Readers may submit letters to the editor (see contact information on the page facing the table of contents). Letters should include the writer's name, address, and daytime telephone number for confirmation. Letters may be edited for publication, and not all letters may be published. If a letter pertains to an article or review, the editor may forward the letter to the author for reply.
Thinking further about David Fixler's article, "Material, Idea, and Authenticity in Treatment of the Architecture of the Modern Movement," on Dutch restoration, I imagine what might be the ultimate test. In the post-Roman period, people moved into abandoned structures: amphitheaters in Lucca, Florence, Arles, and Nimes, and into Diocletian's palace at Split. Today they embody varying ideas about restoration. The amphitheaters in France were restored to their original Roman form; that in Florence is embedded invisibly in the city fabric; that in Lucca is an oval piazza. Most interesting is Diocletian's palace. When restoration was undertaken there in the early 60's, some Roman parts were restored, in other places various later modifications were retained and modern construction was allowed to remain, producing a mixed bag—an interesting mixed bag. I see all these as precursors of "Shiny New in a Gritty Old."
Every situation must be evaluated on its own. Such criteria as those of the Department of the Interior can at best be only general guides, never strait jackets.
Françoise Bollack Architects
New York, NY