Why we save things from buildings is a no-brainer, but the harder question is, “to what extent?” Budgets are tight and space is even tighter at most institutions that hold architectural fragments in their research collections—and risk, loss, scarcity, value, technology are daily pressures. I spent the day at Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation with the Classical American Homes Preservation Trust, Richard H. Jenrette Foundation and the people around the country who protect architectural fragments that have been cast-off of buildings—the voussoirs, tiles, molding, finials, doorknobs, rebar, hinges, nails, wallpaper, paint chips, carpeting, radiators, I-beams, and pipes that are tangible links to the buildings that matter to us—famous or not, standing or demolished. The specter of deaccessioning precious (and not-so precious) objects always looms, and so does the ongoing challenge of adapting an accessioning policy that spells out, literally, what’s worth cherishing until we don’t anymore (or can’t). As we pursue a #circulareconomy for buildings and materials, we will encounter different kinds of cast-offs whose value to study and research is less certain than an 8th century Moorish tile or a Frank Lloyd Wright textile block. Asking and answering these questions now, though, is an important step toward the kind of environmental stewardship that encompasses both the planet and the fragments of our best intentions.
Thanks to Jorge Otero-Pailos for hosting us at the Preservation Technology Laboratory. #preservation #historicpreservation #technology #architects Joseph A. Beatty Benjamin Prosky