Again, I think we need to differentiate between structural ("We want to keep the building standing and in use") and aesthetic ("We want the building to look as is, forever") preservation. The former avoids upfront carbon emissions, whereas the latter, if anything, increases upfront carbon emissions because it enforces interior insulation which makes the building more vulnerable to external conditions and increases the odds that it will need reconstruction in the future.
If I want to put 6 inches of wood fiber insulation and a layer of stucco on the outside of my 1700s home, why shouldn't I be able to? After all, that's how historical people repaired and protected failing walls. If I want to install exterior storm windows, or heaven forbid, replace the old hung windows with period- (but not necessarily region-) correct tilt/turns, why shouldn't I be able to? Doubly so if wood --> vinyl replacements were allowed, as is the case in my condo building, but hung --> tilt/turn is not.
"Heritage professionals have used legal tools like designation and listing to save buildings, but many others consider these to be obstructionist and NIMBY."
A perfect phrase of the problem in which the Right to Private Property, a fixture of democratic Individual Rights, is being trashed over "for the Common Good".
I have watched the going-ons and results of COP28 and what was said and it's quite clear that the structure of Western philosophy is well under assault "for the Common Good": free speech, religious freedom, freedom to travel, freedom of location, ability to choose what is best for oneself...and others.
All because too many people have the penchant to be Mrs. Kravitzes and unwillingness to let others live their own lives as they see necessary.
I think the woke operative phrase is "MY authentic life, my BEST life, and MY truth".
I never get tired of that triangle graphic with the hierarchy of net zero design.
Again, I think we need to differentiate between structural ("We want to keep the building standing and in use") and aesthetic ("We want the building to look as is, forever") preservation. The former avoids upfront carbon emissions, whereas the latter, if anything, increases upfront carbon emissions because it enforces interior insulation which makes the building more vulnerable to external conditions and increases the odds that it will need reconstruction in the future.
If I want to put 6 inches of wood fiber insulation and a layer of stucco on the outside of my 1700s home, why shouldn't I be able to? After all, that's how historical people repaired and protected failing walls. If I want to install exterior storm windows, or heaven forbid, replace the old hung windows with period- (but not necessarily region-) correct tilt/turns, why shouldn't I be able to? Doubly so if wood --> vinyl replacements were allowed, as is the case in my condo building, but hung --> tilt/turn is not.
"Heritage professionals have used legal tools like designation and listing to save buildings, but many others consider these to be obstructionist and NIMBY."
A perfect phrase of the problem in which the Right to Private Property, a fixture of democratic Individual Rights, is being trashed over "for the Common Good".
I have watched the going-ons and results of COP28 and what was said and it's quite clear that the structure of Western philosophy is well under assault "for the Common Good": free speech, religious freedom, freedom to travel, freedom of location, ability to choose what is best for oneself...and others.
All because too many people have the penchant to be Mrs. Kravitzes and unwillingness to let others live their own lives as they see necessary.
I think the woke operative phrase is "MY authentic life, my BEST life, and MY truth".