I believe it's time for a new kind of historic preservation. Up until now, the mainstream preservation movement has mainly concerned itself with what could be termed "trophy buildings": city halls, courthouses, historic theatres, hotels, residences designed by famous architects, etc. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of more modest buildings have been lost to the wrecking ball. Few people have stepped up to the plate to defend the tiny bungalows, working class victorians, historic gas stations, small commercial buildings, old warehouses, etc., and so many of those buildings have been lost. And those buildings represent a large part of our history. Like (what's her name) the historian, who said that most historians are concerned with the flow of the river, the major events(kings and battles and wars), she was concerned with what happened on the banks of the river, the lives of ordinary people. That is what modest buildings represent: the lives and history of ordinary people. And that is just as important.

In addition, we can no longer afford to throw away the now irreplaceable materials and craftsmanship that went into these buildings. To do so is an insult to the labor and artistry of those who built them. These building ARE the old growth forests we cut down, the stone we quarried, the bricks we fired. Even a tiny bungalow contains many board feet of irreplaceable old growth timber.

The Historic Architecture Liberation Front believes in the following principles:

• That all historic buildings are created equal, and endowed by their creators with the inalienable right to remain standing, be properly maintained, and not be sacrificed on a whim, be that the whim of an individual, a government, an educational institution, a church, or a corporation.
• That historic buildings should not be sacrificed in the name of "economic development", which almost always benefits corporations and politicians, and rarely benefits the citizens.
• That "smart growth" which demolishes historic buildings and replaces them with inappropriately dense "infill" is not smart at all, and will someday be as discredited as "urban renewal."
• That 99% of modern architecture sucks.
• That "window replacement" is one of the biggest scams of our time.
• That, to paraphrase a Buddhist law: No matter how numerous historic buildings are, we vow to save them all.
• That we are a developers' worst nightmare.

(c) 2000, Brian Klapak.

For questions or comments on this website, contact Brian Klapak