Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Not as Ugly as Stonehenge: Architecture and History in the First Lists of Historic Buildings

Not as Ugly as Stonehenge: Architecture and History in the First Lists of Historic Buildings Four years ago Peter Draper, as your recently retired president, described his lecture as valedictory and therefore self-indulgent in its choice of topic. What a useful precedent. I hope I am not over self-indulgent to the extent of being too autobiographical, but the subject does relate to my personal experience of the practice of architectural history in the conservation of historic buildings. The history of building conservation is now developing its own quite substantial literature to which this is a small contribution. To some extent this lecture is as much about bureaucracy as about architecture, for much of my life has been spent as an official in the public service. But, so that the lecture is properly historical, most of what I will talk about happened before I was involved. One major difference between the British and American Societies of Architectural Historians is that the American Society has always involved itself in building preservation issues, whereas the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain does not. This recognizes the different circumstances in each country. In Great Britain we have many amenity societies directed to conservation matters; most of us will belong to one or more of them and they are centres of quite extraordinary expertise. But in view of what I will say later, it is notable that in an account of a meeting in March 1941 in Washington, reported in the first volume of the American Society’s journal, Henry-Russell Hitchcock commented on the merits of the Historic American Buildings Survey, but added that selections by local groups often lacked historical perspective and ignored anything later than the Greek Revival; that there was excessive preservation of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century houses in New England without regard to architectural merit; and that primary monuments of modern architectural history were wantonly destroyed. As concerns the latter, he cited, among others, Richardson’s Marshall Field Warehouse, and a threat to Wright’s Robie House. The representative of the National Parks Service said that 1870 was about the date limit for a building to be regarded as of interest, though the Vanderbilt House of 1895 had recently been acquired, and that attention was also being paid to groups of buildings. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Architectural History Cambridge University Press

Not as Ugly as Stonehenge: Architecture and History in the First Lists of Historic Buildings

Architectural History , Volume 52: 29 – Apr 11, 2016
Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/not-as-ugly-as-stonehenge-architecture-and-history-in-the-first-lists-U4VoAePjka

References (7)

Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2009
ISSN
2059-5670
eISSN
0066-622X
DOI
10.1017/S0066622X00004135
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Four years ago Peter Draper, as your recently retired president, described his lecture as valedictory and therefore self-indulgent in its choice of topic. What a useful precedent. I hope I am not over self-indulgent to the extent of being too autobiographical, but the subject does relate to my personal experience of the practice of architectural history in the conservation of historic buildings. The history of building conservation is now developing its own quite substantial literature to which this is a small contribution. To some extent this lecture is as much about bureaucracy as about architecture, for much of my life has been spent as an official in the public service. But, so that the lecture is properly historical, most of what I will talk about happened before I was involved. One major difference between the British and American Societies of Architectural Historians is that the American Society has always involved itself in building preservation issues, whereas the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain does not. This recognizes the different circumstances in each country. In Great Britain we have many amenity societies directed to conservation matters; most of us will belong to one or more of them and they are centres of quite extraordinary expertise. But in view of what I will say later, it is notable that in an account of a meeting in March 1941 in Washington, reported in the first volume of the American Society’s journal, Henry-Russell Hitchcock commented on the merits of the Historic American Buildings Survey, but added that selections by local groups often lacked historical perspective and ignored anything later than the Greek Revival; that there was excessive preservation of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century houses in New England without regard to architectural merit; and that primary monuments of modern architectural history were wantonly destroyed. As concerns the latter, he cited, among others, Richardson’s Marshall Field Warehouse, and a threat to Wright’s Robie House. The representative of the National Parks Service said that 1870 was about the date limit for a building to be regarded as of interest, though the Vanderbilt House of 1895 had recently been acquired, and that attention was also being paid to groups of buildings.

Journal

Architectural History – Cambridge University Press

Published: Apr 11, 2016

There are no references for this article.