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 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Therefore, it can readily be seen that the dichotomy between “natural” materials and “synthetic” materials is largely illusionary, or is only the result of selective definition.
The ARB’s characterization of the house as “synthetic” was merely a convenient label to help justify its absurd decision to reject the project. As noted in your article, what the ARB really seemed to object to was that we proposed modern siding and roofing materials that are virtually indistinguishable from wood or slate (especially from a distance), but that posses better fire, termite, and wear resistance.
The improved wear qualities were particularly distressing to the ARB, as the house would not grow shabby at a rate necessary to achieve a “patina of age,” as Mr O’Connell put it. Ms. Kevis’s remarks about the Town wanting to “show its age,” or Ms. Babcock’s comments about the roof being “too perfect” reflect similar faulty reasoning.
These sort of statements are factually bizarre and logically incomprehensible, as well as being legally questionable as grounds to reject our home.
The purpose of the ARB is to preserve the historic nature of the town. In specifically desiring materials that age or decay quickly, or that will not resist the destructive effect of fire, the ARB loses sight of its principal duty: to preserve the town for future generations.
Any reasonable person would think that improved durability properties would be a reason to recommend materials, not deny them, particularly when many of the materials have already been approved for use in Colonial Williamsburg.
Additionally, no reasonable person could actually believe that any building material could resist the effects of time and weather indefinitely. Do the members of the ARB really believe that even the best
95.9%