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". Now stop and think about how that contributes to a loss of our historic narritive, loss of stylistic variety with in the district, and contamination of the value (monetary and spiritual) of the historic district. What history ARE we making by concouisly re-enginering our architectural heritage? It's quite sad and disturbing in my opinion. Maybe FAKE is the wrong word, but the fact the activity outlined above is usually championed by so-called progressives, is distrubing in it's limited and anachronistic vision for our communities future architectual fabric.
"Using" a style and being influenced by a style are two different things. I dissagree with you that the former is ok, as a rule. And even if it were, the last place it would seem appropriate would be in a "historic district". Think about that. Make refference to styles near by if you must, but it makes no sense to completly mimic 100 year old styles in the 21st century.
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.
