me saving the past isn’t a huge issue. We need to clear the history to make a new story and grow within a city. The one section I believe is useful is natural preservation, such as national parks.

In Milwaukee’s Marriot debate I am completely against the compromise that was made. If Milwaukee wants to bring in more tourism, first they need to have space and then they should follow the Calatrava’s lead and bring in more architecture. The original design was a little miss-matched but the 5^th ward has started that style of architecture with the Teweles Seed Tower and the Point on the River condos. Milwaukee is in a desperate need for new architecture, especially if it wants to revamp its image.

Thoughts on preservation, and the Marriott.

Preservation seems to be holding on to things, whether they are ideas or objects, which may or someday will hold residence to our culture. I do agree to an extent that preservation is important. The births of certain styles of architecture completely need to be erected forever. The sights of great battles should be maintained and watched over. America seems to have a problem of letting go of the past, though. Preservation needs to emphasize importance, as well as dyer significance to how historically prevalent a place was. There needs to be a line drawn in order to appreciate history for what it is.

At this moment preservation is a tool to glorify historically, beautiful places. Not only beauty in the sense of aesthetics, but also in knowledge, in leadership, and in American authenticity. These are places of celebration. To preserve their needs is to bring dignity of the original, and if a place of historical significance needs to be maintained, it should be done in the most precise way. With that being said, “Not everything old is historic. And not every old building needs to be saved.”

With the Marriott planning on taking two buildings down from the third ward, along with one of my favorite bookstores, at first I was beside myself. Throughout reading the articles I quickly came to terms with how good this hotel would be for Milwaukee’s economy. The preservation of the buildings became not as important as the economical standpoints only because in reality the building was never very important. Sure it had some historical milestone, but this is the problem I find with preservation. There was one thing that made that building special, and there were powerful people willing to compromise jobs and economic help in order to preserve an idea that in relation is minuscule. The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle was certainly a big deal for our city’s history, though that building never housed anything else as noteworthy. For me, the process of approving the Marriott took too long trying to compromise an architectural plan. The new plans on what is to be preserved demean the design of the building, and don’t seem worth it for how little is being saved.

My View

I believe that if something is in need to be preserved, then preserve it. However, make sure everything is clear on the definition on what you plan to do with the land or building you plan to save. I think the words of preservations, reconstruct, and restoration is what confuses everyone the most when talking about saving a building or piece of land. Not everyone is clear on the use of the terms being thrown around out there.

However, there are different views on preserving. My view is pretty simple I think. Try to keep everything authentic; if you have to recreate a piece to make it complete to the period it came from then so be it. To me, you want everything real and how was it in the past; otherwise you are giving a false representation of what was.

The author of the articles did bring up a good point with saying “not everything that is old has to be saved”. I think buildings that hold a great value to the city and serve should stay preserved or at least restored. But there are buildings that are just old and falling apart. Those are the buildings that should be demolished and have that land used in a way that could benefit the city.

After seeing the actual buildings today, I feel it is pointless to keep those buildings. They look horrible. It's going to cost more to keep them than it is to just start over. I completely disagree with the decision that was made.

Kitty's thoughts

Some parties feel that by doing any sort of alteration of an original structure the integrity and authenticity of the site is compromised. When originality is not upheld the site almost becomes fake, useless and undermined. Other parties feel that is little is done, but the overall structure is maintained that there is no problem with altering, re-touching and doing whatever is necessary to sustain the structure. The question really remains: At what point does attempting to maintain turn a structure from the original build into something completely new?

The necessity of the vocabulary is particularly important in marking exactly what steps are being taken with such endeavors. According to the article, and in all truth, the words used really do best describe the method by which certain buildings are worked on, and the eventual outcome. By not using and understanding the proper words there will be a total misunderstanding as to what product will be produced from the work.

The importance of the article is to educate the public on the efforts and problems with the restoration process, because the US has a very long history with this issue. Also the verbiage used to discuss such activities is essential to communicating to the community dealing with such sites because it is necessary to detail exactly what activities will be taking place, what actions will be taken and what sort of final product will there be. If one is restoring a site, rehabbing it or reconstructing, the final product could be vastly different. By using modern products there will be a different result than if one seeks out the original mediums by which the structure was built in order to keep authenticity, and yet, certain parties would find that in appropriate for the final result.

My thoughts are that sometimes repair and replacement are necessary. When it comes to buildings, some materials do not last forever. The process of maintaining a site is tricky. I stand with the idea that these structures are valuable and at certain points steps must be taken in order to keep such structures around for any length of time. There eventually, all materials fail, but as much as I wish that we could keep things as they are in permanence, it is simply not possible.

Materials can be found and researched, and attempts can be made to stop or hinder destruction, but also there are debates on which destruction is worse, is it the eventual disintegration of a site that is worse, or is it the attempt to remake, or maintain the site by any means necessary that really causes the eventual loss of the site to the public. I think that the public deserves to see, keep and maintain these sites and there are ways to do this so that things can be both sustained as much as possible and maintain integrity.