This is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, The Grassroots Guide to Saving What Matters: Historic Preservation For Everyday People.
Maybe it is the relative youth of our nation, or our disposable culture, or something else entirely - but somewhere along the way, we have come to the mistaken belief here in the United States that anything much past 100 years old is “too old to save”. A brief word about that might serve a good purpose for those among us who throw up their hands in despair at the sight of a peeling coat of paint and a few rotten boards.
With so many renewable resources at our fingertips through the centuries, it has seemed much more expedient for us just to tear down and start fresh. If we trashed the old wood, there was plenty more where that came from, and plenty of room for hauling off and dumping, and a wealth of good builders raring to get going on the next thing.
It has only been within the last 75 years or so that the notion of respecting, saving, and preserving has come into play. Thankfully, men like John D. Rockefeller saw the value of taking a fading and shabby town like Williamsburg, Virginia and bringing it back to life. We formed a National Trust for Historic Preservation and we began paying attention. Gradually, the old houses among us came into proper focus.
Still today, though, we find ourselves battling the notion of “demo day” on cable TV, which does nothing much for the notion of respect for old houses, even though some of what ends up in those dumpsters is made of particle board and likely belongs there.
But the problem is real. In order to counter the “too old” mindsets, it occurs to me that taking a moment to consider the houses and villages around the rest of the world, Europe in particular, can bring a fresh frame of reference for what is truly old.
Some of the houses in Europe were already centuries old before the first settler ever set foot on our continent, much less laid the first brick. And many of those houses still stand today, and are still serving the purpose for which they were built. Not only are they alive and well, but so are their stories. When held up against this, our old houses are just beginning to show their age.
Given that, what do we have to whine about? Not that the preservation framework in European countries is perfect or a well-oiled machine, because each nation has their own individual hurdles to deal with, but as a whole, they are living proof that preservation is not only a worthy cause, but a pursuit with results that are absolutely attainable and sustainable.
And that should bring comfort to anyone who cares about saving these places. If Europe can do it, so can we, and so we should.
Photos of the village of Lacock, Cotswolds, England, circa 1300’s through the 1800’s, via Butcombe Brewery.
I was entertaining a group of British friends visiting Atlanta (for their first time). And we were at the Atlanta History Center where I was proudly explaining the "The Swan House" and mentioned how old it is...1928. Lol! Those words were hardly out of my mouth when I remembered some of that group lived in homes well over a century old. Lol!
Of course my British friends wanted to see something "antebellum" which there are scant few in Atlanta. So we did a road trip to Social Circle and Madison.
Here in metro Atlanta 'old' in now something built twenty years ago. It's common to see 'young' residential and commercial properties demolished and replaced with new structures. We don't have a taste for... preservation. It's a cost-benefit/Return of Investment decision... and "let's just get rid of this old stuff" mentality. And then people ask... "where's old Atlanta?" And I say..."Gone with the Wind."
Fortunately I live part-time in Charleston where I try to experience as much "old south" before it too is gone.
I live in a century old well-built Savannah brick house. The most important thing in any house is the bones. If it has good bones then it can work.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com