Preservation Debacle

Main points from Chapter 1

A) Order of Importance

- preserve

-restore

-Reconstruct

B) Definitions

1)preservation: sustaining the existing form/material of an existing form (good maintenance)

- adaptive use: limit # of visitors and what they can touch

2)restoration: accurately recovering form/detail of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by removal or replacement

- light or heavy (creeping reconstruction)

3)reconstruction: reproducing by new construction the exact form of vanished building

-replication: to save original building from frequent use

-rehabilitation: repair property for contemporary use while preserving historical values

- how historically accurate is determined by: archival/archaeological research

Preservation is, "To keep from injury or destruction, to save." I find the word preservation to be a very fluid word depending on the extenuating circumstances. It is largely influenced by one's perception of historical content of a location or building, which could be a reason for the controversy in preservation's definition. 

The Marriot hotel development plan seems to be a highly controversial topic revolving around preservation of a historic site. The main attraction to the development is the revenue it would bring in from tourists, providing full time jobs, as well as contracting opportunities. However, the issue is that these economic attributes can not be considered in the decision for reconstruction or preservation. It seemed like most articles were in favor of the development, besides Mayor Bauman, since the existing building seemed to be in a disarray. The reasoning that will work in favor or reconstruction is the fact that, "many of the building's original features were altered over the years, eradicating its historic and architectural value. " I personally believe there is something special about a historic building, but that doesn't have to be the exact materials. I like the idea proposed that the building needs to incorporate the existing foundation. It may be more challenging for the architects but it is preserving history to some degree, not just erasing. 

My understanding of the word in relation to either a building, landmark, or even location is that the area being addressed should remain completely untouched. A person should be able to take a picture back whenever it was built, even as far back as the 1700s or later, and it should look the same in present day, all the way down to the window sills. It may not be the best example, but for instance Old World Wisconsin. Given the buildings that make up the village are replications of past buildings, if those had been the exact material from when they were originally constructed they would demonstrate preservation to a high degree. Which brings me to my next point, sometimes there is no choice but to resort to using restoration or reconstruction. Realistically the wooden houses would have been rotted away by now if they were built during the early colonial time period. Sometimes the best way to even 'preserve' a specific building is to use restoration or reconstruction to create a replication. But for buildings made out of a more study material, such as brick, stand a higher chance of being preserved.