Stop Tooling Around!

March 10th, 2010

PHTalk“New tools make the craftsman lazy, causing us to forget how to cope the corner of moldings and how to nail things so they hold. Too many times I have seen carpenters nail a gapped board an extra 10 times instead of making the cut right the first time. Instead of approaching a job wondering how-to, we go in wondering if we have a tool for it. . .The future of fine quality in architecture production is reliant on quality craftsmen. The machine will dumb down architecture, limiting creativity and making quality too expensive.”

—Brent Hull, owner, Hull Historical

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Leave a Reply

Say What? Preservationists Should Reinvent Themselves?

February 24th, 2010

PHTalk“. . . A restoration should not only reinstate the past, it should also prepare a building for the future. If a building cannot meet tomorrow’s standards, . .it is doomed to become obsolete. And that will lead the public and policymakers to wonder why they should devote precious resources to the very cause preservationists hold dear. . .Preservationists have to reinvent themselves—or they will become dinosaurs.”

—Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, Chicago Tribune, from a speech he gave to the Michigan Historic Preservation Network

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

3 Responses to “Say What? Preservationists Should Reinvent Themselves?”

  1. Rudy says:

    Preservationists are already dinosaurs.

  2. Gabi says:

    This is about as good a definition of the term “sustainability” as I’ve ever seen.

  3. Taylor says:

    Good stuff, Blair. I truly think that this is the way preservationists and restorationists are headed: keep the style and design and the architecture, while upgrading systems so they meet contemporary expectations, standards, and requirements.

Leave a Reply

Are Old Buildings Our Best New Opportunity?

February 11th, 2010

PHTalk“The current recession began with the collapse of the housing market, which had a domino effect into nearly all sectors of construction. With new construction waning, the economics of reusing existing structures becomes more inviting. Despite the tired cry of ‘that old building is too expensive to save,’ I have seen very few buildings in my nearly 40 years of practice that would fit that description. ‘That old building’ may not only be the greenest on the block, as is often said of late, but it may also be the most cost-effective opportunity to revitalize our communities in this time of uncertainty.”

—James T. Kienle, FAIA, director of the historic preservation studio, Moody Nolan, Inc., writing in Contract magazine

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

2 Responses to “Are Old Buildings Our Best New Opportunity?”

  1. Andi says:

    It took the Great Recession–and worse in the real estate industry–to wise people up to the advantages of preserving and restoring older structures, rather than building huge numbers of new ones. But people have short memories. We’ll get back to over building when the time is right.

  2. Dylan says:

    Would that this was the prevailing view, but I don’t think many minds are being changed, even in these tough times. The biggest part of the business is based on NEW design and development, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

Leave a Reply

Are We Really Scorching the Earth?

January 28th, 2010

PHTalk“If we continue with what is now a scorched earth policy of consumption, we cannot sustain nature’s limited resources. The writing was on the wall in the 1880s, 1960s and 1970s and now again in the 21st century.”

—Eric Stengel, principal, Eric Stengel Architecture, LLC

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

3 Responses to “Are We Really Scorching the Earth?”

  1. Brenda says:

    There’s not a lot of consumption going on at the moment, “scored earth” or otherwise.

  2. Draper says:

    The writing’s been on the wall for a long time, apparently. When are we going to be able to read what it says?

  3. Donald says:

    Doesn’t anybody else get tired of reading nonsense like this?

Leave a Reply

Are Modern Architecture and New Urbanism Compatible?

January 13th, 2010

PHTalk“Some New Urbanists are opposed to Modernist architecture because they do not think it has, to date, contributed reliably to a pedestrian-friendly, human-scaled public realm. But most New Urbanists believe it can contribute, as there are many strains of Modernism.”

—Sandy Sorlien, photographer, code writer and member of the Congress for the New Urbanism

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

2 Responses to “Are Modern Architecture and New Urbanism Compatible?”

  1. Bruce says:

    I don’t think “most New Urbanists” think that Modernism, writ large, can contribute significantly to the development of “human-scaled” architecture. In fact, they think just the opposite.

  2. Sharon says:

    I think you’re right, Bruce. They don’t give a whit.

Leave a Reply

Is the Assembly of Buildings, Like This One, a Traditional Thing to Do?

December 29th, 2009

forum2“For years, the assembly line was credited with destroying building crafts, although blame for such should probably be more heavily shouldered by architects desiring what they called a ‘machine aesthetic.’ It is ironic that, at this juncture in history, the assembly line is poised to return architectural wisdom to the market on a scale so massive that it cannot even be contemplated by the few pockets of highly trained tradespeople who currently exist. Stay tuned.”

—Stephen A. Mouzon, AIA, CNU, LEED AP, principal, Mouzon Design

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

4 Responses to “Is the Assembly of Buildings, Like This One, a Traditional Thing to Do?”

  1. MyMediaLand says:

    I believe the older our civilization is the more art and automation there will be.

  2. Janice says:

    What’s Mr. Mouzon saying exactly?

  3. Bruce says:

    Bring on the assembly line for building traditional houses! We need the help, and we need the work!

  4. Strelow says:

    “Art and Automation.” That should be movie or at least a documentary!

Leave a Reply

Why Can’t Manufacturers Design Products for a Room Like This?

December 16th, 2009

Hull-4“When was the last time you tried to buy good moldings or well-designed building materials at a lumberyard? Why is it so hard to get products with thick and rich details that convey a sense of permanence and strength? A major problem in the building-materials market today is the lack of design expertise of manufacturers. Few manufacturers seek to be the experts and sources of information that manufacturers were in the first half of the last century.”

—Brent Hull, owner, Hull Historical, designer and manufacturer of custom architectural interiors

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

4 Responses to “Why Can’t Manufacturers Design Products for a Room Like This?”

  1. Sharon says:

    Manufacturers may lack the expertise now, but if they do, it’s because there’s no demand in the market for it. Simple as pie.

  2. Danielle says:

    At the very upper end of the market, where Mr. Hull does his work, nearly all these details are custom designed and custom made, often on site. They’ve got nothing to do with “manufacturers.” The rest of the world can’t afford and probably doesn’t want such luxuries.

  3. Tim says:

    What you say is probably true, Danielle, but that doesn’t mean manufacturers can’t learn from earlier designs and construction techniques and employ some of what they learn into the making of contemporary products. Some of them are actually doing it, of course. Mr. Hull is exaggerating to make a point.

  4. Lori Dennis, ASID, LEED AP says:

    Actually, you can find these types of mouldings in many building supply stores, including Lowe’s and Home Depot. It’s just a matter of layering the products they have to accomplish the same look. Be inspired by Robert Denning’s interiors. He did the same thing with wild success.

Leave a Reply

Are Preservation and Restoration Yesterday’s Hot Topics?

November 19th, 2009

talk“Mainstream media has less interest in historic preservation than it did a few decades ago. Back when ‘less is more’ ideology reigned supreme, the idea of reviving richly ornamented historic buildings seemed radical to editors who thrive on all things new and different. Our successes in preservation have ironically caused our undoing with the media: We’re not considered new and exciting any longer. That’s the preservation movement’s own inconvenient truth.”

—–Clem Labine, founder of Old-House Journal magazine and editor emeritus of Clem Labine’s Traditional Building and Clem Labine’s Period Homes magazines

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

4 Responses to “Are Preservation and Restoration Yesterday’s Hot Topics?”

  1. David says:

    The preservation movement, which is more like a club than anything else, has had precious little success over the last 30 years, at least in swaying the hearts and minds of most Americans, the vast majority of whom think “tear down” is the right phrase to place before “build up.”

  2. Ted says:

    Good point, but let’s not kid ourselves. The preservation “movement’s” successes have always been limited–even when they were supposedly high on the list of important agendas. They’ve never struck a truly resonant chord with political and social elites, let alone the bulk of the American population.

  3. Molly says:

    What “successes”? There have been far more failures than successes.

  4. Susan says:

    I beg to differ. Historic preservation is no longer a movement at all; it’s now part of the way Americans think about old buildings and venerable sites. We certainly have a significant road to travel, but we’ve come a long way; and we’re still moving forward.

Leave a Reply

Traditions Should Evolve—Shouldn’t They?

November 5th, 2009

talk“We clearly do not have all the answers to the challenge of creating sustainable communities or of adapting traditional building and urbanism to a world of peak oil, global climate change and possible sea-level rise. While traditional urbanism may reduce travel – and it seems to be clear that traditional approaches to making buildings that can respond passively to climate are proving relevant today – tradition must evolve to respond to changed conditions.”

—Hank Dittmar, chief executive, The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

2 Responses to “Traditions Should Evolve—Shouldn’t They?”

  1. Barry says:

    What’s this guy trying to say?

  2. Simon says:

    I think he’s trying to say that things change slowly, which is a pretty, British way of looking at it.

Leave a Reply

Do Energy-Saving Replacements Rob a House of Its History?

October 20th, 2009


“What is new is the current push to save energy, which can threaten the integrity of the historic home and potentially rob it of that which makes it truly historic. It is taking various forms, such as replacement windows with insulated glass, vinyl siding backed with rigid insulation and embossed fiberglass doors with insulated cores. The problem is, if you replace the siding, windows and doors with materials that belong in the 21st century instead of the 19th, can you still honestly call the house historic?”

—John H. Cluver, AIA, LEED AP, partner and director of preservation, Voith & Mactavish Architects, LLP

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

2 Responses to “Do Energy-Saving Replacements Rob a House of Its History?”

  1. Damon says:

    I’m not sure about vinyl siding, but a lof of the other contemporary building materials can certainly be used and still let a house be considered historic. Anyway, most of the time these conversations center on changes made to a home’s exterior facades. What about the interior? Would a home that’s perfectly restored on the inside not be considered “historic” just because it has replacement windows in some places and a fiberglass entry door?

  2. Clark says:

    Yes. It WOULDN’T be considered historic. That’s an easy one.

Leave a Reply