It's not just the UK...

[Nemesis]

It's everywhere:


http://www.mission66.com/cyclorama/

 

[Flyfisher]

You'd think the US would take more care of what little history they have :wink:

 

[alice]

Again, it's a matter of choosing a point you want to restore to. My husband was once an enthusiastic (American) Civil War reenactor and we've been to Gettysburg to walk around the battlefield. He's been there many times.

The battlefield has been altered so much over the years with well meaning "upgrades" like paths, visitor centers, and buildings and so many monuments to various groups and units that it looks more like a cemetary than a battlefield. It's hard to tell what happened where or to get a feel for what it was like back in the 1860's. The various groups involved in Gettysburg are trying to get rid of some of the more modern add-ons and limit the rampant commercial development around the battlefield. Everytime they get together to restore the field, however, they're opposed by commercial interests, some of which have run souvenir stands, food stalls and pseudo-museums like the Cyclorama for decades.

It's the old battle between modernization, preservation and restoration.

alice

 

[Nemesis]

In the UK we tend to try and respect additions over time which have their own historic merit.

 

[alice]

Gee, you really think this building is sympathetic to the historical feel of the Gettysburg battlefied? The contents, the cyclorama painting, was done during the period and is what is being restored. Personally, I think the building that houses it is an eyesore.

alice

 

[Nemesis]

The link came via the industrial archaeology international e-mail list - I think sometimes it's not about beauty but about history and importance.

As here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131165.stm


And:

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 1961. Neutra and Alexander (Richard Neutra and Robert Alexander). Listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a building of "exceptional importance." Listed by the World Monuments Fund as one of our 100 Most Endangered Places.

http://www.mission66.com/cyclorama/docs/wmf.html

In this case I'm afraid I don't consider this an eyesore but a very beautiful and simple structure by a renowned architect.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/travel/tmagazine/07talk-icons-t.html?ref=tmagazine

http://www.wmf.org/resources/sitepages/united_states_cyclorama_center.html

 

[alice]

Even Frank Lloyd Wright made mistakes. This thing looks like an oil storage tank.

Sometimes a building works better when visited in person than it does in photos, but I don't think this one does. When you walk up to it, it's forbidding and sterile and the tank impression doesn't go away.

There's plenty of good modern architecture out there that is modern but fits into it's environment visually. I love Gehry. Or look at the various buildings on the MIT campus, for instance. This isn't one of them.

alice

 

[CHRIS]

Flyfisher

It is easy to have a dig at the Americans but there was plenty of ancient American History - just a shame the European settlers destroyed it and rewrote the books! Puritans for you.

At least the schools are now recognizing this and in some areas putting native American culture back on the curriculum. For example did you know that in 800 - 1000ad there was a bigger settlement on the banks of the Mississippi River than in London.

have a nice day!

 

[Nemesis]

I think that the building, as with the Commonwealth Institute in London, is possibly not appreciated by all at the moment, because we don't always appreciate what we have until it's gone.

Gehry - not so convinced that all Gehry buildings fit into their setting. Unfortunately, too many 'iconic' buildings are designed (like the Gherkin) with a total disregard to where they are being plonked.

Conservation is the US is a bit of a minefield - Flyfisher is right, there isn't the sort of national protection that we have with our listing system, limited though that is it is still useful to have in place.

 

[CHRIS]

Nemesis

You are right that no national protection is in place like our Listed sysyem but I lived in and area that was termed a "Historic District" due to its Victorian mining roots and you were under the same restrictions as our Listed and conservation areas with regards to the exterior.

http://historicdenver.org/preservation.asp

http://historicdenver.org/sacredlandmarks/techmanual_tencommandments.asp

"I. Thou shalt repair damaged materials whenever possible. When not possible, thou shalt replace them with materials that match the original as closely as possible. Vinyl siding, aluminum windows, mass produced doors with fan lights are cardinal sins."

nice


The interior being a diffrent kettle of fish but my place along with many of the people around had an original 1918 Kitchen and people were very proud of them, if they needed fixing they got a proper carpenter in (very few and far between in this country i think) and only did what was needed. They tend to do much better in the US at training the apprentices when it come to the core trades.

 

[Nemesis]

The problem is that protection is really left up to individual states, it's not national and there are as far as I am aware no national core values regarding conservation.

Our system is far from perfect but EH is working on its Conservation Principles. And although there are ways of getting round it at times, the national policy reagrding listied buildings (and major buildings in conservation areas) which requires a building not to be demolished unless offered for sale on the open market or to any community group has saved many a building in this country.

 

[CHRIS]

Dont forget that the US population hate the Feds, you would find it very hard to get a national body to over see this as all funding is at State level i.e CDOT Colorado department of Transport or CalTrans California so they will issue the funds.

Also the country is much bigger than here so people in New Mexico would hate the idea of Washington telling them how to paint there Adobe walls - imagine the jocks and the Welsh X 1000000!

 

[Nemesis]

Not sure this is a funding issue. For whatever reasons there is not the same legal level of protection at national level in the US as there is in this country for historic buildings and structures, and in reality I think if delved into the protection which exists at local level isn't terribly robust.

 

[Flyfisher]

It is easy to have a dig at the Americans but there was plenty of ancient American History - just a shame the European settlers destroyed it and rewrote the books! Puritans for you.

Fair point about the settlers messing things up (unfortunately not unique to America), but I was having a (mild) dig at the US, which is definitely not ancient American history.

 

[alice]

Everyone here has very valid points, IMHO.

Compared to the rest of the world, the history here is shallow, if you think of architecture. The pre-European era Indians left very few permanent structures to be preserved.

The preservation system here is very ad hoc. Some areas, like San Fransciso, have much more vigorous gov't agencies for preservation, while others, like where I live now in Texas, have none. Americans tend to dislike being told what to do with their houses and buildings, even if they like to tell others what to do, so preservation of public buildings here is usually a privately funded enterprise. There is some grant money, but only for public buildings and it's very hard to get. Private homes, no matter how important, don't have the access to public funds like they do in the UK.

There is a lot of pride in restoring houses and rehabbing is as big a movement here as the UK, but on a national level there's no central guidance. There is a system for some very important older buildings but you don't see a "grade II" system here.

alice

 

[Nemesis]

I get the impression that there isn't so much emphasis either on retention of historic fabric. A friend from the US (who used to work for a US preservation society) tends to look a little askance (however politely) at our battered old home - says in her part of the country the emphasis is much more on pristine.

 

[alice]

Maybe so, although I've been in homes that have been restored with a level of wear retained, which is what I think you're talking about. Original is always preferable to replacement, even if it's not bright and shiny, and that applies here in the States as well.


alice