Our Mission and Goal
4 Comments
Leave a reply
Learned something new? Question answered? New connection made? Generally inspired or entertained? Love Indy more?
Please consider supporting this community asset.
Not seeing much of this in your WTH segments, unless the action you’re hoping to inspire is to belittle and mock people. And no, I don’t own or live in any of the “featured” properties.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, whether you do or don’t live in one of the featured properties–and the point is not to “belittle and mock” people, but rather to call into question some of the odd choices made that are against the best interest of the properties featured. Constructive feedback is always welcome on how we can better serve, educate and highlight Indianapolis about how we treat its history and historic fabric. Showing bad choices in building alteration is intended to be arresting to hopefully prevent more of the same in the future.
What part of your mission statement is that attaining? If your point is not to belittle or mock the property owners, does that mean you seek an audience with them about their properties? Do you send them a copy after it is posted? Do all of the posts offer ideas for improvement? After reading a dozen or so, I can see that there is not always a presentation of ideas on what could be done better. Based on the pictures you use, I’m guessing that you don’t talk to any of the property owners. What is constructive about this feature? All I see are people who are in agreement with each other about what they deem bad architectural choices.
Obviously, we are all entitled to our own opinions about what we deem “the best interest of the properties featured,” but since you don’t own the properties, don’t offer more (if any) suggestions, and you aren’t talking to the property owners, the only purpose you seem to have is an attitude of “We know better than you.”
“…Ignites interest, creates conversation and sparks action…” There are many people interested in this feature, and who look at architectural muddling with different eyes because of it. By the way, this feature was inspired by “Yikes,” a photo column the National Trust used to produce (though I believe they focused only on commercial buildings). Many conversations have been prompted by the properties featured and it sparked you to inform me of your opinion and sparks lots of other people to again, look around at the city’s architecture in a different way.
Perhaps the authors should include suggestions for remedies or alternatives in the future? We can definitely look at that.
As for the opinions of what is best for a featured property: There is enough archived information about historic homes to know what the materials, details, scaling, windows, and the like were intended to be when first constructed and restoration or retention of those features are accepted widely as what is in the best interest of historic properties.
Perhaps you disagree with the approach, but sometimes we learn through positive, shining examples, and other times we learn by seeing examples of what not to do.
I will presume on your behalf, that you have a big heart for people. And while I have a big heart for people too, I also have an equally big heart for old architecture that I’d like to see treated with dignity.