[MassHistPres] USA Today blog on windows and survey

Fri May 28 12:51:39 EDT 2010

At 12:33 today it is almost 60-40,, BUT the more votes we send to  
help turn public perception the better.
She is journalist at a national organization; www.glass.org with  
interest and potential incentive for restoration, but their list  
needs more preservation links.
Anyway she will probably cover this issue much more and hopefully  
with better detailed insight and if this poll keeps swinging our way  
it should help open closed minds ; -)
Survey Results for 05/26/2010:

For most older buildings,

Upgrading existing windows is the best option.

58.73%

New products can provide authenticity as well as modern functionality  
and efficiency.

41.27%

Tris Metcalfe
Northampton Ma

On May 28, 2010, at 11:44 AM, jade wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mime-attachment.jpeg>
>
> <mime-attachment.gif>
>
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************
> <mime-attachment.jpeg><mime-attachment.gif>
> ******************************
> 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/20100528/41de5e33/attachment-0001.htm>