| |
The
Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture,
Urbanism, and Historic Preservation by Steven
W. Semes
W. W. Norton, 2009
Hardcover, 272 pages
The apparently irreconcilable gulf
between Modernists and Classicists, progressives and traditionalists,
comes to the fore when architectural proposals contrast
with old, appreciated buildings. Think Hearst
Tower, Soldier Field,
Morgan Library, all
recent examples of modern glass and metal buildings atop
or next to old stone structures. Basically following "party
lines," each intervention has been embraced by modernists
and derided by classicists. (Soldier Field's expansion by
Wood + Zapata resulted in an unprecedented loss
of preservation status (PDF link) for the landmark.)
Alternative approaches to the above
examples and their like are the subject of University
of Notre Dame (the only US architecture school that
"emphasizes traditional and classical design")
associate professor Steven W. Semes' new book on building
in cities' historical districts. His argument for contextual
responses for new architecture inserted into areas like
Manhattan's Greenwich Village, Boston's Back Bay, and Chicago's
Gold Coast is well considered and clear, calling for continuity
and respect without promoting the mummification of historic
districts. The author's call for preservation to acknowledge
the broader social and cultural effects of continuity in
these areas is common sense but at odds with policies that
reward contrast in new buildings and discourage ones that
create a "false sense of history" because they
resemble the urban fabric in which they reside. Semes contends
that preservation should "recontextualize
the remnants of the past and ensure their future as living
parts of our world" (his emphasis), not just "ensure
the survival of artifacts in isolation." In this sense
preservation is an urban and social act before it is an
architectural one, embracing evolution and change while
arguing for continuity and respect.
As someone who appreciates contrast
in urban settings -- I see the diversity of styles and ages
of buildings as a result of the ongoing interaction of landowners
and bureaucracies with the public at large -- examples like
Hearst Tower and Soldier Field cross the line between acceptable
modern interventions and the almost total destruction of
historical buildings, with "facadism"
resulting. Issues of scale and function come to the fore,
with these two projects showing how the former is not respected
and the latter disappears. But when a building departs stylistically
from its neighboring predecessor -- Matthew
Baird's Town
House on the edge of the Greenwich
Village Historic District (PDF link) in Manhattan is
a good reference here -- the ignobility of such a gesture
is harder to accept. If individual modernist structures
in scale with their neighbors do as much harm as
Semes and other purport is arguable.
After reading his book I would agree
(sort of) that alternatives should be embraced. But instead
of designs carrying on the traditions of their predecessors
in the same idiom, why can't new buildings attempt a synthesis,
utilizing modern vocabulary and construction, yet addressing
the levels of scale and other qualities of the older buildings?
To contrast brick and stone with expanses of glass and/or
steel is oftentimes unimaginative, especially when a more
carefully considered design can use the same materials (and
more) to create something respectful yet unique and expressive.
Semes' argument may call for more traditional results, but
it could also lead to contemporary architects' finding more
creative and subtle ways of creating difference.
US: 
CA: 
UK: 
|
