So, I'm often pissed off by historic preservation societies. They seek to "preserve" so much that they do damage to the very neighborhood they claim to be preserving. Often, their desire to preserve stretches to building that aren't particularly old and little-to-no aesthetic charm. Moreover, their desire to preserve appears to override the basic fact that we still need a functioning city or house (or whatever they're preserving). So, functionality must be a permissible reason to modify existing structures. Apparently, that is not the case in D.C. An elderly couple who own a brick rowhouse (yeah, there aren't many of those in D.C.) in the Mt. Pleasant area of D.C. are now living in the basement of their house and would like a ramp connecting the basement to the front sidewalk. However, the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board denied their request for this modification because "Repeating porches of similar height and depth create a notable pattern and rhythm on these formerly suburban streets" and this modification would have knocked out part of their porch. As Marc Fisher (the columnist reporting this) put it, the preservation board would rather preserve the rhythm of the porches than allow the couple to continue to live in the home they have lived in for decades. And did the board suggest an equally palatable alternative? Of course not. They're just there to shoot things down.
Now, I'm all for preserving the character of a neighborhood, but such desires to preserve MUST take into account that people still need to live and work in such neighborhoods. In Charleston, the historic society is currently trying to preserve a library that, based on its facade, is something from the 1950s or 1960s (i.e. not that old) and has all the aesthetic appeal of government buildings from that area. Currently, the library is an abandoned building with broken windows that the city wants to tear down to allow to be developed. Such development would be good because the building divides nice, economically vibrant areas with ones that are less so. Anyway, these people drive me crazy.
In other news, another conservative has jumped into the "I'm too stupid to live" river. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) decided to go beyond Dennis Prager's rant about the use of the Koran in a swearing-in for Congressmen (despite the fact that no book is used during the swearing-in). Goode said:
The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.Besides Goode's ignorance about something he has done many times himself (namely, take the oath of office without any book), his statement is a complete non sequitur. Maybe he should think before mouthing off, but, alas, even after thinking, the Post reported that "In his written response, Goode said he will not apologize and does not see why his comments could be offensive to some Muslims." Really? He's completely baffled as to why Muslims might be offended by his statements? Wow, what an idiot.
Finally, in a completely unsurprising piece of news, Britain, France, and Germany have gone completely spineless -- once again -- for the umpteenth time -- in relation to yet another dangerous country. This time, it is, of course, Iran. Apparently, they have "scrapped plans to impose a United Nations travel ban on Iranian officials who are linked to Tehran's most controversial nuclear activities." Yes, that sanction would have been just too much of a hardship for those poor Iranians -- all twenty of them (I'm just guessing at this) involved in the most controversial activities. Britain, France, and Germany did this, ostensibly, to get Russia on board. Of course, this just means that these countries are spineless when it comes to anyone. I don't mean to imply much praise for the U.S. because our dear President has been a personal supporter of the Russian dictator. Yes, we've opposed Putin a few times in other countries, but Bush doesn't seem to understand the connection between Putin's problematic meddling in world affairs and the anti-democratic moves Putin has made at home. Instead, (I wish I could recall the exact words), Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a man he could trust and work with. Yeah, right. I don't agree much with Cheney, but his speech last spring criticizing the backsliding Russia was right on. Cheney seems to be able to convince Bush of anything -- except for one of the few things that matter -- the increasing danger of Russia.
1 comment:
In Savannah, the Savannah College of Art and Design has done a fantastic job over the years of restoring numerous old buildings and putting them to practical use. There should be no problem with new construction, but thankfully current preference seems to be to make it "fit" with its surroundings. Here among the gorgeous victorian and baroque buildings downtown sits an enormous block of granite, utterly out of place. Of course it is a government building.
The sad thing in your case, of course, is that (at least in the article you read), there was no mention of a creative way to make their house accessible and historically aesthetic.
As for the other thing, yeah...... without any intention of excusing such idiocy, I will add it is a symptom of the deep distrust many people have of Muslims for some valid reasons. Islam instructs its adherents to impose their beliefs on society in a way any liberal should easily parallel with their fears of Christian evangelical conservatives, who are relatively more benign.
In your plea for pluralism and acceptance of all religions, don't lose sight of the concurrent requirement, as with evangelicals, to mitigate that religion's political overbearance as well.
Post a Comment