As we embark on the great revitalization of downtown, we in Rochester are not without some buildings and civic spaces that are worth preserving. Below are examples of such pieces of our architectural heritage captured in a few historic archival photos that I grabbed from our local library (that is a complete lie as I used my handy iphone and 'hipstamatic' application to achieve the effect, how's that for preservationism).
Whether it is nature or nurture that predominates, we are assured to be products of our environment. The stimuli, context and interactions that exist during our formative years and even through adulthood shape our prejudices, taste, and often our understanding. A boy who grows up on a farm in Nebraska may not understand how frustrating missing a rush hour train in downtown Chicago can be, while certainly a boy in Chicago cannot understand how to get motivated to spend days doing manual labor on a farm in Nebraska. Yes these are simplified analogies, but they illustrate the influence of environment on our day to day reality. If you cannot truly understand another person's reality, how can you determine their value structure?
Preservationism--the act of advocating preservation--relies on the ability to place value on the things that we encounter in our lives (e.g. buildings, historical sites, endangered species, etc.). Therefore, preservationists must possess the characteristic of deciphering that which has value from that which has none. Sound like any preservationist that you know? Unfortunately, most preservationists advocate preservation of almost everything and anything. Not to say that one or two bad apples spoil the bunch, but from my experience this is a black and white issue for most of them. Too many error on the side of, "there is value in everything that is old."
I have perceived two schools of thought on architectural historical preservation. One feels strongly that preservation should be keeping, restoring, and maintaining something of value in its exact original state (as determined by historical records). The other feels strongly that the spirit in which it was created or made must be preserved and kept in strict alignment with the intention of its creator. One of these is black and white, and one has shades of gray.
If you are like me, then you subscribe to the theory that it can be both, and still be preservationism. I feel strongly that there are pieces of architecture and urban design that would stand little chance of being recreated due to logistical, financial, and regulatory constraints. Those things contribute to the fabric (social and physical) of our environment and need to be preserved. However, I believe that in the preservation, they may be reinvented, or adaptively reused to bring about a second life that builds upon is first life imbuing it with a rich heritage that becomes even more valuable.
The difficulty will always be tempering our sentimental feelings and cognitive associations of an object or thing. We must truly evaluate the source and meaning of something and be critical of value. Our culture can stand to eliminate some physical components to make room for improvements whether they are functional or social in nature. At the same time, when we find something of value, we must not compromise. We have an obligation to preserve it for ourselves and for our future generations. Think about it, preservation is at the heart of sustainability.