Traditional Building
  • THE MAGAZINE
    • Current Issue
    • Previous Issues
    • Free Listings
    • Event Calendar
    • Editorial Calendar
    • Advertise
  • PALLADIO AWARDS 
  • PRODUCT SEARCH
    • Product Database
    • Product Galleries
    • Supplier Pages
    • Supplier Links
    • Product Report
    • Previous Reports
  • FREE PRODUCT LITERATURE 
  • TALK
  • BLOGS
  • CONTACT

Is the Bad Economy Good for Preservation?

July 1st, 2009

project-1Our economic crisis has accelerated preservation’s role in climate change and economic recovery and re-energized the preservation movement. . .Preservation is an idea whose time has come.”

–Peter H. Miller, president, Restore Media, LLC

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Modern Landscapes: Are They Worth Preserving?

June 16th, 2009

The broad brick plaza in front of Boston City Hall – one of the nation’s best known Brutalist buildings – was designed as a visual connector between the traditional brick buildings of Boston’s past and the concrete modernism exemplified by new structure. Efforts to move City Hall may result in the loss of the building and plaza. Photo: Sam Sweezy

The broad brick plaza in front of Boston City Hall – one of the nation’s best known Brutalist buildings – was designed as a visual connector between the traditional brick buildings of Boston’s past and the concrete modernism exemplified by the new structure. Efforts to move City Hall may result in the loss of the building and plaza. Photo: Sam Sweezy


“Modern landscape architecture does not get as much visibility as modern buildings have. We need to develop guidelines on how to preserve and maintain these landscapes. It exists in very limited areas, but, generally, the guidance isn’t there.”

–Hugh C. Miller, FAIA, former chief historical architect, U.S. Park Service

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

4 Responses to “Modern Landscapes: Are They Worth Preserving?”

  1. Herbert says:
    June 17, 2009 at 12:38 am

    Many of these landscapes are tortured designs not worth saving, like that awful plaza in the photo. The building is even worse. Come on. Can anything be uglier?

  2. Russ DaFoe says:
    June 17, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    I think the general thinking is, if something is old it is worth preserving. This is not always the case.

  3. Ross says:
    June 18, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    I think one Brutalist piece of architecture is, in fact, uglier than the Boston City Hall, and that, aptly enough maybe, is the building housing the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C. It’s not only an eyesore, it’s dirty and grimy. It doesn’t even look good in the sun!

  4. Patience says:
    June 21, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Wait a second, guys. This is a Web site about preserving and restoring old buildings and about the value of living in the midst of prior eras’ choices. As long as they function well and as long as their building systems can be updated to make them more energy efficient, Brutalist buildings should be preserved and restored right alongside their cousins from other times–maybe not lovingly but at least respectfully.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

When You Think ‘Green,’ Should You Still See Red?

May 20th, 2009

“It’s time for historic preservationists to unite with the green building community, earn their respect for our culture and draw upon their expertise to figure out together how to save our historic building stock.”

–Ralph DiNola, Associate AIA, LEED AP

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in forum | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “When You Think ‘Green,’ Should You Still See Red?”

  1. ELLIOTT M. DAVIS says:
    June 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    I agree 100%. Much of historic preservation has been “green” all along. There is nothing more “green” than preserving existing building stock: It conserves the embodied energy in old structures; it avoids burdening landfills with yet more demolition debris; and it avoids the energy expenditure required to manufacture and transport new building materials. Preservation requires some “Re-Branding”: We need to expand our “talking points” so that the green building community will recognize us for the natural allies that we are.

  2. janiceenberg says:
    June 15, 2009 at 10:17 am

    I’m new here on the forum, found it by searching google. I look forward to chatting about various topics with all of you.

  3. Rudy says:
    June 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    I agree, in theory, that the interests of the green design community and the world composed of preservationists should largely dovetail, but the hard, economic reality is that there are considerably more dollars and therefore considerably more work to be gained in the design and construction of new buildings. That reality will keep the interests of preservation and restoration low on the list of important subjects to the design and construction fields, even as they incorporate LEED and other standards into their work.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

  • Archives

    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
  • Categories

    • forum (1)
    • Uncategorized (2)
  • More from Restore Media

    • BuildingPort.com
    • Clem Labine’s Period Homes
    • The Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference
    • Traditional Product Reports
    • Tradweb
  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Valid XHTML
    • XFN
    • WordPress

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

www.traditional-building.com
Home | Free Product Literature | Talk | Advertising Information | Site Map | Privacy Policy
Restore Media, LLC, is the producer and publisher of:

Period Homes Logo Traditional Building Conference Logo Tradweb LogoBuildingPort.com traditional product reports

Copyright 2009. Restore Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.