http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/ar...utalism&st=cse
Architecture’s Ugly Ducklings May Not Get Time to Be Swans
By ROBIN POGREBIN
Published: April 7, 2012
Quote:
GOSHEN, N.Y. — As Modernist buildings reach middle age, many of the stark structures that once represented the architectural vanguard are showing signs of wear, setting off debates around the country between preservationists, who see them as historic landmarks, and the many people who just see them as eyesores.
The conflict has come in recent months to this quaint village 60 miles north of New York City — with its historic harness-racing track, picturesque Main Street and Greek Revival, Federal and Victorian houses — where the blocky concrete county government center designed by the celebrated Modernist architect Paul Rudolph has always been something of a misfit.
|
For the record, I absolutely believe buildings like these must be saved. In 100 years, we will miss them for their undeniable uniqueness if nothing else. More importantly, they are an important piece of the history of structures and architecture. I love when a city serves as a living museum of the history of the built environment. For a city to really function in that role, important buildings must be saved - and the whims of an ill-informed generation should have no say in the matter.
My favorite quote from the article:
Quote:
|
“It’s like saying, ‘I don’t like Pollock because he splattered paint,’ ” said Nina Rappaport, chairwoman of Docomomo-New York/Tri-State, an organization that promotes the preservation of Modernist architecture. “Does that mean we shouldn’t put it in a museum? No, it means we teach people about these things.”
|