Historic Architecture and Urban Planning

[Reagan Rothenberger]

In urban planning today, the art of traditional architecture often takes a back seat to efficiency and to be honest, money. With our throw-away society, why should we work to keep and build architecturally rich buildings, rather than build glass boxes which are common in today's urban planning?

What is "architecturally rich" you might say; perhaps any building style that plays a large part in American and world history. Classic examples would be Beaux-Arts, Grecian (Classical), Art Deco, and Victorian. These all have one thing in common: ornamentation and detail. Buildings were once places for commerce and living, and every individual was proud of their building they owned, lived, or worked in.

The 50's were a brutal time in american architecture. The foundation of the Brutalist Style was laid (don't ask about it), crazy colors were the rave, and weird patterns were standard, such as "The Metropolis" at 511 Akard in Dallas. What are happening to buildings like this? They are being torn down faster than we can imagine. The demolition of the Praetorian building built in 1909, was completed in 2013 after architects determined that the facade added in the 1960's damaged the building too much to save. What a waste, all due to poor design and passing fads.

There are many arguments why we should preserve historic structures, such as the history aspect and that it respects previous generations. Some say different styles in an area often allow for a unique locale. Some even argue that saving a historic structure is good for the environment. An example of the common phrase, "man, I wish we still had that building", lies in many county seats in Texas, where old courthouses made way for new. 

The bigger question is: why should we build beautiful buildings with older styles? The best example I can think of lies at Dallas Baptist University, where the current master plan consists of buildings patterned after historic structures. The Mahler Student Center which is 21 years old doesn't look it, simply because it has a 300 year old design. It will forever be timeless, and most likely will never be altered or demolished. This means that in fifty years when I return, the building that I knew will still be there, and I will know that many generations of administrators and students enjoyed and will enjoy the same building I did.

Hopefully we can realize the importance of beautiful architecture, and why it must be saved and created. (I didn't even dive into the psychological aspects of it beautiful architecture, which would require a book to explain.) Though urban planning is meant to look ahead and work to make sure that we can make sure society can function well in the future, we must also look to the past for inspiration. A time when America was becoming the greatest nation in the world, a simpler time not just when we lived or worked in these buildings, but when we took pride in them.

[Allyson]

I really like your points about the architecture of DBU. I didn't even know that the Mahler was so old. You're right - it doesn't look it. Yet so much of American architecture that is less that 60 years old is completely dilapidated and dangerous. Thinking of the ancient cathedral and historical building of Europe, it must have taken years to construct, ot plan, to imagine, yet hundred of years later, they stand. Modern architecture should take note.