Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guastavino_tile
^That's what they tore out of Russia wharf. Every single floor plate, gone. Its also inside of the BPL.
Let me ask this. What is the purpose of load bearing masonry if it is not bearing a load? If it looks good, then build load bearing masonry. If load bearing masonry isn't appropriate for that type of building, than it is inappropriate to have a building look that way. It's like the arches at Olive Garden with the fake stone on the bottom of them. You couldn't possibly build an arch out of stone that way, it would fall down. Its untruthful.
Good buildings, the ones you like, the ones you admire, are full of truth. That is inherently why you are attracted to them. The construction dictates the form of the building. If it is a load bearing masonry building, it has large, majestic brick walls with small windows and deep recesses. If it is a steel building it has large windows with some sort of cladding, be it cast iron, granite, whatever. A wood farmhouse looks like a wood farmhouse. An apartment looks like an apartment. Frank Lloyd Wrights houses have their form because they are constructed of cantilevered slabs of concrete a'la fallingwater or long wood beams as seen in his prarie houses. Take that away, and they are nothing. Unless you are a really godawful talentless hack, simply following the simple form dictated by your chosen method of construction (decided by the purpose the building will serve) will give you a pretty damned attractive building. This is why old mills looks so good. They have no real style or ornimant, but people love them. They speak to themselves and what they are.
So what is a facadectomy? It is a complete mockery of this fundamental basis of truth in architecture. That's why I referenced post-modernism. I could also reference plastic flamingos, vinyl siding, asphalt bricks, or every other tacky faux-pas that has been invented for the consumerist public over the years. They take this truth of architecture that dates to the romans, and before them the greeks, and throw it in the garbage. Would the ancient aqueducts be as attractive as they are to you if they were really steel with formstone stuck on? Or the temples of athens if they were wood covered in molded vinyl?
Applying a style to a building does not make that building true. Thats why everyone complains about how "disney" most modern attempts are at recreating buildings as we did in the past. When it is done as a truthful recreation (that new building on newbury st) they are wonderful. But it is expensive, and hard. So a cop-out solution is reached, where a "style" is applied to a building and it comes out looking like a fakery, because it is. The plywood palaces with fake brick and asphalt mansard roofs being built in charlestown are a great example of this.
A facadectomy is not the same as an interior renovation, or even a gut job (although they can be harmful as well). They completely remove the relationship between a buildings skin and its bones. It removes the history, the sense of place. It takes away the evidence of the hundreds of people who have walked through it, worked within it. Anyone in the field worth their salt can look at old plaster lines, bows in the floor, nail holes, etc and understand the relationship between the core of the building and its interior uses, and its history. Its why the White House, despite its massive renovations over the years, has been allowed to retain the smoke damage from the british burning it.
For a technical understanding, read the US Secetary of Interior's standards for preservation:
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/
I'm not on a ledge up on an ivory tower. I jumped into this field both feet forward precisely because of issues and misguided attempts such as facadectomies. I'm a preservationist, and this is NOT preservation. Its a sham.
