Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc
^^^
I totally understand. What do you do with that building once the courthouse moves? It was designed to be a courthouse. I've been in there as a juror a few times... I don't think it would convert to housing really well. Maybe it could be offices or a small university? Maybe it could be a museum? I don't like parameters, regulations and limits. These feel-good actions only serve to make a small group of people happy, while hamstringing the rest of us.
|
Preserving notable architecture is not about a “feel-good action”, it is an essential means to pass down a shared cultural heritage to posterity. Before you skip over the rest of this post, understand that I’m a pro-housing advocate and lifelong student of urbanism who works for a prominent general contractor. Believe me, when it comes to urban density I’m the biggest cheerleader there is.
But buildings like this are essential time capsules that serve as a window into our past. Mid-century modernism is not just a catch phrase, it stands for something. The design allows us insight into a particular social, cultural, and political period during which art and architecture were influenced.
In this case, it is a combination of technological breakthroughs in material science and war-time scarcity of resources. Stark and repetitive geometry with an emphasis on mass and permanence reflects Cold War era global distrust and paranoia, while the lack of ornamentation shows the creeping influence of socialist thought (or the backlash against capitalist excess, if you prefer) among American intellectuals. You see, a building like this tells us an origin story about ourselves and our current society. What’s more, any great urban environment is a tableau of architectural styles from multiple era, of which modernism is no doubt an essential piece.
You sir, are a philistine, and that is the only source of hamstringing here.