This paper attempts to examine some of the broad political aspects of the preservation process in Chicago by recounting a number of significant historic preservation controversies that have arisen over the past decade.
From my perspective, as a writer, editor, and curator who has devoted his career to advocating “progressive” architecture, the answer to the question “Why preserve?” is easy: They don’t build ’em like they used to.
The question of heritage preservation is one that stress the importance of the natural and built environment . Here the initial insight that all share to greater or lesser degree is that the benefits (and on some cases burdens) of heritage issues is not fully captured in voluntary exchanges in open markets.
The 19th and early 20th century efforts to preserve patriotic landmarks in this country represented not so much shared memory as an attempt to write history.
I want scrutinize a few of the more common assumptions deployed in preserving buildings and places. They relate to citizenship, aesthetics, environmentalism, and the cultivation of a politics of locality.