Preservation Makes It To The NYT Editorial Page
NEVER before has America had so many compelling reasons to preserve the homes in its older residential neighborhoods. We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient…Before demolishing an…
NEVER before has America had so many compelling reasons to preserve the homes in its older residential neighborhoods. We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient…Before demolishing an old building to make way for a new one, consider the amount of energy required to manufacture, transport and assemble the pieces of that building. With the destruction of the building, all that energy is utterly wasted. Then think about the additional energy required for the demolition itself, not to mention for new construction. Preserving a building is the ultimate act of recycling. — Richard Moe in The New York Times
This is a great article – completely true.
MMHTPH- I’m not a rigid preservationist- I think that standpoint will lose us more than if we are flexible. My love of old houses and buildings is still uppermost, but a modified old building is certainly better than no building at all. Now if the pundits on both sides of the issue could sit down and figure out a way forward that is both respectful and pragmatic, I’ll be a happy camper. (And FYI- I don’t hate new architecture at all. I just find too much of it banal and boring. )
I just want to say that I am absoultely shocked – SHOCKED I tell you – to hear both bxgirl and Montrose Morris come out in favor of preservation. Who would have thought it?
Benson did a pretty good job of representing the caveats to Moe’s argument. In general I tend to agree with Moe that re-using old buildings is one of the tools in the “green” tool kit. It is not, however, the only one. Every problem is unique and we run into problems when we try to use the same tool to solve differnt problems.
Kudos to bxgirl, for being flexible in face of benson’s excellent points.
What are you guys talking about? Polemecist was born, and still lives in Park Slope.
Sam, he might be your neighbor!
Mwaaa -hahaha.
exactly!
talk about phony-baloney
we should be so lucky.
where is Polemecist when I need him?
-Maybe he moved back to Buenos Aires. 🙂
By the way, where is Polemecist when I need him? I thought for sure he’d be all over this thread!
I guess there is a point to be made for ecological psychology, sam :-).
But I do agree- for a museum or historical preservation, you can be a purist. But if we want to be really serious about the environment we are going to have to give up purity as a concept in landmark preservation. It’s better to save an old building with green technology, and less “purity” than to lose the whole structure because we wouldn’t compromise on our preservation orthodoxy.