Hey Everyone,

So I've got high hopes and dreams and all that fun idealistic stuff that comes from a sheltered life at a liberal arts college in Wisconsin. The highest hope/dream is to get myself some MArch/MCRP goodness from the wonderful UC Berkeley. Being obsessed as I am, I noted the word 'Berkeley' upon the feed at the homepage. I clicked and my knickers immediately twisted. To my glee I found an essay competition hosted by the school I want to attend, with a topic relating to something I'm quite fond of, historical preservation and heritage conservation.

Now, as the topic states, I am an Economics student. There is no architecture program here at Beloit College. Thus, I cannot enter the contest on my own. I've got an English minor under my belt, a tasty paper situation (outlined below), and a monstrous desire to participate in this Berkeley Prize. I was wondering if any of you undergrad architecture students would like to collaborate, pool resources, and see if we can't win this thing.

I'm in fact about to be writing a three pronged research/quantitative paper on historical preservation and heritage conservation and how they relate to happiness and satisfaction within this town, Beloit. This is to top off my Econ degree (the three prongs are Econometrics, Legal/Economic Philosophy, and Public Sector Economics). We can use as much or as little as you, the potential collaborator, desire.

A brief history of Beloit:
College Town -> Factory Boom town -> Big Money -> Factories leave/die, Downtown relocates to Walmart Strip -> Big problems

A common story whose solutions need exploring. The head of the Economics department here is leading a company called VisionBeloit which is working on this. I got the PHAT hookups here with this paper and these resources.

And hell, even if you don't want to join the competition, but will have a B.Arch in a year or two, and want in on some potential prize money, post here and we'll see if we can't work something out. All I really need is a stamp, but I what I want is to actually collaborate with a BArch student if possible.

Hi NLW2

I'm not a student, but I probably wouldn't collaborate with you anyway.

Historic preservation based on architectural style is illegal. Violates the equal protection clause, I believe. First amendment, too. It's religion.

Problem is that the entire profession of architecture is one big festering sore of narrow-minded religious zealots and bigots, spouting about how their style is better than the next guy's. It's like a bazaar of charlatans and preachers and their naive groupie followers trotting off to follow the Great Spirit of Architecture. Who's today's guru? Every architect pulls out exotic pictures they've made, like paintings from the Bhagavad Gita, to seduce the crowd into promoting them. Spouting bullshit and lies and tall tales. Instead of saffron robes, they wear purple glasses with bow ties and work boots to show how hip they are. Architects are laughingstocks. We aren't geniuses - architects are complete morons, for the most part.

Same thing with historic preservation. Just a different style.

No one has quite figured out how to make the legal case, though, which is really weird. Everyone knows that it's religious expression, but no one will actually own up to that fact. It's as if religion is only the stuff in the Bible, and since no one believes most of that, that religion has vanished. It hasn't. Not at all. It's just that our courts will not recognize the obvious. The stuff that fills thousands of libraries with millions and millions of books.

Why? Because too many people are making too much money promoting the idea that architecture has magic powers and that it is spiritually fulfilling.

Read the web site of any architect. They talk about the spiritual qualities of buildings. How magical they are, like elixirs or potions.

Now talk to a lawyer. "That's not religion! That's just a subjective opinion! Personal philosophy! Nonsense!" Religion has to be centuries old, at least, to be considered a "real religion."

So there is this gigantic divide - huge, enormous gulf - between the reality of religious belief and the legal system that is supposed to protect our freedom of religious belief, and the reason is power. Refusing to recognize that architecture is religious expression allows people in power to control the land and control the people on it.

The historic preservation movement is one gigantic conspiracy to violate the US Constitution, and the UnAmerican Institute of Architects is gleefully ripping the thing to shreds.

In this country today, the manipulation of architecture is about the unconstitutional usurpation of power by whoever can exploit the divide.

You want to make a show in this Berkeley Prize deal? Go rip the judges new assholes. What right do they have to decide what my religion is or should be?

Econ, huh? Okay, so how have all the old buildings in Havana made Cuba an economic powerhouse and repository of freedom?

@eje

...wow.


@NLW2

I might be interested - could you post some details and specifics about the essay competition?

eje, I'll get back to you after I write this essay.

NLW2, your neighbors just up 43 at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee might be of interest to you. The School of Architecture and Urban Planning has scholars of historic preservation; their uban planning department may also be interested in your topic (they were big into New Urbanism when it was trendy in the 90's.)

eje, for me you have already won this competition without even participating :) I find the reference to Bhagavad Gita especially right on the spot :D

Just Why, thanks for the idea, I'll see what I can dig up over there.

And eje, would you be able to point me to some of the thinkers that have shaped/strengthened your thinking on this manner? I've got plenty on my side, and you seem to have the nay-sayer thing cornered.

If you can change my mind, I'll give you mad props. Absolutely mad.

Much gratitude to you both.

NLW2

Sorry for the delay in responding.

To my knowledge, I am the only architect in this space. The thoughts in my previous post are my own, developed over the past several years. This has come about as a result of research into First Amendment law and discussions with lawyers and constitutional scholars, and a lawsuit against the AIA. The AIA really, really, doesn't want anyone to know what's going on, and they are very tight-lipped. I'll be posting more on my suit against them in the near future, as it's really fascinating. They want to keep me quiet, and have counter-sued to shut me up.

I am also a buddhist, a minority religion in the United States. Buddhism has been recognized as a bona fide religion - interestingly, established by a guy in a Texas prison who took it to the Supreme Court - but it is usually considered a personal philosophy, especially by our western, Judeo-Christian legal system. This has given me a certain insight that took me a while to arrive at.

Architects don't like legal stuff - that's for attorneys - and unless you are an established legal scholar, the lawyers ignore architects. So there seems to be a sort of agreement between the lawyers and the architects that this stuff is not to be discussed. At least that's the way it seems.

There are a few articles on the legal side, but they are pretty dense and dry. No pictures, either. If you are interested, I can run a few down, but you have to read a bunch of them to get the lay of the land.

My conclusions have also come about from analyzing legal cases that are used to justify historic preservation, and I know of no architects doing this. The comments by one of the justices in Berman v. Parker, for example, are very subversive and are taken out of context by the courts and preservation attorneys. Penn Central v. New York (1972) is extremely interesting, because it was argued on the wrong grounds, and it has set bad precedent for 35 years. The attorneys argued a taking of property - basically a financial, due process argument, I believe - but their clients were never denied the opportunity to build the office tower they wanted. Marcel Breuer was the architect, and would not mimic the Beaux Arts style of the station below. So nothing was "taken", but they were denied the right to build in their preferred style. That's a first amendment issue (or maybe 14th), but not due process. Major screw-up by legal counsel, I think.

It's somewhat complex, because certain kinds of historic preservation are wholly legitimate. Where the government owns the property and pays for the improvements, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to do whatever it wants, including preserving old styles. But private property - especially single family dwellings - is a different can of worms. How can some members of an Arts Commission decide that historic styles are "better" than new styles for me, personally? Simple. They're prejudiced. Biased. Narrow-minded. And they may have colleagues, friends and associates who are employed as scholars or preservation architects. So the decision is about them and their reputation and ability to maintain power and control, not about respect for my interests.

Preservationists will frequently cite the economic benefits of various urbanization projects that include historic preservation, and I don't dispute that economic gains occur. What I would dispute is that the economic gains result from preserving historic style itself. The historic character is always compromised, and utilitarian changes are always made, so it is inaccurate to conclude that the aspect of style is of any specific economic benefit. And much of the New Urbanist thinking can be justified on the basis of use. A front porch in a modern style can be just as effective as a front porch in a historic style, for example, when compared to any building without a front porch. And who is to say that a microbrewery in a brand new concrete tilt-up would not be just as successful as one in a refurbished brick factory in the same location?

The difficult part - the part that's improved by an education in architecture - is to be able to parse the Vitruvian components of commodity, firmness and delight into their constitutional and legal counterparts. Commodity=utility and cost; firmness=substance and safety; delight=religious expression. It is not legitimate to put them all in the same legal category, as they are not all equally regulable.

I'm not sure if this has made any sense, but I have to go now. I'm trying to figure out how - and where - to post about my suit against the AIA, but it will happen, hopefully soon.

eje