Historical buildings are better served by their adaptation and continued use than by preserving them in a state of antiquity.
A shift needs to occur in the way that historical buildings are viewed and their preservation is approached. A creative transformation that keeps a historic building operating to meet today’s needs while retaining its historical integrity not only preserves the building’s historical significance, but also preserve’s the buildings dignity. Restricting the building from growing and adapting to accommodate new uses and evolving programs creates an artificial environment that fails both the user and the building itself.
Every good designer will envisage his/her building adapting, over time, to ever changing contextual demands. Unavoidably, buildings follow the designer’s prediction of change as its contexts transform often in unpredictable ways. However, overtime, the users, and others affected indirectly by the building, grow a bond with the edifice, and a feeling of nostalgia is created. This nostalgia creates an urge to defy the designer’s intent for change and return the building to its original condition, contradicting the designer, the user’s needs, and the relative contextual demands. The building ceases to be architecture; it enters the realm of historical monument. Architecture serves the needs of its users and its surroundings. Monuments serve as testaments to a former event or idea, nothing more. This nostalgic antiquarianism leads to a contradiction of everything that represents the building: the architect/designer, the user, and the surrounding environment.
Monday, September 7, 2009
1 3 9
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with your first statement. It seems like we put so much emphasis on the historic nature of buildings we forget what their actual intention was. By not degrading the historical integrity of a building and expanding what is already there, I think you can begin to see how buildings evolve as well as how architecture has evolved.
ReplyDeleteYour ideas about the building ceasing to be architecture and becoming a historical monument is clear and right to the point. I really want to see where you take this and what case studies or locations you choose.
Reusing older buildings and adapting them to function in today's world is a good thing, both in for architectural design and sustainability. However, some buildings are MEANT to be kept in their "primitive" and pristine states for historical preservation.
ReplyDeleteBuildings are examples of architecture in the time that they were built and are a monumental symbol of human culture and achievement. Preserving them is just like preserving priceless works of literature. Volumes of literary masterpieces are archived, NOT rewritten to suite the palette of the contemporary reader. The same should remain with important works of architecture as well.
No one in the world would EVER agree to transform the Forbidden City from the stoic antique that it is today, into a grand modern day shopper's haven.
OK. I'm with you. The argument is well articulated and your position clear. What now?
ReplyDeleteGive me a blueprint of your plan of attack (eg. "first I'm going to do this, then I'm going to do that, etc"). Hint: this should include looking at historical adaptive reuse precedents -- this is hardly a problem of our era alone. Hint two: this should include an understanding of the original structure and function, as well as a true understanding of the proposed function (or functions). Hint three: there should be a series of experiments that speak to how much you are willing to violate the integrity of the original (from hardly at all to unrecognizable).
(Also, while very amusing, your graphic is merely polemic: you missed an opportunity to begin to experiment with the problem that you have set up for yourself.)
Rami