Abstract:

Architectural preservation has been a participatory activity all along. This is because of the universal and perpetual need for maintaining and repairing older structures. The commonsense of repairing, when possible, rather than replacing anew has instinctive appeal. It almost always means a savings of time, materials and money. Successful ingredients for translating preservation theory and intentions into practice involves commitment, imagination, resources, and planning and organizational skills.

Over the past three decades, especially, evolving architectural preservation technologies and methods have considerably expanded our capacity to conserve the built environment. Traditional methods of building preservation such as hand drawn recordation of structures, clipboard surveys, and print photography have largely been replaced by digital documentation, geo-referenced data bases and “smarter” displays of information. A plethora of affordable new tools for scientific materials analysis and testing, both in the laboratory and in the field, are increasingly available. Radically improved data management capabilities, communications systems, plus contributions to the field from the allied professions of engineering, archaeology, museology, public history and education have significantly enhanced architectural preservation practice. Today, the preservation field’s purview and technical capabilities are robust to the point where in some places there is nearly an over-abundance of abilities to preserve the built environment. Applying these abilities remains the challenge.

Renovating buildings traces back to earliest civilizations across the world. Untold tens of millions of structures have been rehabilitated in the past century alone. Many were carefully restored and respectfully rehabilitated noted historic xxiv structures. The majority, however, have been renovations and expansions of more ordinary structures. Still, such interventions involve some degree of preservation-thinking. Additionally, if one considers that maintenance is an act of building protection, then architectural preservation must represent well over half of the world’s residential and commercial building industry.

In time, naturally, most all prior restoration and rehabilitation interventions themselves need re-doing. As a result, today’s preservationists are increasingly involved with “re-restoring” buildings and, in relation to that, “re-researching” and “reinterpreting” them as well. Such operations could be termed reapplied preservation.

摘要：

建筑保护一直是一项参与性活动。这是因为维护和修复旧结构的普遍和永久需求。在可能的情况下修理而不是重新更换的常识具有本能的吸引力。它几乎总是意味着节省时间、材料和金钱。将保护理论和意图转化为实践的成功要素包括承诺、想象力、资源以及规划和组织技能。

特别是在过去的三十年里，不断发展的建筑保护技术和方法大大扩展了我们保护建筑环境的能力。传统的建筑保护方法，例如结构的手绘记录、剪贴板调查和印刷摄影，已在很大程度上被数字文档、地理参考数据库和“更智能”的信息显示所取代。越来越多用于实验室和现场的科学材料分析和测试的经济实惠的新工具越来越多。数据管理能力、通信系统的大幅提升，加上工程、考古学、博物馆学、公共历史和教育等相关专业对该领域的贡献，显着增强了建筑保护实践。今天，保护领域的权限和技术能力很强，以至于在某些地方，保护建筑环境的能力几乎过剩。应用这些能力仍然是挑战。

翻新建筑物可以追溯到世界各地最早的文明。仅在过去的一个世纪里，数以千万计的建筑就得到了修复。许多都经过精心修复，并恭敬地修复了著名的 xxiv 历史建筑。然而，大多数是更普通的结构的翻新和扩建。尽管如此，这种干预涉及一定程度的保护思维。此外，如果人们认为维护是一种建筑保护行为，那么建筑保护必须占世界住宅和商业建筑行业的一半以上。

随着时间的推移，自然而然地，大多数先前的恢复和康复干预本身都需要重新进行。结果，今天的保护主义者越来越多地参与“重新修复”建筑物，并与此相关地“重新研究”和“重新解释”它们。此类操作可称为重新应用保存。