Survey on Attitudes About Older Buildings and Architecture

Hi all.

Mrs. tom is doing a project for herstatistics class, with the subject of people's opinions on older buildings and architecture.

If you can take a couple of minutes to answer the short survey here we'd really appreciate it!

Done. Intriguing topic.

We hope to post the results here once they're analyzed.

Done! Although of course the real answer is "it depends" in most cases - i.e. sure, hypothetically I do want to see old buildings preserved, but not if it's at significant and burdening cost.

Done! There wasn't any place for a comment, but I would have liked to say that, when one visits Europe, Canada, Mexico, South America, one finds many buildings that are hundreds of years old that are still in use. They give a sense of history and place to the cities/towns in which they are located. I really like that, and like the sense of connection with the people from the past and their works. Not to say that there shouldn't be some modernization, but not necessarily blanket tear-downs.  For us, in the US, a building that is 100 years old is "old" but not in other countries.

I was lucky enough to grow up in an older house in Brooklyn that went back to the 1850s or so - maybe that is why I like the sense of coexisting with the past (but with heat and indoor plumbing!!!!!)

I took the survey.  I am definitely a fan of older architecture and historic preservation districts.  Is that a picture of the Wells St. Bridge crossing the Chicago river on the cover of your blog page?

I hope that these students are able to survey a wider geographic area than Maplewood/South Orange or the NYC metro area.  If not, they are likely surveying a group that has a self-selected bias toward older buildings and architecture.  Preservation and repurposing of just any old building because it is old, IMO, should not be a goal.  As Max noted, "An old building is not, in and of itself, of any measurable value just by being old -- the post office is a perfect example of a building that would be better replaced than reused or preserved.  A lesser example of a style, well used and past its useful life.  There are other buildings in town that are much more important to the aesthetic and cultural melange. "

done .. i love all old buildings and the stories their walls carry...

No, it's a bridge in Cleveland in the "flats" area near downtown. It's a swing bridge that I found myself walking on when it decided to do its thing.

PetuniaBird said:

I took the survey.  I am definitely a fan of older architecture and historic preservation districts.  Is that a picture of the Wells St. Bridge crossing the Chicago river on the cover of your blog page?

BTW, I agree with the "it depends" nature of the questions. But thanks for doing the best you can. I believe that Mrs. tom was thinking it was a given that the older buildings would have some inherent value architecturally etc. Our trip to Barcelona a couple of years ago was hugely inspiring in part because of the way buildings hundreds or even over a thousand years old could be inventively re-purposed.

Just because something is old, doesn't mean it has inherent value or should be saved. Think about the McMansions being built... If they're still around in 100 years, should they be protected and saved just because they're "historical architecture?"

I like history and I like architecture but I don't think that something is valuable just because it is old or historic just because it was built in history. Historical preservation for me is all about context and perspective. The shape it's in, the cost to fix it, the purpose it serves and will serve, its location, its cultural value, the nature of it historic value, all that and more should be considered.

Also, don't forget... Some of the buildings that are trying to be saved now were built in the place of older buildings that were torn down. I believe in history and I believe in the future and I think we must figure out the best way to accommodate both.

Back in the era of Mayor Grasmere, who himself had a great knowledge and appreciation for architecture, the town's public works building was adjacent to the sadly departed former police building on Dunnell Rd, forming municipal complex wth the MFD.

Rather than just tear down something, the TC renovated the PW building, now the Dunnell office building. The town's ultimate goal was to relocate the municipal court to the new building at some point down the road .

ETA the old Dunnell PW building was a big old barn like structure, essentially with a small walk-in office, lots of smelly trucks coming and going, piles of mulch, auto repairs ongoing, and, before the old PD had the addition, police cars were repaired and gassed up on that site.

It was a grand exercise in recycling a building rather than tearing it down. Expense was a major concern of the TC and the escalation of property taxes. Maybe today we can foresee "what goes around, comes around"?

I believe the old PW building is now Nelson's garage, not the Dunnell office building.

Now, that building is one worth preserving, IMO.  I love the Nelson's building..

I was torn on what to say about unusual architecture.  My initial thought was 4 or 5, then I realized that I'd be voting to keep things that are real eyesores: Would I want something I consider hideous (like the Frank Gehry IAC bldg in NYC) to be landmarked just because it's unusual?  And then I remembered an article about Jefferson Market Library on 6th Avenue, saying that it was almost torn down in 1958 because people agreed that IT was an eyesore.  So I ended up going back to 4, because my idea of ugly may not be the same as that of future Maplewoodians.

Here's Jefferson Market Library:

Here's the Gehry building

Nelson's garage has been at that location for ever! 

kthnry said:

I believe the old PW building is now Nelson's garage, not the Dunnell office building.

I would think that attitudes about the age of a building would partly be influenced by how one uses it - residential, work, cultural or service (e.g., hospital/healthcare). If I am going to a library or museum or taking a literature class, it might be interesting to be in an old and historic building. If I am having surgery or taking a class in engineering or science, a more modern building might inspire more confidence or seem more appropriate.

I believe she is talking about this glorious piece of antique architecture:

 The building in your photo was a renovation of the public works building-- a renovation! The town leaders back in the day had the now quaint notion to develop the site without overly burdening the tax payers. I also recall that apartments or houses were not thought feasible in that location. Remember this was long before Brooklyn discovered Maplewood. (FWIW, I was born and raised in that borough.)

The office building concept for Maplewood back then was a mixed use sort of goal which ran into some harsh economic reality and the rush to build office complexes in the outer suburbs. 

Form follows function, and times change. That building would do well as a site for medical walk in clinic  -- with perhaps doctors offices above. Under the ACA, these facilities are encouraged. The building has an elevator and meets the AWDA requirements.

It would be great IMHO, to see the post office building renovated, rather than torn down. If it is bulldozed, I envision a Millburn Ave mini mall springing up in its place.

And no, I am not related and not in real estate! Just a 50-year resident of Maplewood.

Last call--we're going to close the survey tomorrow morning. If you haven't yet participated, please do.