i CHARLESTON CONTRADICTIONS: A CASE STUDY OF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my sons, George and Charlie, and my wife Beverley. Her love and encouragement made this work possible and I will always be grateful for her positive attitude and everlasting support. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members for their guidance and support during my time in the PDBE program. In particular, my committee chair, Dr. Cliff Ellis, who not only provided expert academic advice, but also successfully steered me through a mountain of red tape and enabled me to complete the program, as well as providing inspiration and a role model for my future academic career; Dr. Robert Benedict, as a graduate of the PDBE program, gave me constant support and encouragement that I could complete the program; Dr. Carter Hudgins provided me with an opportunity to teach and interact with the Clemson Historic Preservation Program in Charleston; and Steven Semes provided invaluable and needed insight into the fields of both historic preservation and traditional architecture. I would also like to acknowledge the many people who assisted me with this project, most notably the participants who gave freely of their time and opinions, as well as Karen Emmons of the Margaretta Childs Archive at the Historic Charleston Foundation and Libby Wilder of the Post and Courier archives. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my mother, Catherine Payne- Podsadowski, who taught me the value of hard work and instilled in me a love of learning. v
Page 1 and 2: CHARLESTON CONTRADICTIONS: A CASE S
Page 3: Board of Architectural Review, atto
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents (Continued) Page
Page 9 and 10: List of Figures (Continued) Figure
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION PROBLEM ST
Page 13 and 14: would not be opposed to their demol
Page 15 and 16: Modernists. It was one of the build
Page 17 and 18: RESEARCH QUESTIONS This research pr
Page 19 and 20: the many and varied nuances that ma
Page 21 and 22: of social science and feels that, s
Page 23 and 24: pitfalls of both relativism and pos
Page 25 and 26: ehind cultural expression. This is
Page 27 and 28: approach to social research that Fa
Page 29 and 30: development. Since the rich and var
Page 31 and 32: open to the public set the preceden
Page 33 and 34: Ironically, as Rockefeller was reco
Page 35 and 36: including owning and administering
Page 37 and 38: home to several educational program
Page 39 and 40: learned at European schools of arch
Page 41 and 42: includes building from the 1950s an
Page 43 and 44: for adoption of the elements of Cor
Page 45 and 46: New additions, exterior alterations
Page 47 and 48: uilding from the past if there is n
Page 49 and 50: CHARLESTON PRESERVATION BACKGROUND
Page 51 and 52: property on the inventory be review
Page 53 and 54: The fact that none of Charleston’
Page 55 and 56:
past for the benefit of the present
Page 57 and 58:
for Historic Preservation conferenc
Page 59 and 60:
labeled as significant under Criter
Page 61 and 62:
PRESERVATION OF THE RECENT PAST LIT
Page 63 and 64:
Alan Hess is an architect and advoc
Page 65 and 66:
the depth and resonance of ‘true
Page 67 and 68:
time allows us to properly evaluate
Page 69 and 70:
techniques need to be modified when
Page 71 and 72:
een replaced by another one. He lik
Page 73 and 74:
uilding that needs to be preserved.
Page 75 and 76:
Journalist Kim O’Connell writes t
Page 77 and 78:
and the project is set to proceed,
Page 79 and 80:
cues can reflect a deeper meaning t
Page 81 and 82:
According to Day, a new addition ca
Page 83 and 84:
disciplines of the built environmen
Page 85 and 86:
“time” and he is critical of so
Page 87 and 88:
warned that there is not a single s
Page 89 and 90:
Semes, he feels that it is the buil
Page 91 and 92:
decorative detail or call for it; t
Page 93 and 94:
Bauhaus]” (Signorelli and Salinga
Page 95 and 96:
een prevented. He is also critical
Page 97 and 98:
The Modernists generally support th
Page 99 and 100:
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS RESE
Page 101 and 102:
design, was used for this case stud
Page 103 and 104:
the Historic Charleston Foundation.
Page 105 and 106:
including drawings, maps, and photo
Page 107 and 108:
and experience in Charleston’s pr
Page 109 and 110:
explanatory studies, the explanatio
Page 111 and 112:
validity of the study and that ther
Page 113 and 114:
since all three buildings and prese
Page 115 and 116:
OLD CHARLESTON COUNTY LIBRARY, 404
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 4: 1888 Sanborn map, showing
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 7: 1934 aerial photo of Char
Page 121 and 122:
necessary daylight for the facility
Page 123 and 124:
the BAR, even if they were not loca
Page 125 and 126:
Other editorials against the propos
Page 127 and 128:
Other writers wondered how long it
Page 129 and 130:
mixing of races, stating: “Indeed
Page 131 and 132:
Articles discussing the future of M
Page 133:
Figure 13: Rendering of new hotel f
Page 136 and 137:
On February 20 th , 2008 the Board
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 17: An undated historic phot
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 19: 1888 Sanborn map showing
Page 142 and 143:
On November 8 th , 1948, the federa
Page 144 and 145:
can demonstrate the requirements of
Page 146 and 147:
As compared to the controversy that
Page 148 and 149:
The building was full of asbestos,
Page 150 and 151:
demolish the existing Federal Build
Page 152 and 153:
Later that year, Michael Maher of t
Page 154 and 155:
proposed to place a covenant on the
Page 156 and 157:
Figure 29: Additional rendering of
Page 158 and 159:
the statement, are that it was the
Page 160 and 161:
limited to business hours, and a pr
Page 162 and 163:
Figure 31: Rendering of the propose
Page 164 and 165:
Figure 32: Proposed 1958 Charleston
Page 166 and 167:
conventions and money to the city.
Page 168 and 169:
Despite the fact that the project w
Page 170 and 171:
Part of the winning plan called for
Page 172 and 173:
Figure 37: 1960s aerial photo of th
Page 174 and 175:
Figure 39: Mid-1960’s aerial phot
Page 176 and 177:
David Schwarz would be the architec
Page 178 and 179:
Critics agreed that the building ne
Page 180 and 181:
Figure 41: Rendering of the propose
Page 182 and 183:
On June 13 th , 2012, the Gaillard
Page 184 and 185:
of performances at the building has
Page 186 and 187:
down building with a simple pedimen
Page 188 and 189:
thought was that building something
Page 190 and 191:
thought to be as important as build
Page 192 and 193:
the 1960s, was also cited for raisi
Page 194 and 195:
uildings with controversial designs
Page 196 and 197:
eaction that the building elicits t
Page 198 and 199:
much more of the building was being
Page 200 and 201:
As opposed to the overall preservat
Page 202 and 203:
difficult to reuse without major al
Page 204 and 205:
Thinking more about the style of pr
Page 206 and 207:
it was not important to save every
Page 208 and 209:
There have been many buildings on e
Page 210 and 211:
considered on their own merits, rat
Page 212 and 213:
For the Gaillard Auditorium, partic
Page 214 and 215:
preservationists comfortable with t
Page 216 and 217:
Another participant reiterated that
Page 218 and 219:
uildings to preserve or not, partic
Page 220 and 221:
enough to be considered cutting-edg
Page 222 and 223:
One participant noted that since th
Page 224 and 225:
Since there is a perceived lack of
Page 226 and 227:
design in Charleston and everyone,
Page 228 and 229:
preservation movement going, becaus
Page 230 and 231:
procedures of historic preservation
Page 232 and 233:
questioned. However, as is many tim
Page 234 and 235:
tradition towards a more industrial
Page 236 and 237:
these resources needed to be recogn
Page 238 and 239:
proposed to create these alteration
Page 240 and 241:
that the paint needed to be less op
Page 242 and 243:
create an “exceptional” end pro
Page 244 and 245:
designed in the Modern style do not
Page 246 and 247:
oke with the tradition and appearan
Page 248 and 249:
already failing, contributing to th
Page 250 and 251:
that attempt is debatable, dependin
Page 252 and 253:
not be convinced that it is worth s
Page 254 and 255:
The treatments that the three build
Page 256 and 257:
once was there. While the preferenc
Page 258 and 259:
This phenomenon is demonstrated by
Page 260 and 261:
starting to reach the cutoff to be
Page 262 and 263:
sustainability angle, since the gre
Page 264 and 265:
their usefulness and needed to be u
Page 266 and 267:
While preservation attempts to have
Page 268 and 269:
uildings that the movement preserve
Page 270 and 271:
the past that it recedes. While pre
Page 272 and 273:
uildings. The example of the BAR in
Page 274 and 275:
different buildings for the case st
Page 276 and 277:
future designers and researchers wi
Page 278 and 279:
CHAPTER NINE REFERENCE LIST A Young
Page 280 and 281:
———. 2010e. Gaillard Makeover
Page 282 and 283:
Cusato, Marianne, Ben Pentreath, Ri
Page 284 and 285:
Goldberger, Paul. 2008. The Moderni
Page 286 and 287:
Johnson, Nicole. 2012. Developer Mo
Page 288 and 289:
McClure, Harlan E. and Vernon Hodge
Page 290 and 291:
Nielsen, J. V., Jr. 1955. Growing N
Page 292 and 293:
Seidman, I. E. 1991. Interviewing a
Page 294 and 295:
Tiller, de Teel P. 2007. Obey the I
show all

i CHARLESTON CONTRADICTIONS: A CASE STUDY OF ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?