[MassHistPres] USA Today blog on windows and survey

Fri May 28 11:44:56 EDT 2010

i think that is the precise intent of the survey....it reflects the general ignorance of our consumer mindset when it comes to marketing an unnecessary or inferior product (bottled water, peanut butter with added sugar, salt and peanut (!) oil, cup holders on lawn mowers, Round-Up, acrylic glazing putty, plastic decking material, rental units for our junk, etc. etc......

YES of course newer is better....at least until the item breaks before the warrantee period and the repair part is no longer available  and you read the fine print that claims you are on your own once the parts are no longer available...

jade mortimer
heartwood window restoration
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SCeccacci at aol.com 
  To: Lorraine.Weiss at oprhp.state.ny.us ; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu 
  Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] USA Today blog on windows and survey

  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

    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 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, 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#uslPageReturn

    Regards,
    Lorraine

    Lorraine E. Weiss

    Historic Preservation Planner

    __________________________________________________________

    Division for Historic Preservation  ◙  www.nysparks.state.ny.us

    NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

    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
    ********************************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ******************************
  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/cf4d48f1/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/cf4d48f1/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/cf4d48f1/attachment-0001.gif>