Very interesting. So, are you on the preservation side of the preservation vs. new urbanist debate that has been raging? I used to be into new urbanism, but no longer, and I make money from preservationists, so I tend to side with them these days. Don't bite the hand that feeds you sort of thing.
I hear you. I like many of the principles of new urbanism, but feel that heritage conservation - generally speaking - (including preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration) has more integrity than creating a false sense of the past. i.e., constructing a sort of 'heritage Disneyland.' That said, I also feel that planning is important with new development. So I work a lot with planners to incorporate the historic buildings and landscapes present on properties, attempting to provide ways to utilize them within their present context. Sometimes they see it as a "value added," and, if the place isn't designated, sometimes they haul out the wrecking ball.
3 Comments:
I took a look at the new site. Looks like this will be right down your alley, Matt.
Very interesting. So, are you on the preservation side of the preservation vs. new urbanist debate that has been raging? I used to be into new urbanism, but no longer, and I make money from preservationists, so I tend to side with them these days. Don't bite the hand that feeds you sort of thing.
I hear you. I like many of the principles of new urbanism, but feel that heritage conservation - generally speaking - (including preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration) has more integrity than creating a false sense of the past. i.e., constructing a sort of 'heritage Disneyland.' That said, I also feel that planning is important with new development. So I work a lot with planners to incorporate the historic buildings and landscapes present on properties, attempting to provide ways to utilize them within their present context. Sometimes they see it as a "value added," and, if the place isn't designated, sometimes they haul out the wrecking ball.
Post a Comment
<< Home