This week’s article, “Four Buildings Under the Gun,” reports on four powerful essays submitted to AIArchitect—three from AIA members, and one from a political science college instructor. Each argued strongly for the preservation of a favorite Modern building. The four writers each displayed passionate appreciation for their Modern building, explained why the structure should be saved, shared ideas for its reuse and renovation, and offered steps that they are taking to get it off the preservation/demolition bubble.
The topic raises several questions: When is a Modern building worth saving? Does adaptive reuse and/or renovation of these structures make more economic sense than demolition? What steps might an architect take to ensure such a building be saved? What advice would you have for our four Modern preservation crusaders?
Perhaps there is Modern building in your town or city that you would like to see saved. Tell us about it. How would you increase awareness about it? What plans would you have for renovation or adaptive reuse? What criteria do you think should be in place to give a Modern building historic status?
Comments (3)
I have lived in Memphis and did work for the firm that designed that building.(Currently ETFC Arch) They have a lot of pride in all there work. Now, I live in SW Florida and they want to demolish a Paul Rudolph high school in Sarasota. This school is amazing and promotes so much about green architect in South Florida. With all the land available in America I will never understand why people want to destroy art it’s just pathetic.
Posted by zachary smith | March 7, 2008 2:52 PM
Posted on March 7, 2008 14:52
The historical IBM Building 25 in San Jose, CA was just destroyed by fire March 8, 2008.
Posted by Jill Brodersen | March 12, 2008 12:37 PM
Posted on March 12, 2008 12:37
Destroying good architecture is a bad thing to do. To stop that from happening requires legislation. Owners of these buildings and properties have rights and in general others do not.
Certain buildings are and should be declared to be national treasures, this means ultimately that tax dollars must be expended to buy these properties, so I propose that non-profit organizations be empowered by the tax code to raise money for the purpose of saving modernism & to preserve the buildings and even to be used by non-profit organizations in the general public interest.
Unions for example are non-profit organization and pension funds (about 7 trillion dollars) certainly could be invested in some small part in a real estate portfolios comprised of national treasures.
The next question here is what should the AIA do to preserve the architectural heritage in every city?
Can the writers here do a better job?
Have you failed to notice that you are not provoking any comment here?
What is missing here is any reason for any person to make any comment at all!
Why ask questions related to articles on the pretense of seeking comment where week after week there is nothing provocative to speak to?
Posted by Terry L. Walker, AIA | April 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Posted on April 11, 2008 16:26