As a culture we have grown attached to places and structures because of their role in community; creating strong emotional bonds. The feeling of ownership or accessibility to these places is hard for people to let go. To help fill this void between generations many find it important to preserve the integrity of original places and structures. Though preservation has been coined a term for years now it still carries opposing parties. Early efforts in preservation dealt with landmarks as artifacts held separate from the community for veneration, pleasure, or education (Murtagh). Today, many people choose political or economic reasons to use or destroy a structure while others believe this land is a part of them and they are a part of it. Both parties are valid to feel the way they do but where do we draw the line? How do we come to a compromise? These are the current issues at hand in today's efforts in preservation. Luckily there are organizations that have tried to help maintain a compromising glossary of common terms to be used when referencing preservation, restoration or reconstruction. Ultimately, I think we can agree on one thing-preservation is a humanistic endeavor.
On a personal note, I believe preservation to be acceptable and mostly adequate when dealing with sustainability. A.N. Didron explains, "it is better to preserve than to restore and better to restore than to reconstruct”. I agree that this land is a part of everyone of us and we must treat it with respect. It is important that we maintain a sense of progress. Witnessing historic places can do a lot for community as well. Reflection is important when coupled with preservation because together they can revitalize a community and improve the quality of life for residents of all income levels as well as create sustainable, vibrant places to live work and play. Our ability to cooperate as a community and find common goals will test our character and determine the values of our culture.
In reference to the proposal for the Marriot Hotel I believe that there should be a compromise. After reading the many articles surrounding the story, I feel that both parties need to cooperate to find common ground. They can't both win so there is no use in wasting time going in circles. Since Marriot is a corporate company I do however feel that they are not a good fit for the space no matter how close and convenient it is for them. If it was a local small business I would be very supportive. I do not feel that Marriot has a strong enough community bond here in Milwaukee to deserve such a spot. I think it is important the Marriot looks elsewhere around the beautiful lakefront. Furthermore, allowing Marriot to destroy the historic buildings would imply to others that there is no value in the designated term "historic", and what would that make of us?
The start of your blog is really strong. The connection between the structures, the community and the emotional bond that is created is significant. These are the elements that make it both interesting and challenging when dealing with preservation. I think that many people are concerned that if we save so much of the past there will be no future or if we don't save the past, we will not know where we come from. It is a delicate balancing act.
ReplyDelete