Blair Kamin on facadectomies

Facadectomies or facadomies were really big in DC for many years--demolishing entire buildings and rows of buildings, except for the facades, which were grafted onto new buildings. One thing about the Williams Administration, they treated historic preservation with respect, and while there were a few foul ups, for the most part, historic preservation wasn't forced to bend over for the developers in the same way that it was in the previous administrations

Again, see the book Dream City for a history of this. Note that the Barry Administration was fine with the demolition of the Rhodes Tavern. And a historic firehouse building that was deconstructed for later rebuilding was "accidentally" thrown out by the DC Department of Housing and Community Development. Oops...

Fortunately, times have changed, somewhat, although the word is out that Tersh Boasberg is not likely to be reappointed to the Historic Preservation Review Board. This, like Carol Mitten not being reappointed to the Zoning Commission, is a blow against good government. It certainly doesn't reward people for doing an excellent job.

Chicago, despite its almost unsurpassed architectural heritage, still has many problems in terms of historic preservation, inappropriate infill, and facadectomies.

Blair Kamin and Patrick Reardon's series of many years ago, "A Squandered Heritage," is some of the best writing around about historic preservation and demolition.

Kamin wrote about facadomies just the other day, in "Why bad planning = bad preservation."

From the article:

City officials will no doubt dismiss the Skidmore study, citing engineering reports that show that a facade-ectomy will save far more of the Farwell's exterior than fixing the building in place. But no one should confuse this superficial skin job with genuine preservation or even a palatable facade-ectomy like the one that saved McGraw-Hill from Buck's plan to demolish it.

This design reveals that a building can lose its integrity not only by having an inappropriate use crammed inside its ripped-out guts but also by being attached to a larger structure will visually overwhelm it. It also sets a bad precedent, encouraging owners of other landmarks to cite the expense of fixing inevitable maintenance problems as an excuse for making insensitive changes.

The ill-considered compromise begs the question of whether Chicago would be better off letting some of its history go -- provided it could trade up to better buildings, as it did in 1934 when the graceful Art Deco Field Building at 135 S. LaSalle St. replaced the Home Insurance Building of 1884-85, often called the first skyscraper."

Are we entering into deals that serve neither progressive architecture nor historic preservation?" asked Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, a non-profit advocacy group.

Indeed we are. Trouble is, today's buildings are by no means a sure bet to be better than yesterday's. So we slog through the netherworld of facade-ectomies rather than creating a bracing cityscape that vividly juxtaposes what is wholly old with what is wholly new.