Why Historic Preservation Is Important - In A Map

[H-Town Man]

 

[LarryDierker]

cool map. Where did they get the data?

[H-Town Man]

I actually wondered the same thing. No way of knowing.

 

Turns out it's photos uploaded to Google Maps.

 

[mollusk]

Interesting - the Great Plains in the US gets about as much love as Siberia.

[Ross]

I think this is more related to population density than anything else, with a few remote spots that are popular showing up as well

[mollusk]

Perhaps population density combined with income - India is pretty dark, for example.

[IronTiger]

I think this is more related to population density than anything else, with a few remote spots that are popular showing up as well

Notice that you can outline the Rockies too.

[Subdude]

If population density were a driving factor then obviously East Asia would be the brightest. 

[livincinco]

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard - "Europe.  It's where the history comes from."

[Slick Vik]

I think this is more related to population density than anything else, with a few remote spots that are popular showing up as well

Not really because India would dominate then

[IronTiger]

I think it's several factors. Pop. density, uniqueness, draw as a tourist destination, wealth (have to have people with cameras).

P.S. Live posting from Houston TX!

[Ross]

Another factor is access to post to Google

[crunchtastic]

So, to sum up why historic preservation is important: westerners with money  have cameras, go around, and use the cameras.

How very Google. 

 

Looking at the map, based on the competition from Christendom and token other ancient religions, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the Astrodome is never going to be considered a contributing structure in the global preservation popularity contest. Glad we settled that.

 

 

 

[infinite_jim]

What does historic preservation have to do with photography? Just curious..

[arche_757]

^The assumption is people take picture of themselves and other objects near landmarks.  Landmarks are usually something historically interesting - usually.  So by preserving more old buildings we create more landmarks for people to photograph.

[H-Town Man]

What does historic preservation have to do with photography? Just curious..

 

 People want to see old stuff more than new stuff, all else being equal. They might living and shopping in buildings that are new, but when it comes to what they want to visit, what interests them, what bestows charm and sense of place, old usually wins.

 

Cities across America built marvelous glass skyscrapers in the last century. But except for a few truly exceptional conglomerations of hundreds of these (i.e. New York and Chicago), they are of less interest to people than older buildings that aren't nearly as impressive structurally or technologically. A glass tower on an American freeway cannot compete with something like Heidelberg Castle, or old fortified towers in Tuscany, or the ruins of any old monastery, etc., in attracting interest. With precious few exceptions, no one sees a glass building and says, "Ooooh, let's go walk around inside it - here, get my picture with it - my gosh." It's only with older buildings that you get that kind of interest and excitement.

 

And no, we don't have to wait 500 years - even buildings just 100 years old generate plenty of interest, as cities like Boston, Charleston, etc. can attest. But they have to be saved and preserved.

[H-Town Man]

So, to sum up why historic preservation is important: westerners with money  have cameras, go around, and use the cameras.

How very Google. 

 

Looking at the map, based on the competition from Christendom and token other ancient religions, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the Astrodome is never going to be considered a contributing structure in the global preservation popularity contest. Glad we settled that.

 

Plenty of non-religious historic structures are globally popular. E.g. the Colosseum, the Arch de Triomphe, the Tower of London, etc.

[Luminare]

So, to sum up why historic preservation is important: westerners with money  have cameras, go around, and use the cameras.

How very Google. 

 

Looking at the map, based on the competition from Christendom and token other ancient religions, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the Astrodome is never going to be considered a contributing structure in the global preservation popularity contest. Glad we settled that.

 

Yeah because it's not like the Astrodome wasn't the 8th wonder of the world for a time -.- No of course not. Because facts are not suppose to be part of this forum...no sir *facepalm*

 

Plenty of non-religious historic structures are globally popular. E.g. the Colosseum, the Arch de Triomphe, the Tower of London, etc.

 

Eiffel Tower,  Great Wall of China. The list goes on forever of non-religious structures.

 

------separate point------

 

I feel like some people get really butt-hurt about religious structures being global popular....like come on people -.- . I mean Ok I get it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any non-religious globally popular buildings out there. Plus all of these buildings should be viewed within their historical context. Religion for hundreds and hundreds of years was a the driving force for producing many monolithic structures and they were the ones which pushed building technology  to get closer to their gods. Not to mention they were the patrons of the arts for many years. I just don't get the hate I guess.

[H-Town Man]

Yeah because it's not like the Astrodome wasn't the 8th wonder of the world for a time -.- No of course not. Because facts are not suppose to be part of this forum...no sir *facepalm*

Eiffel Tower, Great Wall of China. The list goes on forever of non-religious structures.

------separate point------

I feel like some people get really butt-hurt about religious structures being global popular....like come on people -.- . I mean Ok I get it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any non-religious globally popular buildings out there. Plus all of these buildings should be viewed within their historical context. Religion for hundreds and hundreds of years was a the driving force for producing many monolithic structures and they were the ones which pushed building technology to get closer to their gods. Not to mention they were the patrons of the arts for many years. I just don't get the hate I guess.

Good points. Religion still is a driving force - look at the Sacra Familia cathedral in Barcelona, or all the stuff happening in the Southern Hemisphere.

Religious architecture has this advantage, that so much of the building can be impractical, meant solely for the impression it makes on the viewer. Museums probably come closest in this respect, but probably are a little more practical than churches. Office buildings are very practical - you may get a nice spire or lobby, but the vast majority of their design is governed by the need of rentable space.

Philip Johnson talked about how exceptional it was that they were able to do the gables on the Bank of America building, since so little office space could be crammed in the upper floors of each. A church, by contrast, would think nothing of having such an impractical shape if it conveyed what they wanted to convey.

[IronTiger]

I would argue it's more of uniqueness. If you think of all the landmarks that people like to photograph around the world (Eiffel Tower, Great Wall of China, any centuries-old religious building from Islam, Christianity, or Judaism) are all unique. The Rockies, any given Washington DC structure surrounding the Mall, and cityscapes (like skylines). It's tacky at best to build a full-size replica of the Statue of Liberty or the Dome of the Rock in another area where it doesn't belong, and there are some things that can't be replicated at all. California Redwoods, vast desert vistas, and the like: they're all unique. 

 

One of the reasons why Europe is do disproportionate to the rest of the world is that it's a draw for tourists as well as being a dense, well-off area to begin with. Europe is exotic compared to the U.S., that's one reason why people like it. Hell, for a good number of the traffic/transportation posts in the last year and numerous other topics, isn't the way Europe does it brought up, for better or worse?

 

 

[Luminare]

Good points. Religion still is a driving force - look at the Sacra Familia cathedral in Barcelona, or all the stuff happening in the Southern Hemisphere.

Religious architecture has this advantage, that so much of the building can be impractical, meant solely for the impression it makes on the viewer. Museums probably come closest in this respect, but probably are a little more practical than churches. Office buildings are very practical - you may get a nice spire or lobby, but the vast majority of their design is governed by the need of rentable space.

Philip Johnson talked about how exceptional it was that they were able to do the gables on the Bank of America building, since so little office space could be crammed in the upper floors of each. A church, by contrast, would think nothing of having such an impractical shape if it conveyed what they wanted to convey.

 

All good points as well. lol lets remember though that this is also the architect who got away with turning the top of skyscraper into the top of a wardrobe xD Johnson was truly a rebel architect.

 

Europe simply has the "age" factor on us and the rest of the world. They have the nice patina, and legends. They have a lore that is certainly hard to ignore. In fact I'm hoping to go to Europe for grad school so I can experience more of their culture and architecture first hand so I can grow as a young architect myself.

 

America will have it one day. While our country itself is actually older than many of the modern day European nations, we still don't have back catalog like they do. It takes decades, century's to get that. What can be done to improve our situation is make every area in our cities in america really count. Meaning that the Suburbs have to either go away, evolve, densify, or simply figure out a way to create visually interesting places and moments. So much of our environments in America is just empty space, or vast voids of non-character. It will come eventually though. I mean lets just put Texas into perspective. Texas is bigger than Germany, but Germany (its general area not the country) has a history of at least 1000 years or more, while Texas has about 300 (of course you can find really ancient stuff further back, but I'm talking about Texas as a entity that people know of today.) Germany has about 85 million people (fairly spread out), Texas about 27 million (with most concentrated in urban/suburban areas and very very light in rural areas.)

 

I would argue it's more of uniqueness. If you think of all the landmarks that people like to photograph around the world (Eiffel Tower, Great Wall of China, any centuries-old religious building from Islam, Christianity, or Judaism) are all unique. The Rockies, any given Washington DC structure surrounding the Mall, and cityscapes (like skylines). It's tacky at best to build a full-size replica of the Statue of Liberty or the Dome of the Rock in another area where it doesn't belong, and there are some things that can't be replicated at all. California Redwoods, vast desert vistas, and the like: they're all unique. 

 

One of the reasons why Europe is do disproportionate to the rest of the world is that it's a draw for tourists as well as being a dense, well-off area to begin with. Europe is exotic compared to the U.S., that's one reason why people like it. Hell, for a good number of the traffic/transportation posts in the last year and numerous other topics, isn't the way Europe does it brought up, for better or worse?

 

This is also one major drawback to Houston and thats the lack of interesting Geography. Meaning the built environment becomes essential to creating the kind of city I think many of us would like to have.

[crunchtastic]

My point was simply that  a google map representing the by-product of mostly western wealth, e.g. photographs of landmarks, has got little to do with 'historic preservation'. Landmarks become such  because humans want to be closer to god,  money and power.  I'm well aware many special places are not by-products  of religion, and I am likewise not 'butthurt' because many are. A few landmarks get lost along the way due to war, neglect, etc. But I do believe that humans get the outcomes  they deserve, and will ultimately  organize themselves to preserve what matters most, and not because an arbitrary  clause in a municipal statute declares so. If vanity and crazy drive the next despot or architect to create something magical, go for it!  But history will decide if that thing is worth keeping, for better or worse, and not because  historic preservation or social media. Look, I really like great old things.  I've sat there with my mouth open looking up at  gothic cathedrals, greek and roman ruins,  pre-Columbian temples, modern architectural marvels.  I like talking about the olden days. I like my old and ill-preserved house.  It's just that as presented, the conclusion drawn  in the original post was a little too precious. And this mindset that we need more/better special buildings so we can feel more special does nothing to forward responsible and sustainable growth.

 

 

 

 

[IronTiger]

This is also one major drawback to Houston and thats the lack of interesting Geography. Meaning the built environment becomes essential to creating the kind of city I think many of us would like to have.

Another quote that is completely wrong because it's not like "other" cities: despite the fact that Houston, is in fact, flat and not surrounded by any impressive physical features (Gulf of Mexico is not that great), if you drive around the outer suburbs, you'll notice that Houston falls on the convergence of three completely different ecoregions: the west part of Houston is predominantly plains and prairies (that is, if suburbs didn't gobble it up), the north and northeast parts are of the Piney Woods, and parts heading south and southeast is of the "Gulf Coast" part with palm trees and other life more suited to humid coasts.

[H-Town Man]

My point was simply that a google map representing the by-product of mostly western wealth, e.g. photographs of landmarks, has got little to do with 'historic preservation'. Landmarks become such because humans want to be closer to god, money and power. I'm well aware many special places are not by-products of religion, and I am likewise not 'butthurt' because many are. A few landmarks get lost along the way due to war, neglect, etc. But I do believe that humans get the outcomes they deserve, and will ultimately organize themselves to preserve what matters most, and not because an arbitrary clause in a municipal statute declares so. If vanity and crazy drive the next despot or architect to create something magical, go for it! But history will decide if that thing is worth keeping, for better or worse, and not because historic preservation or social media. Look, I really like great old things. I've sat there with my mouth open looking up at gothic cathedrals, greek and roman ruins, pre-Columbian temples, modern architectural marvels. I like talking about the olden days. I like my old and ill-preserved house. It's just that as presented, the conclusion drawn in the original post was a little too precious. And this mindset that we need more/better special buildings so we can feel more special does nothing to forward responsible and sustainable growth.

You seem to think that nothing great or important ever gets destroyed, and that preservation laws don't save anything worthwhile that wouldn't have been saved anyway. Did you know Grand Central Station would have been lost if not for a preservation ordinance? Have you ever seen photos of Pennsylvania Station, which was lost? Or to relate this to Houston, how about the Civil War-era buildings that have been lost around Market Square and Lower Main, replaced by parking lots?

[IronTiger]

You seem to think that nothing great or important ever gets destroyed, and that preservation laws don't save anything worthwhile that wouldn't have been saved anyway. Did you know Grand Central Station would have been lost if not for a preservation ordinance? Have you ever seen photos of Pennsylvania Station, which was lost? Or to relate this to Houston, how about the Civil War-era buildings that have been lost around Market Square and Lower Main, replaced by parking lots?

I'm sure that many of the "old landmarks" definitely predated any preservation ordinances. In fact, I don't think there was such a thing as preservation ordinances prior to maybe the mid-20th century.

[mollusk]

You seem to think that nothing great or important ever gets destroyed, and that preservation laws don't save anything worthwhile that wouldn't have been saved anyway. Did you know Grand Central Station would have been lost if not for a preservation ordinance? Have you ever seen photos of Pennsylvania Station, which was lost? Or to relate this to Houston, how about the Civil War-era buildings that have been lost around Market Square and Lower Main, replaced by parking lots?

 

 

I'm sure that many of the "old landmarks" definitely predated any preservation ordinances. In fact, I don't think there was such a thing as preservation ordinances prior to maybe the mid-20th century.

 

Actually, the destruction of Penn Station is one of the key events that kicked off the preservation movement.