What 30 Years of Historic Renovation Teaches You
In Italy, where I studied as a graduate student, my thesis addressed the question of what is worthy of preservation and why. Is a building significant because it was built by a well-known architect? Because a historic event took place there? Or is it simply because a building is old? I think we naturally have a sentimental attachment to old places — the patina of time, the wear and tear of use through years. But interestingly enough, we also tend to have an aversion to newer things showing wear. We find romantic, the worn marble tabletops of a 150 year old café, but we would feel very different about a chip in our new stone kitchen counter.
When my firm works on an older building façade, the questions always come up: Should we replace the brick altogether? And if so, how closely can the historic brick be matched? Should the grout blend in immediately or should it age over time to be uniform with the rest of the building? Should we restore the façade to what it was when constructed or a particular time in its history?
The answers to these questions are never simple and are often complicated depending on the other stakeholders in the decisions. Since my firm specializes in the renovation, restoration and maintenance of older buildings, the majority of our work involves historic properties and many of them happen to be in designated landmark districts, or themselves are individual land-marks: The San Remo, The Dakota Apartments, and the Muse-um of the American Indian are just some of the many structures we’ve worked on.
