Historic Preservation Discussion v2015

[RNcyanide]

If ConAgra collapses and their campus sits empty for a while, no one would cry about those buildings going...

Anyway, that is an excellent point made, Joe. I actually like that building, but a great point, nonetheless.

[iamjacobm]

I actually would be disappointed but I'm on the minority. I also an not keen on tearing the library down.

[Brad]

By the Way, Mr. Omaha has been posting more photos in the photo section

Old Woodmen of the World Building Photos:
http://www.eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17297

Hotel Fontenelle Photos:
http://www.eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17298

Jobber's Canyon:
http://www.eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17300

And there is now a new thread for the Arthur Metz mansion Fire in the "News and Events" Section:
http://www.eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17301

[RNcyanide]

I actually would be disappointed but I'm on the minority. I also an not keen on tearing the library down.

Agree. I'm usually all for height, but in that instance, it would block CPP. That place already seems to get kicked around a lot, and they would become even more of an afterthought if they weren't even visible.

[Midwestern]

Just goes to show you that, if they survive at all, buildings rarely look as good as they did early in their life. Especially if they were modified during the 1960s through the late1980s. Since the early 1990s, thankfully there has been greater emphasis on historic preservation/restoration.

I don't think things are any better. People just like really old stuff. You will find all kinds of hate for anything built in the 60's, 70's, and 80's even among people who "appreciate" and "protect" older buildings.

The generation of people who tore down all these buildings we miss now thought of them as rotting hulks not unique gems because they grew up with lots of these sad aging buildings everywhere. To them these buildings were not new enough to be modern and not old enough to be historically significant.

If the Omaha World Herald Building was empty for 10 years and someone wanted to tear it down to build a shiny new glass and steel building who on this board would cry that we were tearing down Omaha's most significant example of "Brutalist Architecture"? Things are appreciated when they are new, then they go out of style and little or no value is assigned to them, then when they get really old and the number of buildings of that type are rare they come back into style and are appreciated.

I can see where you're coming from, however, this is my counter-point.

To me, it isn't simply just the age of the building of whether or not I want it to be preserved. It is the design, how ornate it is, the craftsmanship, etc. Not a lot of buildings from the 60's-80's have any sort of good craftsmanship or ornate details. I'm less of a "let's keep examples of everything from every time period" person and more of a "let's keep detailed, great architecture" person. Yeah, architecture is mostly subjective, but I think it's obvious why something like the old WOW building or Hotel Fontenelle with their beautiful crowns are a lot different of a case than, say, the very plain Omaha Herald building. But that's just my opinion.

The same goes with single family houses too. Will I be upset when a lot of the lesser quality 50's-70's homes are starting to be demolished for something new? No, not really, they didn't have near the same craftsmanship.

If buildings today were built with as much desire to show pride and quality as they used to be, instead of almost always being built to try and save as much money as possible, then you'd also have a lot less of the preservation people being upset about every last "old" building being torn down. But they just do NOT make buildings of that quality anymore. It's always "let's use the cheapest materials possible!"

[GetUrban]

Just goes to show you that, if they survive at all, buildings rarely look as good as they did early in their life. Especially if they were modified during the 1960s through the late1980s. Since the early 1990s, thankfully there has been greater emphasis on historic preservation/restoration.

I don't think things are any better. People just like really old stuff. You will find all kinds of hate for anything built in the 60's, 70's, and 80's even among people who "appreciate" and "protect" older buildings.

The generation of people who tore down all these buildings we miss now thought of them as rotting hulks not unique gems because they grew up with lots of these sad aging buildings everywhere. To them these buildings were not new enough to be modern and not old enough to be historically significant.

If the Omaha World Herald Building was empty for 10 years and someone wanted to tear it down to build a shiny new glass and steel building who on this board would cry that we were tearing down Omaha's most significant example of "Brutalist Architecture"? Things are appreciated when they are new, then they go out of style and little or no value is assigned to them, then when they get really old and the number of buildings of that type are rare they come back into style and are appreciated.

I can see where you're coming from, however, this is my counter-point.

To me, it isn't simply just the age of the building of whether or not I want it to be preserved. It is the design, how ornate it is, the craftsmanship, etc. Not a lot of buildings from the 60's-80's have any sort of good craftsmanship or ornate details. I'm less of a "let's keep examples of everything from every time period" person and more of a "let's keep detailed, great architecture" person. Yeah, architecture is mostly subjective, but I think it's obvious why something like the old WOW building or Hotel Fontenelle with their beautiful crowns are a lot different of a case than, say, the very plain Omaha Herald building. But that's just my opinion.

The same goes with single family houses too. Will I be upset when a lot of the lesser quality 50's-70's homes are starting to be demolished for something new? No, not really, they didn't have near the same craftsmanship.

If buildings today were built with as much desire to show pride and quality as they used to be, instead of almost always being built to try and save as much money as possible, then you'd also have a lot less of the preservation people being upset about every last "old" building being torn down. But they just do NOT make buildings of that quality anymore. It's always "let's use the cheapest materials possible!"

My point was more about the fact that when buildings are modified, no mater when they're built, the modifications usually eff-up the original design.

You also have to remember American Architects designing things in the 1950's-late 1970's, who had adopted the principles of the Modern Movement (which started in Europe in the 1920s), almost completely rejected historically-referenced ornamentation on the new buildings they were designing, and modifications they were contracted to make to existing buildings. The idea was to have the buildings reflect the current period and technology of the time they were built with honest expression of the materials. For example, steel was left exposed, instead of covering it up with non-load bearing masonry and terracotta. So the glass and steel skyscraper was born. They criticized earlier buildings from the Victorian and Beaux-arts periods in the late 1800s to early 1900s, which typically had references to Greek & Roman antiquities, and other earlier European periods. An architect designing a new building in the 50s-70s would typically be scorned if they did something with historical ornamentation. This carried-on well into the 1980s when the post-modern movement began to take hold, after which abstracted ornamentation became popular once again. So this rejection of historical references, especially Greek & Roman, contributed to the destruction of earlier buildings so they could be replaced with new buildings adopting the principles of Modern Movement.

I would argue that the buildings being built today are still being built with a very high level of skill and pride, to the best quality that budgets will allow. (not talking about spec houses per se) And also that the historic preservation movement is stronger than ever right now.

[Garrett]

Architecture preservation should focus on far more than just ornamentation, but it should instead focus on the thought that goes into producing the building. For example, most of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are in no sense of the word ornate, but instead reflect their localities and surroundings. The Sears Tower and John Hancock buildings in Chicago aren't ornate either, but they are regarded as architectural treasures. Same with the less known Federal Buildings. Again, architecture isn't about being ornate, it's about thought and innovation.

[GetUrban]

Historic preservation obviously does focus on more than ornamentation. I was just mentioning one of the things from previous eras the Modern Movement was rejecting in their principles. You can take the best examples from any time period in architecture and find impeccably detailed, innovative, well-crafted buildings. Those are the ones that should be saved.

Edit: I should probably clarify that by "Modern Movement" I really was referring more to the "International Style" which was popular in the U.S. from the 1950's-70's. The Modern movement in Europe actually dates back to the Early 1800s. As usual, the whole story is much more complicated.