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.