Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
We really appreciate your
coverage of the recent meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the Town of Washington in the March 20 edition of the Rappahannock News.
However, we wanted to offer a clarification about some of the terminology used, and the reasons for denial of our application. All throughout the article, the term “synthetic” is used to describe the construction of our proposed house. This is not a term that we feel is appropriate, nor is it truly accurate.
People tend to attach all sorts of negative inferences to the term “synthetic,” and contrast it unfavorably with the term “natural.” The comment by Chairman Barton that the word “synthetic” is treated as a “four letter Anglo-Saxon word” is a prime example of this strange phenomenon.
Put simply, a bit of reflection will convince you that virtually all modem houses are synthetic or artificial, to varying degrees. Very few building materials, outside of certain hand-hewn logs or undressed fieldstone, can really be called “natural.”
Most building materials come to the jobsite, and are eventually incorporated into a structure, only after extensive processing and manufacture. Ordinary shingles, for instance, are complex structures that typically contain a variety of materials, including organic materials and colored aggregates.
Even wooden clapboard, often thought to be the ultimate “natural” material, is machine cut to exact geometries in a way that would have been unthinkable when George Washington laid out the Tbwn of Washington.
Additionally, most all nonmasonry or stone houses are painted, and the components, complexity, and appearance of paints have changed substantially over time, with modem formulations being far superior to their predecessors.
95.7%