Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Possibly. The concept of pillaging struggling towns for their architectural heritage is kind of icky to most preservationists. Usually the decision to relocate comes after all options for reuse have been exhausted, and the building must be torn down due to decay or replacement with something new.
Relocating small-town buildings to Avondale or East Garfield Park just sets off my moral alarm bells, though. Not only is it an affront to the small town, stripping it of potentially valuable assets, but it is also a statement of no confidence in Chicago architects' ability to design handsome, appealing infill. It's not really a savings from the cost perspective; you'd still need an architect to design a code-compliant building behind the facade, since relocations are considered new construction.
|
Some towns/cities are destined to die. Its inevitable. Why should we let beautiful pieces of architecture die with them? Masonry products are not the same as they were 100 years ago, displacing them is much better than sending them off to a landfill imo.
Taking an exemplary neglected/abandoned building from a place like Hannibal, Detroit, Superior, Englewood and relocating it to a vacant lot in a more attractive neighborhood seems like a great way to preserve a piece of the past, while giving yourself an attractive, aged structure that would fit seamlessly into similarly aged neighborhoods. Building something behind it is not a problem... a facade is a facade. And it is not about saving money... its about delivering a product that cannot be replicated.
In regards to Chicago architects and their ability... next time you are in Chicago take a look around. No one should have ANY confidence that any given project will turn out well. Contractors slap up repetitive garbage, bottom dweller architects with no skill pander to the dollar and when you do happen to find a builder or architect who does good work, the costs are typically beyond that of the average purchaser.