Of course it's a forgery to in-fill and redevelop lots in a diverse historic nieghborhood with replicas (albeit watered down). This point has already been stated better elsewhere, but consider this: with regard to tear downs and redevelopement in Riverside/Avondale, it's only newer structures that fall,(post 1950) often to be replaced with the "faux historic style".
The national mall is filled museums, and other structures, that convey history. Think about what we have all in a row, from the Smithsonian "castle", the Modernist Hirschorn Musum (It's a big concrete cherrio with legs, if you haven't seen it), the Native American Museum, which looks like a block of sandstone carved up by martians. Next door to that, sits the botanical garden building, classical, flutted roman (inspired) collunms and 150 years of white paint. While everyone may claim a favorite (or LEAST favorite), I believe what we get from that is harmony (through diversity) and a genuine, narritive history.
This issue is of great concern for me, I remain emotionally invested in the future of the reminaing (shrinking) historic bits of JAx, and I wish that a more enlightened view of development was the rule instead of the exception.
Actually, your assertion about only the post-1950 Riverside buildings falling is flat out wrong. Between 1970 and 1995, when the Riverside Historic district was formed, more than 1400 of the 5500 structures that predated 1930 were torn down. Honestly, much of what was built in the district post-1950 was pure crap--just a low-grade commercial response to the opening of the zoning floodgates by city planners.
As an aside, I respect your comments about the Native American Museum on the mall, but--as a DC native--I must urge you to get inside that thing. The interior is one of the most stunning, spiritual places I've ever seen. A true testament to how an architect can craft an interior space to both shock and awe.
My assertion isn't wrong; I just neglected to put it in context. I will correct that. My statement refers to post 1995, but allow me to clarify even further. I'm fully aware that Jacksonville has a horrible track record in regard to demolition of historic structures of all periods; I know this is nothing new. Yet, my larger point is that the battle lines, have changed and that has yet to be acknowledged in a comprehensive way. Ex: we aren't fighting the demolition of the mansions on "the row" in 2010, that fight was lost 30-40 years ago. Today we rally around a tiny wooden bungalow on greenwood ave. Should it be saved? Probably so. Is it as historically significant as any 5 star property from Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage, nope it's not. But we fight to protect it because the battle over the relevancy of historic structures from say 1885-1945 is over in 2010, and the vast majority of whatever is still standing, will still be here 50 years from now (even though it took the loss of most of the best examples from the period to drive this point home). This is fact. If Tony Slieman wanted to knock over a klutho, in 2010 that ain't gonna happen, even though history shows we didn't have much of a problem with that 25-30 years ago. Yet, I repeat that the argument is settled, We value "old buildings" even though it feels like it just happened, it's been that way for some time.
Now if your name is Broward, Hardwick, or Morgan, the story changes. Your assertion that much of what was built was pure crap hardly seems scientific, and frankly it will be difficult to prove one way or the other, since the decision was made (unconsciously I would assume) on expunge as much of it as possible from the historical record of the neighborhood. We'll never know what would have become of (my favorite example, but there are many, many more) the 1661 building (off Margaret st) .It would be 53 years old this year, had it not been torn down. I don't advocate to save everything from the period, but certainly a building such as that, which was known internationally, met all the criteria for preservation.
So instead of educating our community about broadening the definition of what should be considered historic, what I primarily see is that we are quite oblivious to seeing mid century works as valuable and worth saving. Besides all the value you see present in the faux-prairie style building boom, in the greater context of what we have done right and wrong as custodians of our heritage, it reads as a sentimental (and guilty) response to the demolition of years past. Visual harmony is a cop out because the layman's notion of harmony is itself misinformed. Riverside/Avondale evolved naturally as a diverse neighborhood, but it seems to be becoming less so every day.
