Since the decommission of the Fort Kamehameha historical houses, the true definition of the buildings has been lost. They cease to serve the purpose for which they were created. There are no residents whom occupy the houses. They sit vacant in a quiet, abandoned site. However the debate of the houses has never been louder. There are multiple groups, organizations, and institutions that have formed their own definitions of the structures of Fort Kamehameha. The Air Force defines the units as an unnecessary expenditure and a risk. The Hawaiian Historical Foundation defines the buildings as historically significant structures. I, like so many others who have had the privilege of living in the houses, define the buildings as home. It has become necessary to redefine the buildings. An ultimate redefinition, in which all parties involved accept, is necessary in order to once again give life and meaning to these houses. Architecture ceases to be architecture when it is no longer employed. Without a redefinition of these buildings, they will remain in a state of isolation, uncertainty and despair.
I think that your comment about "architecture ceasing to be architecture when it is not longer employed is interesting." This idea of a "void," is also something that can be further explored. How does the fact that these homes are unoccupied affect the surrounding context, and also how can the revitalization of these buildings learn from what is around them? Like you've identified there are many different parties involved, and I think that the challenge in your proposal is the careful integration of the vernacular sense of the Hawaiian regionalism, at the same time understanding that these are people's "homes," and what that really means.
ReplyDelete