There’s a phenomenon on the internet in which someone with a specialty, involving traditional architecture, will be dismissive or critical of others for not having the same point of view but who are, nevertheless, doing their part to contribute to our enjoyment of old homes and historic structures. It’s one thing to be helpful, to share information, and to be encouraging; it’s another to be dismissive and critical on some point that may not matter in the big scheme of things. I think those who are putting up the money and putting in the time should decide to what extent they want a museum quality restoration or an interpretive one. I think the only criteria that matters is not to remove or destroy that which is irreplaceable or to do work that isn’t reversible at some later date.
I’m reblogging this post from JaMa House because it speaks about the larger issues involved with traditional architecture and not just the process of one project.
Lately, I’ve been thinking more about the political economics surrounding the old house industry and how it impacts one’s ability to purchase, rehabilitate, and restore the old home. As a part of my inquiry, I’ve been looking into what notable supporters of traditional architecture have to say.
[Those who think traditional architecture should never have a resurgence in popularity have an inordinate amount of influence over what architectural students are taught, what products are readily available to consumers, and laws to help ensure the Modernist agenda works its way into the fabric of American life and dominates the architectural landscape. These areas are covered under “political economics”].
I’m a bit surprised to find what I thought were personal observations and conclusions are the opinions and points of view from those who have a “name” in the traditional architecture camp. That might mean I’m either more insightful than I thought or maybe they’re not all that brilliant. I’m inclined to believe the latter…
View original post 746 more words