[MassHistPres] USA Today blog on windows and survey

Fri May 28 11:11:54 EDT 2010

This is not a fair selection of questions to vote  on.  They assume that 
there is a simple up and down choice, which is  not the case.  I cannot as a 
thoughtful preservationist vote one way or the  other on the question as 
presented.  There should space  provided for comment in order to qualify one's 
vote one way or the  other.  

As presented, this question assumes that all replacement windows are  of 
equal quality and that all replacements are done in a well considered  manner. 
 Some are and some aren't.  The choices make no  reference to materials, 
design, quality, or cost of the  replacements.  The windows most often used 
for replacements today  are not sympathetic to historic character, are short 
lived, and  are not repairable.  However, some are.  The question also 
requires  one to assume that, if voting in favor of preserving historic  windows, 
all historic windows can and should be preserved, no matter what,  and that 
all replacement windows are unacceptable.  There are many  cases when 
historic windows can and should be preserved and rehabilitated.   There are also 
cases when replacements are necessary or are the only feasible  option for a 
particular situation.

A carefully thought out rebuttal to the thesis of the original article  
would be better for the cause of preserving historic windows than voting  
blindly on behalf of preservation on this question.  Such a  vote supports an "us 
against them" mentality and does not encourage  careful thought and 
decision-making in real situations.

Susan McDaniel Ceccacci
Historic Preservation Consultant
Jefferson, Massachusetts

In a message dated 5/28/2010 10:01:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Lorraine.Weiss at oprhp.state.ny.us writes:

Hello  all-
Yesterday’s  National Trust newsfeed highlighted a short but horrifying 
little article  about replacement windows followed by a one-question survey 
about whether the  replacement windows are really better.   The vote yesterday 
was 80% against old windows.  Please take the time to go to the  article and 
cast your vote:  
_http://www.windowanddoor.com/article/talk/pushback-historic-replacement-market_ 
(http://www.windowanddoor.com/article/talk/pushback-historic-replacement-market)  
The  author believes that the argument is only about “appearance” and not 
another  approach to being “green,” but she is asking for  feedback. 
-----------------------------
“So  after reading the USA Today blog, I'm left wondering if appearance is 
really  that important to historic enthusiasts that comfort and energy 
efficiency  carry no weight.  With all the options manufacturers now offer to 
produce  historically-accurate windows, can we not have both?  _Please  share 
with me _ (mailto:clewellen at glass.org?subject=historic%20preservation) what 
you're seeing in the historic and  older building market. Are the views 
expressed in the National Trust for  Historic Preservation for the "National 
Window Campaign" common?  Should  old windows be saved? Are we too quick to 
replace? Or do old buildings need  today's windows to keep functioning? Let's  
talk....” 

--------------------------------
The  article was in response to a USA Today blog that mentioned the Trust’s 
 campaign for windows.  A brief  quote indicates that the editor of 
BuildingGreen remains  unconvinced: 
"Hold on. Not so fast!," the letter  says, arguing that older windows can 
be "nearly as energy efficient and their  retrofit not nearly as costly as 
buying new ones." It recommends window repair  and storm windows instead.
Do you agree or is the group  fear-mongering?
"The historic preservation community is... often too  unwilling to consider 
energy improvements to historic buildings when those  changes will affect 
the building's appearance," says Alex Wilson, executive  editor of 
_BuildingGreen,_ (http://www.buildinggreen.com/)   which publishes online and print 
guides.
"If we don't make our buildings  affordable to operate," he says in an 
e-mail, "they are more likely to become  obsolete and get replaced--which 
defeats the goal of  preservation."---------------------------- 
How  about that?  Those fear-mongering  preservationists!  There blog post  
is at 
_http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/preservation-group-launches-campaign-against-new-windows-for-old-homes/1#uslPageR
eturn_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/preservation-group-launches-campaign-against-new-windows-for-old-homes/1#uslPage
Return)  
Regards,
Lorraine 
Lorraine  E. Weiss 
Historic  Preservation Planner 
__________________________________________________________ 
Division  for Historic Preservation   ◙  _www.nysparks.state.ny.us_ 
(http://www.nysparks.state.ny.us/)  
NYS Office  of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 
_lorraine.weiss at oprhp.state.ny.us_ 
(mailto:lorraine.weiss at oprhp.state.ny.us)  -  518-237-8643, x 3122 

******************************
For  administrative questions regarding this list, please contact  
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE  WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing  list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100528/23f499e0/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100528/23f499e0/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100528/23f499e0/attachment-0001.gif>