|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
Yup. I'm a modernist born and bred -- but there's much to be said for all the other architectures in the world, isn't there ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.gusto.com/gusto_images/10001_20000/13572/feature.jpg
As controversial as this Gehry example is, it's one of my favorites and a prime example of an addition that relates to the original architecture while using new design to express something very contemporary. It's an extreme example to illustrate my point...
...the simplistic notion is that future visitors will still be able to experience the original architecture in it's intact state, and not be mislead to contemplate if the original architecture included the addition or not. This does not mean that the original should be ignored, nor outdone or overshadowed particularly by massive chunks of irrelevant structure stitched onto the side of an existing building. It should immediately compliment and add to the original while still upholding the integrity of the intial intent. This is not an easy task, particularly if dealing with unduly clients, lack of oversight by local government, and an overly eager architect who makes no effort to think about the sense of historic preservation...which is not uncommon given the makeup of current design philosophy. I.M Pei's the Louvre addition is another such difficult task that somewhat exemplifies this complexity. In that case, he very boldly used a platonic shape as the prime gesture towards antiquity yet made no effort to dare to replicate the ornate structure of the original. To this day it remains controversial.
The general nature of new additions to historic buildings (I'm working on several now...at various stages) is to respect the original and always work to best restore as much as possible, replicate what needs to be, renovate when required, and add when necessary. The addition should...should...respect, enhance but remain subdued in full view of the original, thereby retaining history for generations to come. Why should today be the day when we alter a building to such a point that no one would understand the full sense of the original architecture? Of course it makes sense to meet growing demands on any given program, but it is all too easy to destroy and rebuild to meet these modern needs. But with a bit of effort, dedication and support (ie, money)...nothing beats a project of this sort when it results in a final product that both meets the needs of the new owners and still contributes back to the history of the place. Often times it's easy to remind the owners what attracted them to the historic building in the first place and by enhacing those features can add great value to a project.
Sad to say, but often compromise is the only answer and the major architectural features are all that we can salvage. But at least we leave something behind for the next generation to contemplate. There is not much to think about when passing by your neighborhood Walmart, but what of that neo-gothic church that looks as good as the day it was first built which may be proudly announcing the values of the more-contemporary sprawling school complex it has fathered? (no pun intended...) These new additions can be done with great sensitivity to material, scale, proportion and rhythmn without having to make believe it's part of the original structure. I think of it as any great painting where the main subject is in full view but the background is so carefully composed to balance the full image into a perfect picture that exudes mastery. But I digress,...this is but a wish...9 times of 10, it's just another boxy addition to a ho-hum old building with an awkward connection. In that light, I'd give my left foot to at least see some attempt to continue, and yet somehow IMPROVE, the original architecture...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building.
Last edited by mx2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I feel like there is a fundamental truth that many modern designers never bother to accept:
Difference is not a justification.
Novelty is not an infallible guarantee of quality.
Creation does not equal improvement. |
Ouch...careful, I would say, for this retracting definition of Modernism is exactly what has lead us into the pit of Post-Modernism (despite the fact that I agree 100%). I hate to say, but what has been frustratingly absent from contemporary rhetoric is (instead of what Modernism ought not be) what Architecture ought to be. I find that today's school of thought has been to teach that we must "improve" on the past, which has been misinterpreted as "do whatever the hell you like"...so I wish we could all find some new testament to what direction are we supposed to go. The more I read, the more I feel like I'm stuck in a virtual/digital Babylon...as I watch historic buildings fall, one after another....
...I'm so glad I get to work on a few that I know will still be around for at least the lifetime of the current owners. That is...until they sell it.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Someone recently told me something like the following, which may help explain my position:
If you were restoring a classic car and the seats were torn, would you replace them with high-tech/modern seats? And if you did decide to modify it, would the new parts be made to look contemporary, attempt to mimic the original, or simply be of new technology yet stylistically appropriate? It's not a simple answer...but you get the picture.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well put, all of it. I think you reeled me back in from an untenable position -- thanks.
The automotive analogies seem particularly useful, somehow, don't they. In the case of the car seats, we're only considering repairing/replacing an existing element, rather than adding something to the existing car design -- but that too has its architectural counterpart.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I find that today's school of thought has been to teach that we must "improve" on the past, which has been misinterpreted as "do whatever the hell you like" |
I'd say I subscribe to that as well. I am certainly not a proponent of strict replication or stagnation in design. Architecture has always been about progression in some form or another. What frustrates me is the mentality that the present is so unique and so informed that all previous knowledge built into architecture is no longer helpful or applicable to architectural evolution--an early Gropius/Mies mentality in design. It seems hard to believe that there is nothing to learn from centuries of designers no less creative, artistic or intelligent than those of today.
The car example is a tough model. I had a similar debate with a co-worker about the new Dodge Challenger (which I thought looked pretty nice.) While he said it was a throw-back and thus not a progressive piece of designed machinery. Always has to be a gray area, doesn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The magic and the irony of life is that the same objects will mean different things to different people. We long for connection and validation; shared objects (that is, shared opinions about objects) can be powerful agents for connection and mutual recognition/support -- and diverging opinions can lose us those attributes. And semantic difficulties -- misunderstandings of reference or meaningful definition -- can cloud the waters further.
Always, a picture is the shortcut past some of those difficulties. Regardless, tastes will differ, for whatever reasons. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
okiniili
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if it's good or not but many old architectures with good value changed gradually.I mean,the function of them is changed.For example,church changed into museum,house changed into hotel,hotel changed into library...
But which were much better than being destroied forever.
_________________
Prefabricated Home Resources
Modular Home Resources |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The new Dodge would be comparable to Neo/Retro-"fill in the blank"...not truly a restoration of a beat up original. That is entirely a different set of problems (existing conditions vs ground up)...
I think SDR alludes to the one key point that I find to ber more important than most; should we continue to devalue/demolish the past and original architecture, there will be no connection to the past...certainly not in the experiential sense (sensory). We give to much importance to ourselves, to our time. Speaking of TJcaine's point, what better full scale example is there but to experience historic buildings, no matter how big or small and learn from them. One of my eye-opening experiences was field measuring a 1920's catholic church that was designed to replicate one in Europe. The intimate knowledge I walked away with from that project was a major blow to my Modernist training...and in all honesty, it suddenly made Modernism make full sense to me in a way I never thought of before: which was in stark contrast to what indeed Modernism was rejecting. But what rattled my soul was the fact that I found this old dinky church to be quite beautiful and so well balanced in every sense. So how could I justify Modernism as an improvement on "perfection"? And that's when I realized that (no pun intended) God is indeed in the details. It's the careful study and methodology applied towards any single given project that makes for the best Architecture.
So what I meant was that the school of thought neing about improvment is correct...we must always strive to improve...always...but how it has been applied appears to me at least that this has given carte blanche to many architects and clients to throw all "correctness" out the window and do whatever...there is very little need to justify nor explore any detail, let alone the overall project. I call it architectural apathy. Forget darwinism...there is no progress in my mind. It's a virtual free for all, winner takes all...and everyone else walks away...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good story, and a valuable lesson. . .
I don't know everything about how architects in the past were taught, but I know that study of previous work played a part of -- and it still works. Too bad we've (sometimes) "thrown the baby out with the bathwater."
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just realized something...duh (to me)...prior to the Bauhaus, aside Ecole de Beaux Arts, there was no formal school of architecture. Architects could ONLY learn by first mimicking what has been done then eventually, with experience, begin to experiment.
We should ban all schools...!! Vive la liberte!!! 
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose there was always a formal/informal practice of apprenticeship, so the budding architect had someone "on the ground" to learn from ? As usual, the most gifted teach themselves, looking at (and drawing) what they judge to be successful work, traveling, ideally (in lieu of any extensive architecture-on-paper to study) to seek out the Bigger Places and their stores of historic (and new) treasure -- as we do today, sometimes never leaving home !
If you go to school, these are your assignments; why not assign yourself the task ? "Those with eyes to see, will see. . ."
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 848
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Question about changes made to historical or iconic buil |
|
|
| worthind wrote: | | I am looking for examples of iconic or historical buildings that have been altered or added to at some point during their history in a way that has not had a detrimental effect. Examples of churches would be ideal, but examples could be for any building. We are considering adding a cross to the spire of our church and congregation members want to be sure we are not doing the architecture a disservice by making the addition. If anybody knows of any examples or of any books or websites that may have examples I would be very appreciative. Thank you! |
worthwind, I would look to these fine people http://www.tfguild.org/ to answer any questions you may have. They are experts on historic building conservation and restoration, with a sharp carperter's eye on the future.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
