Yesterday I laid out some of the issues involved with restoration of one of the most famous buildings in the world. Today, as the picture above suggests, I want to look at the question of whether preservation as a field has anything meaningful to say about buildings that are not famous, were never famous, and will never be famous.
The four houses built as a row and seen above, in central Brooklyn, have all been modified to some degree. The one that is closest to its original appearance is the house second from the left, dark yellow with brown trim. As I mentioned when discussing how the absolute similarity of London rows of houses seems slightly off to a New Yorker, most of rows here were built with some variation from one house to the next. In this case, there are two designs for the four houses, with a half-hexagon bay at the first and third houses and a square bay at the second and fourth. The houses were built with brick veneer at the first floor, which has been covered by new siding at the third house (along with the cornice); the veneer has been stuccoed to look like a random stone pattern at the first house. The fourth, all the way on the right, was similar until quite recently, when a new brick veneer went up over the entire facade.
Even if these houses were of great architectural interest, which they’re not, the alterations would make them unlikely candidates for landmark status. That’s okay: not every building should be a landmark, not every building should even be considered for landmarking. So that gets me to my question: does the logic of preservation have anything to say about these buildings?
The answer here is the same answer as at Notre Dame: it depends on what you think “preservation” is. The neighborhood where these houses are located consists of 2- and 3-story rowhouses on the side streets and 3- and 4-story stores with apartments above on the busier streets. Most of the buildings were constructed between 1890 and 1920. So these houses fit perfectly in their context. They contribute to the feel of the area by not standing out, by not really contributing anything noticeable. Their physical construction is pretty much the same as any other building of their age and use, so the techniques that are used in restoration of landmarks can be used for these background buildings. Certainly our work as engineers is the same for these house as it would be for a landmarked row in Brooklyn Heights…which is the logic behind our firm name being “old structures engineering” and not “landmark structures engineering.” The same is true of restoration or repair of non-structural elements: there is no inherent difference between how work would be conducted here versus at a landmarked house.
The similarity of physical work suggests a different definition of preservation. Yesterday I said it was about what people want, but maybe it’s also about what they have. A rowhouse in Brooklyn is a nice place to live even if it’s not a designated landmark. So just as it might be a landmark for some people but not a Landmark, maybe working on it is preservation but not Preservation.
