ENG 1101: Composing Abstractions

In chapter three of writing about architecture, “What is worth preserving?” is the main question asked concerning what structures should be preserved as lamdmarks for greater purposes. Examples of libraries museums and churches are given as the common types of buildings preserved. Also said is there are other structures that may be considered landmarks public or private housing. When making these decisons of any structures in mind questions should be asked such as the relationship of the structure to the neighborhood, its present day context and private ownership. Riegl list categories i agree with also, historical value, artistic value, age value, use value and newness value. These ideas will all determine if a structure should be preserved or listed as a landmark.

According to the Chapter 3 “what’s worth preserving?” From the book “Writing about Architecture”, preserving a building or ancient structure has been an issue which critics have discussed through the years. If people decided to demolish an old architectural structure, for me it is like destroy the integrity and memory of the architects. Each of these edifications that have been built in the past has a purpose in society nowadays, no matter how beautiful, huge, old or insignificant these structures are; they have a strong impact in the modern Architecture even though some people might disagree and refuse to keep them still alive. In the chapters the author provides us 5 values that we have to study and analyze before we make a decision that can affect seriously in the social surroundings in which these ancient structures are placed. However, I found something very intriguing in this chapter, “Davidson open with the admission that the destruction of the building will be for the greater good of the neighborhood, which badly needs a new hospital (use value), but not for the city as an interesting place” (pg. 88). It made think that in some cases the demolition of structures is unavoidable and that at the end it is for a good cause; for instance, to build a health center which will help the needy people. Finally, I think this battle about whether or not preserving a structure will continue being discussed day by day and the people who make the final decision should have good arguments and reasons that instead of cause damages to architecture help to keep alive the importance of these structures and to respect the criterion and the point of view of the people who praise highly the ancient architecture.  

Preservation is something that every person in the world tries to acheive. Trying to preserve something means trying to preserve a memory or a feeling. Many things can be preserved and saved for the future but the small things that are not thought of are not buildings or sedimental areas, its the character that resides on and within those buildings. The art of New York is something that we should preserve. For future generations the way we see things can dramatically change and without a view of the way people thought then how can we grow. Ofcourse the buildings should be preserved but some buildings can be taken away from society and replaced easily while also improving its functions.

Something being preserved should have a significant part in the involvement of the lives in which the people around it live. There is always that one place that we always tend to visit or think about, whether this place is a building or a landmark it in fact plays a role in our lives and should be preserved for that reason. From reading chapter 3 of “Writing about Architecture” it’s clear to see that there are certain factors involved when it comes to preserving buildings or landmarks. Although the historical value and the use are just two of them I feel like these two contribute more than any other towards influencing the criticisms.

In “Save the Whitney”, Michael Sorkin states his main concern about the Whitney Museum and its renovation. Sorkin is truly bothered by Michael Graves’ addition to the museum and how it affected the so called “masterpiece”. According to Sorkin, Graves’ addition erased the asymmetry of the building which disoriented the real intention of Marcel Breuer (architect of Whitney Museum). Sorkin’s anger towards the renovation of the building was indescribable. In fact, he states that we should not blame Grave but the society.

In chapter 3, the main question “what is worth preserving” is strongly related to activist criticism. That’s because of the decision that societies make based on a critique, a building can be saved or demolished. According to Alois Riegl, there are five values that we should consider before demolishing a piece of architecture. These are historical, artistic, age, use, and newness values. “Save the Whitney” is also discussed in this chapter to emphasize the perspective of architect like Sorkin on what should be preserved. Even though it is clear that Sorkin was the biggest opposition to the addition of Whitney Museum, he was amazed by how the “façade” flows through the building. Finally, what’s worth preserving? I believe buildings and places that have symbolic meanings and historical backgrounds should be preserved. They are the places where important event took place such as the Ground Zero, a monument designed to respect the death of innocent people.

As I read this passage I began to understand why the writer thought of what landmarks are worth preservation. I realize that there are a multitude of historic buildings that are worth preserving. What’s  debatable is the qualities of the building compare to another building that’s also deserving  to become a permanent historic monument. I believe the truly special buildings that should have their landmarks are buildings that are able to compliment and support the environment or community  they surrounded by. All buildings should be able to show aestheticism because what would be the purpose of creating a structure that is unappealing to a community. The truly preservable buildings were able to communicate with its environment. For example, in chapter three of the novel WRITING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE the author describes different historical buildings, one in particular is Henry Miller’s Theater in New York City. During this buildings prime, it served as a site of entertainment since televisions and technology were only just a thought. This theater was not only aesthetic but it served its community and its whole thought was to entertain people. That’s what worth preserving, a building that was able to bring some sort of service to its community.

I believe what is worth preserving is the area a building is located in. The historical background of an area where the building was built is something to preserve. An example of an area worth preserving is Wall Street. Wall Street was built over downtown Manhattan, which is where many African Americans were buried during the 1700s and 1800s. Wall Street doesn’t make the area important – the fact that the ground was an African American graveyard is what makes the location important. The importance being preserved is not based on the buildings, but where the buildings are built. The area of Wall Street has new historical meaning- buying and selling stocks. Original historical background is no longer important, although it should be.

What’s Worth reserving that is the question. I think historic buildings and structures that have meaning and a historic past should be Preserved. Buildings like museums and other places that house Artifacts should be immortalized. The thing that people need to remember is the history of buildings and structures are the most important aspect of those buildings and structures.

one of the things i think that is important to preserve is something with historical value because unlike artistic value it can not be recreated so it is important to preserve as a physical reminder of the past.