Interventions, the modern versus the historical, timeless or craze, sympathetic or callous?
An investigation in to the relationship between ancient architecture and modern-day interventions, An understanding into 'Britishness' and the controversy of altering historical structures.
There are a whole lot of visible builds which entail a vintage building gaining a new addition, a good example being the ideas for the Tate Modern art gallery extension, (FIG)which includes been very controversial and created a split in views, but why? Is it because of the proposed framework being such a comparison to the existing ex-industrial palette of brick and masonry or could it be due to people not liking the aesthetic of the new design, or is it something different all together. What makes these kind of projects so questionable? What is it about the deliberate comparison of styles that separates traditionalists from modernist thinkers so firmly? Are these old structures being utilised better using their new additions or could it be simply a fad, which like Modernism means the complexes may be seen as ineffective or ineffective set ups that will be demolished and substituted in a matter of decades.
Understanding this theory better entails taking a look at why these properties have had Modern day additions put into the existing structure, if they have been re purposed, kept from demolition, been given a new lease of life, or have simply been enlarged. Considering specific cases will determine whether or not the additions have prevailed or unsuccessful and if the adjustment has truly experienced the buildings needs or is simply part of your trend which is merely an architectural 'gimmick', which might or may not stand the test of time.
The junction between traditional and Modern-day materials is also a significant factor of the merging of styles, for example the architect behind the general public Collection in Landau, Germany, Lamott Architekten commented that "the idea which the former exterior wall has been perforated are rendered as wounds. ", Does the delicacy of the conjunction between materials effect negative outcry with regards to the traditional building, will the new design have respect for the existing structure, if there is certainly any major displacement of any historical stone work, or any original features that happen to be protected up or overshadowed by the new development. Are these additions area of the constant expansion of structures that has happened for hundreds of years, or will there be something about modern-day architecture that makes it different to styles of the past. Is it what some people see as the building organically changing and growing, or is this activity a reaction to the recent environmental position to architectural design, and ways to reuse old building alternatively than demolishing them, and modifying them to become more energy efficient.
Is there dependence on a far more restrictive or a far more accepting method of planning for these types of jobs, or do the constraints mean that only the best designs are placed forward, if regulations weren't in place would many historical structures would be ruined by badly designed or badly designed interventions or will there be simply too much bureaucracy and petty rules keeping improvement to the bare minimum and standing in the form of landmark projects. Would it not be better for a building to be transformed into a modern day useful building, when the choice is for this be kept to degrade and to be ignored.
In concern with Britain specifically is the collective reservedness having contemporary architecture and improvement in the designed environment again? Will this phenomena destroy our historical structures stock and mistake our country's traditions, or is there a more positive effect on society that may be sought from well designed contemporary architecture.
The use of the term 'declaration' plays a huge part of the controversy, is this movements solely about making a statement piece of contemporary design merely to make a direct effect, or does it prove to have more depth, and be something more long lasting in the architectural world. May be the fact that tasks such as the Reichtag and the Ontario museum even can be found suggest that despite the controversy that there is an overall gradually changing opinion as to how historic complexes are modified. The comparison between a landmark and an iconic building, is great, can they ever be combined to generate something amazing.
Chapter 1: How did the idea of preservation in structures enter into being. How gets the movement of adding to existing evolved over time.
In the controversy of which method is better conversion restoration or extension. The more 'smart' option of recovery, (to work with historically appropriate building methods and materials to create a mimic of the existing), is seen as more sympathetic to the building. Inside a conversion of an medieval public catalogue in Spain (FiG) it was commented that "Through simple repair steps, carefully suited to match the building, and only a few new enhancements, the atmosphere and splendour of the original building compound pervades" (Cramer and Breitling 2007, p. 33)
To understand the idealism behind the preservation of old complexes, in particular in the United Kingdom, It must first be understood how and just why the idea of buildings being safeguarded came to pass. Phil Venning from the World for the safeguard of ancient properties explained that the beginning of historical building preservation ". . . stems from what the Victorians were doing Between 1840 to 1870 there is a huge procedure for rebuilding churches and cathedrals. 1 / 2 or all middle ages churches were restored and the problem was the type of that restoration. Take St Alburns' chapel, not one single stone from the original building was reused. It was a complete Victorian makeover, a whole invention that bore no relation to anything historical that been around before, so hundreds of years of genuine history were wiped away with regard to something fantastical and completely needless. "(Venning 09) Historical properties often have a long and complicated previous, many things that took place within the building are mysterious, this enigma and wonder create a sort of passion for the historic, architectural or otherwise. There's a contradiction in feeling about historic things, "Most peoples opinion of old artefacts is contradictory. For many the old often signifies stagnation and decay. On the other hand, the old is also cured with a certain respect, recognising the fact that the ageing process includes survival in the face of difficulties. The very fact that something has been conserved can promote wonder and representation. Perhaps it is the familiarity of old things that you principles, and the experiences which have contributed to their survival as time passes. The traces of ageing can be perceived as a kind of cultural identity. "(Cramer, Breiltlig, 2007)
Looking again on particular types of buildings which were put into or restored before obviously shows why certain security was needed to preserve historic complexes. Longleat house in Wiltshire is an extremely extreme exemplory case of how Victorian style enhancements could be unsympathetic to the original structure. Within Longleat's interior are numerous concealed voids, where new additions and interior structure changes are fitted within the prevailing structure often departing huge voids which can only be accessed through very small service gates and are totally clogged off. One of the primary voids in the building contains a lovely clock face. It is still maintained, and is in perfect working order, but hardly any people ever view it, as in order to view the clock face an angled reflection and a torch are needed. This type of loss of background lead to the creation of the World for the Coverage of Ancient Properties in 1877.
One of the primary concerns of these opposed to this movements is the preservation of historical culture, not being a priority and exactly how through these super modern additions it has been lost to be able to set-up more of an general style, with less focus on a specific culture as, anticipated to technology and its influence on communication it is more international rather than countrywide. Architects is now able to work with buildings thousands of miles away, and could have never in my opinion visited the website involved, this fact only, along with many other factors, including globalisation means that it's inevitable that some form of common style is to build up. However, on the contrary to the it sometimes appears that every building is developed predicated on its site, its context, including its past and historical value and its use, meaning that no two complexes could ever be developed in the same way. (quote) This means that utilising a common style can never be a universal scenario as it was through the Modernist period.
Historically new styles were developed through travel and exploration. The grand head to for example that occurred through the 19th century involved English noblemen and architects exploring Europe, in order to be inspired by existing structures and bring them back again to Britain, hence the birth of the Renaissance style. The grand travellers were very harmful in their exploration, many chipping of details from the structures to keep as mementos and carving their labels in the walls of early temples. Renaissance architecture was formed through the misunderstandings and reinterpretations of Greek and Roman structures. An example of this being that lots of grand homes in Britain were encouraged by Greek and Roman temples. Temples were built for certain gods to get shelter, therefore the interior was never meant to be observed by the average townspeople. Creating homes predicated on the look changes the idea behind the original form altogether. That is one of many examples of how the English reinterpreted another civilizations style of structures to make a new trend that is viewed as quintessentially British isles.
The idea of adding to existing in a present style has been occurring for years and years. Many precious structures have been put into in different cycles, for example Chillham Castle in Canterbury where "Major alterations were made in the overdue 18th century by Thomas Heron and his Wildman successors, in the 1860s by Charles Hardy and lastly in the 1920s by Sir Edmund Davis. "(Peters 08). This is before William Morris launched laws to protect old structures, and there is obviously not similar sense of preciousness that is believed with matter of old structures as you can find today. Chillham castle is an excellent example of the way the complete building was improved depending on the style that was in fashion, "In 1775-76, Heron refitted the Jacobean house almost throughout in Georgian style. "(Peters 08) This was definitely not always the best for the building, however, "In what has been termed "an evil afterthought" Brandon put an upgraded oriel home window over leading door, about resembling the initial but using his own "heavy" design. " (Peters 08). Inside the 1920's Chillham castle was restored to its prior Jacobean state as much as possible, which while maybe benefiting the building in its layout and overall coherence, got erased more than 100 years of background. "Thus the fenestration changes of the 18th and 19th generations have been mainly swept away, and the external elevations must look today substantially as these were formerly in 1616" (Peters 08) This is a different method of current renovation methods, in that in contemporary improvements seek to enhance the historic, somewhat than replace the historic in order to attain the illusion of the historical building.
During the 60s the motion of modifying the traditional, became more familiar from what contemporary additions try to do today. Architects such as by Carlo Scarpa, Pierre Chareau and Ignazio Gardella, bridged the distance with innovative answer to reuse of old properties, which is viewed further in Chapter 4.
(need to bridge gap between these paragraphs)
These ideas could be utilized with modern-day interventions whereby instead of being frightened or intimidated by change of precious historical building stock the British should accept this new development, because if we do not then we won't develop a contemporary British style, that is certainly what frightens us most.
Chapter 2: So how exactly does the collective British psyche affect assignments trying to compare old and new? Will the look system have to improve to keep carefully the UK at the forefront of current design?
As discussed in section 1, the benefits of constraints in modifying old complexes has changed how they are preserved, and exactly how architectural fashion impacts the previous history. Planning laws and regulations can be restrictive in the renovation process. Many historical buildings are shown which mean that certain criteria related to structural changes and materials use have to be obeyed. It is difficult to determine if these restrictions aren't changing enough to keep up with current needs of modern living such as open plan spaces and environmental efficiency. It is interesting how the opinion about implementation of contemporary enhancements between planning authorities are different. In Alain De Botton's book "The architecture of joy" and his accompanying television program "An ideal home" not only will he give types of tasks that strived to create a addition, and fought a battle with planning laws over the idea of contemporary being more appropriate that mock or pastiche, but he also checks why pastiche may be the preferred choice, not only by the planners but of Britain's general public. Public opinion plays a large part in a properties success. Will the public's judgment genuinely reflects the merits of the building and the design, or is the public view still tainted with a lack of distrust of Contemporary style design following the failings of the Modernist activity. Is it still the safe but pastiche option that the general public favours? Is the idea of fitted in still deep set into the minds of men and women as being the more acceptable and then the best option? To be able to understand this ideal we must look to the present day real estate stock. Pastiche has had the opportunity to run riot with the UK's casing. Mock Tudor and Elizabethan houses are everywhere, many are built by designers without a good appointment with an architect. These buildings are familiar, they are simply safe, they are seen to require less risk. Within this country in particular the conservative way of thinking appears to be holding back the contemporary in architecture but not in technology or communication or amenities, exactly what does this say about how exactly we feel about the spaces we take up.
Alain De Botton refers to Vilhelm Worringer a 20th Century philosopher that argued that individuals fell deeply in love with specific types or styles of architecture because it comprised or symbolised something that see your face, or that people society was missing, hence Alain De Botton links this to the idea that pastiche imitation Tudor and Georgian new build homes are favoured as a parallel to the unappealing scenery of factories and commercial units a technologically advanced contemporary society produces. This could be seen as an underlying reason for the infusion of Historical and Modern-day architecture being so controversial, it evokes misunderstanding with sense of attempting to retreat to the past away from technology and advancement. The idea of the modern providing the Historical into the new millennium may frighten people into a dislike for these jobs. One paticular example Alain De Botton pick out is one which challenges this theory and shows that individuals are now beginning to realise the strengths of Contemporary structures and how it could be more sympathetic to the original historical than 'make imagine pastiche'. Wakelins is a Tudor mansion that was restored and extended by Wayne Gorst architects as a private home for James Gorst himself. The dazzling contemporary extension can be seen to have significantly more in keeping to the original structure as additionally it is timber framed, while a pastiche mock Tudor expansion will be a masonry structure. James Gorst commented that styles can co-exist without turmoil and that you can be "respectful of days gone by however in your own age" (Gorst 08) Another example Botton uses is a little subtle contemporary extension to a Georgian terraced house in East London (FIG). This expansion was specifically designed by Henning Stummel architects to accommodate bathroom facilities on each floor of the house. The reasoning because of this is to create a more accurate Edwardian structure. As the Edwardians didn't have bathrooms one was made at a later time at the top floor leading to disruption to the move of the home. The new extension allowed the movement of the home to be restored to the initial. These two example defends the theory that "A genuine homage rarely appears like one" (Botton 08) that something can be historically hypersensitive with out visually corresponding anything from days gone by. This expansion could be observed as good for the house by some, and beautiful using its timber panelling and block like glass windows, but it involved a long and arduous struggle with the local planning committee, which in its entirety took two years, as the council favoured a mock Edwardian expansion. This is contrasting research to opinions of famous brands Peter Vennning from the population for the security of ancient properties who ". . . would always alternatively something that is innovative and smartly designed that simply copying what was there already" (Venning 09) This regular struggle with ideas of the council and planning with individuals creates a hurdle between your success and the bargain of contemporary additions to Historic structures. This could suggest that there is a problem in this country about acknowledging contemporary architecture, however there may be the issue so it is merely in the domestic sector that is apparent. In the United Kingdom there are some award winning modern-day buildings, and they're common place for tasks such as theatres, libraries and universities. People obviously appreciate their open public and commercial properties to be fashionable, and in custom built assignments the building layout to best reflect its purpose.
This theory is then reversed whenever we look at the modern United kingdom home, which only seeks to replicate the old. There's a British trait to be very proud of our homes, but it is doubtful why this has manifested itself so in this country and differently in most other countries. It is a view that British people take pleasure in their home, specifically with aspects such as DIY or do-it-yourself being seen as quintessentially British isles "DIY is something of your national pastime on Bank or investment company Holidays in the UK" (unknown, 09) This however is an aspect in itself that leads the general public to believe that homes are an individual thing. This, in the past has lead to disagreements between architects and property owners, one example being Le Corbusier and the villa Savoye, and the client being told not to put curtains up as it would spoil the within outside result created by the drape wine glass. This posed the challenge of fabricating a bargain between good design and an aesthetically pleasing building, and taking into consideration consumer needs and the functional every day performing of the building. All of this evidence shows that the gap between the public opinion and the architects opinion must be bridged. The planning department can be seen as the people to bridge the space, nonetheless they seen to subconsciously be reinforcing the distrust the general public have with modern day design with the favour of pastiche and mock, somewhat than championing the jobs that if built could commence to change the public's conception of contemporary architecture. This outlines the key issue that if well designed contemporary projects are not built they will still be seen as the abnormal. It is already outlined that the British public find a sense of security in old style buildings as they are well known, huge in amount and familiar. Therefore it seems that it's impossible to bridge this distance without upsetting the United kingdom community at some level. The look committee have the power to improve the public's conception nonetheless they are area of the British community in themselves and their choices for mock is seen as a reserved or frightened move on their behalf. Architects know how contemporary architecture works, and exactly how it could be beneficial in a modern society. This could be seen to suggest that there should be a form of making the public aware of contemporary architecture and how it operates, for this fear is based on a lack of understanding, or simply refusing to understand.
The current issue on this concern is fore fronted by Prince Charles. In an exceedingly British manner he's opposing many architects work in defence of preservation of historical buildings in the UK. Prince Charles, Royal, although with no official specialist for building polices, has become the spokesperson because of this controversy. However his very traditional views have been questionable even to those who support the reason.
Philosophically the prince's say to be the protector of custom does not endure scrutiny. He just lately resigned as patron of the Society for the Security of Ancient Complexes (SPAB) because he does not understand or subscribe to its manifesto, as established down by its founder, William Morris.
The key SPAB concept is the fact no version or extension for an traditional building should seek to imitate the initial, but be unique and of its own time. To estimate: "a feeble and lifeless forgery is the final consequence of all the squandered labour". The particular one of the prince's advisers also designs for Disneyland is symptomatic of an desire for a sanitised version of days gone by, stripped of the genuine vitality Morris looked for to guard. (Macintosh 09)
This difference in opinion shows the much wider controversy of whether to adjust structures in a contemporary way or as typically as possible. Prince Charles is seen as a typically British example. Area of the Monarchy but with effectively with no authority in things including structures, he feels his judgment more valid than that of William Morris and the entire staff at the Society for the safety of Ancient Buildings
But the prince is grasped to have particularly objected to the suggestion that repairing old homes in their original style often brings about a 'pastiche' - an unflattering hotchpotch of materials and varieties extracted from different sources -and took discomfort to say as much. "(British 09)
With figure heads such as these portraying their view of the right practice, as archaic mimicking, could it be no marvel that the English public, whatever is still in admiration of its monarchy, something is very exclusively United kingdom, can the lesser known faces of the debate, like the SPAB be looked at within public thought.
However there are tips brought up by prince Charles that defend the idea that there is a notable difference in view or a space of understanding between architects and the general public that must be addressed
"A "gulf" is carrying on to divide architects from the others of society for their obsession with varieties" (Hurst 09). However even Prince Charles admitted that the planning system needed reform, which means that there is facts that the planning system will not even profit those traditionalist ideas related to architecture.
There is recent contraversay about Prince Charle's position through this architectural question. The recent withdrawl of international funding for a high end modern development in London because of the Princes interfearence has angered many. Maybe it's seen that Charles should be aiming to urge foreign coders to purchase housing, to benefit the country as a whole, especially in a period of economic turmoil. Numerous others challenged the design of the building, mainly those of a certain specialist and a long time "Palace officials are likely to dispute that the prince was only one voice resistant to the Candys' strategies for Chelsea Barracks. Lord Stockton, grandson of Harold MacMillan, the previous prime minister. . . " (Chittenden, 09) The Prince also explained his views on his prefered option " He proposed a classical substitute that mirrored the 17th-century Royal Clinic, designed by Sir Christopher Wren, across the street. " (Chittenden, 09) This comment is an example of how people fear so much something new, and prefere the security of something that already is out there, the pastiche. In the event the Prince becomes king in the future then the issue will become progressively more powerful, which poses the possibility that more and more pastiche will find its was to the structures sites, rather than something more fascinating and innovative. The idea of recreating a like the Royal medical center, means that the newer building will only ever be a smaller building than the original, because of the fact that mimicking something with modern techniques will ultimatly bargain the overall integrity of the building, particularly when the original is really as close as Prince Charles suggested. In esscence pastiche architecture is placing style out of framework, in respect of your time. Is it then not that not the same as structures in theme parks and museums? This is epitimised by the actual fact that as mentioned prevoisuly one of prince Charle's advisors also designs for Disneyland. This may be viewed as Prince Charles prioritising style over product, whcih is surely not how successful buildings are designed. The thought of replicating a vintage building is never doing the initial building justice, as it'll always be affected by modern requirements as well as contemporary building rules and planning laws. . This may, in extreme circumstances in the future, lead to old structures being demolished in favour of pastiche, as mock buildings are manufactured in the relevant period and are therefore more suited to current use. It could be said that to truly appreciate old buildings they muse have a distinction, to keep the rarety and preciousness of its design. Another facet of structures that Prince Charles has been talking about is sustainability. In a recent discussion he was considered to come across as ". . . an intellectual Luddite, whose only solution is to retreat into a Hobbit-like world of organic earthy buildings no vehicles. " (Baillieu, 09) That is linked in Prince Charle's speech with the theory that he is wary or worried of experimentation within the architectural genre.
. . . it's his perception that the challenge of climate change can be solved without experimentation. That's where the speech unravelled for to make out "experimentation" to be a terrifying leap in the dark rather than something good predicated on hypotheses and a body of knowledge (Baillieu, 09).
It is easy to see how both of these aspects come together to create this overall impression. That is again relating back to the idea of being scared of the unknown and the security of the familiar which may have been around and survived for a period of time. However it is clear that without experimentation it will be impossible to beat the climate changing ramifications of our current architectural stock without moving into the unidentified and experimenting to produce new technology and modern-day design. This facilitates the idea of shifting from historical design and making in a far more intellegent way in order to combat this problem, and start growing ideas for architecture that the near future requires. This point in argued by those who support the research and technology of the debate "
In his famous "two ethnicities" lecture, the novelist and scientist CP Snow warned that if people wanted to convert their backs on science and the great things about industrialisation they were absolve to make that choice. "I respect you for the effectiveness of your aesthetic revulsion, " he said. "But I don't respect you at all if, even passively, you make an effort to impose the same choice on others who are not free to choose. "(Baillieu, 09).
This also supports the idea that some area of the population are not nessessarily lead by their own choice but rather the decision of figureheads in their culture. This directly pertains to Prince Charles and the negative impact he might well have on the populations views related to architecture.
It is easy to observe how people become patriotic relating to this countries old complexes, but surely opposing anything modern day in architecture at all is hindering the improvement of the country all together.
The destruction of old properties through the first and second world wars helped to generate the sensation of preciousness for the old structures that survived. Modernism that took advantage of the increased loss of historical buildings to produce something new, which even involved demolishing old properties that survived the air raids. This was admired by young architectural minds but disliked by older more traditionalist architects as well as the public. This Modern style of building was quite definitely a duplicating style with certain design rules that needed to be followed by every building, which lead them to have a very generic quality. This stringent code of cosmetic design lead to many of the complexes being demolished less than ten to thirty years later, due to the fact that the buildings were regarded to have no soul and were considered unpleasant and harsh aesthetically. The destructive characteristics of Modernism and the architects ideas of town planning, revealed not only the general public but also the architectural world how important it was to create structures that were not only useful but iconic, and to create something the general public could enjoy, not simply the architectural top notch. Modernism as a motion angered many people who had been dedicated to conserving history, and ever since then they have been fiercely protective of old structures and the task that is done with them. Many people however who've acquired old buildings with the purpose on restoring them, have to hold back months and deal with infuriating, bureaucracy before they can start work, . Within a lot of situations before necessary permissions are awarded the owners are powerless and must watch as the building they own deteriorates further putting the building itself vulnerable. An example of this is the work completed on the folly in Monmouth(FIG)(Gillilan 09) to revive the original building which is from the 16th century but was rebuilt after being struck by lightening in the late 1890s. In addition they wanted to add a modern extension and also to rip down the 20th century additions which were not befitting the building, trying to mimic the original with rendered concrete that were causing damage to the existing framework. This task included an equal amount of restoration and extension, designed by architects with thoughtful and delicate conjunction between modern and traditional materials shows how with better technology and even more sympathetic building materials our views to repairing old structures is slowly but surely changing.
The planning committee of a local council however is not the only opposition a person with Contemporary flavour must face. Community approval is vital for an effective planning program, and neighbours opposition can stop a job even start. In Ling, a tiny historical village in Norfolk a resident wished to produce a contemporary house on the site of his old pottery shed. He has been trying to get permission for his dwelling for years, and his biggest obstacle is the villagers themselves, who think the building is 'unpleasant' and 'doesn't fit in' The question is the reason why did this subject so much, and just why exactly performed the new building not fit in? The building is proposed to be produced from traditional methods with local materials so that it is the modern day style of the building the villagers find so unpleasant. The resident involved commented that there surely is "something peculiarly United kingdom about this placing the past on the pedestal and this everything old is sacrosanct so you touch it at your peril. " But could it be just the British who feel this way, or is it something that is part of any country with a long history and a wealth of historical buildings. A contrast to the would be to check out a country where this isn't the truth. Dubai is mainly desert, but due to its rising market it is slowly but surely being turned into vast cities and complexes. The difference to Britain is that there surely is no choice toward the historic, and post modernism is literally permitted to create entire metropolitan areas which inevitably creates a great amount of different and contradicting styles and preferences. Dubai has a skiing lodge, a kingdom of china and a map of the world molded from fine sand dunes in the sea. Dubai can be an example of what an architectural 'free for all' can create, which includes as much of a negative impact if not more than a country where development is so strictly regulated and protective as ours. With it being satisfactory to have an individual architectural flavour makes the situation different to that of prior eras where by a more unified style was adhered by, planning regulations inhibit the devastation of old complexes or the addition of spaces that produce no sense and are of very specific taste. However there needs to be more understanding from the look system in terms of pastiche that is seen to truly have a negative effect on the building and is also not always the correct solution. Calculated risks must be taken in individual circumstances to be able to set-up relevant places for the present day way of living, and specifications must be placed so that contemporary style can be appreciated by future decades.
Architecture is not static and must constantly change to be able to stay relevant to current population and stay in use. The idea of simply having a building again up to a habitable standard is definitely not your best option. " 'Cutting down' old complexes is no more enough. Desire to is not preservation but change, an architectural, rather than sentimental or historicist method of creating new form out of old fabric. " (Powell 1999)
One way is which this theory is particularly relevant in modern day society is at the recent changes to building methods in relation to the surroundings. Old structures were designed and built before such understanding of climate change or global warming existed. Adapting a vintage building with a new interior layout or addition is no longer enough to make it a 21st hundred years building, Environmentally friendly factor must now also be looked at to future evidence a building. To be able to reduce an existing buildings carbon ft. print, some adaptation is essential, which is not necessarily historically accurate or sympathetic. The reasoning behind many complexes being reused instead of damaged is also influenced by the issue of sustainability. It is often less expensive as well as green to reuse a preexisting building alternatively than demolish and then repair it. This workplace (FIG) was remodelled to represent modern day styles in structures. The building is nearly unrecognisable, however the question this poses is, if this building needed to be remodelled many times in such quick succession, exactly what does it say about the time scale in which contemporary styles are considered current?(need to insert FIG schedules that it was remodelled) It is said that "architecture is an expression of its time, and time can sometimes pass rapidly" (need to check out up reference) The thought of adapting a vintage building to meet new needs and reusing this is a environmentally acoustics idea. If someone occupying a building needs more space is it not easier to adapt the existing building than to go to a bigger building, or have a new building built. Hearst tower is a framework which encompasses many aspects of modern-day addition that is known as beneficial. Its sustainable qualifications make it a forerunner in NY for green design "Made to consume significantly less energy when compared to a conventional New York office building, this can be a model of sustainable office design. " (Foster and partners, unknown) (include transition between old and new in interior space and FIG)
A complex concern is when a city has become so urbanised that there is simply not enough room to produce new structures without creating a kind of urban sprawl impact. A city like NY is a prime example of a location where land mass has become non existent for building, and so older properties must be modified to develop with the actions within it. New York has combated this problem because they build upwards, creating the biggest possible square video footage with the nominal footprint. The improvements to these properties therefore have to do the same. Hearst Tower achieves substantive additional space, but embedding itself in the initial space and moving upward, to be another iconic building in the brand new York skyline.
The environmental aspect is an essential factor in this debate. Many old structures are incredibly inefficient compared to contemporary structures. In order for these buildings to stay relevant as dwellings and complexes for public use they have to be designed with new technology to remain used. If nothing is done with historic buildings stock they'll become a lot more increasingly expensive to perform as they age. The resources to run them, will are becoming ever more scarce, and are effecting the surroundings and therefore it is vital they be adapted to diminish this effect. This is now effecting home owners and the general public as a subject of course. With energy prices increasing this will eventually lead to the public being behind the version of old buildings for this reason in particular. There has been a great deal of support behind for the need for version for old buildings, in particular Kevin McClouds Great Uk refurb marketing campaign which looks for new legislation to improve the expense of making homes more energy conserving through the appropriate adaptation. . This advertising campaign has a significant amount of general public support, which causes the conclusion that the public are convenient with the thought of changing old buildings in a manner that they know benefits them. This contradiction is recommending that its more the style where old and new conjunctions often juxtapose that is the real concern for everyone, which is more style than the technology they are really frightened of.
Chapter 4: Will the conjunction between historic and contemporary architecture be as classic as other architectural movements. What are the precise qualities that make a bit of design "timeless" or "classic"?
The term timeless is employed a whole lot in architecture and design, but what exactly will it entail. The dictionary represents the word amazing as (bottom line to the, cant be classic but can become a historic composition in the future, also to be something that affects future eras of architecture)
- without beginning or end; eternal; everlasting.
- referring or restricted to no particular time: the amazing beauty of great music. (Dictionary Reference on line)
The question that is considered by anyone in charge of granting planning agreement for any recent addition to a historic building is might it be as amazing as the original structure. Examples concerning additions made in the 1970s have definitely not aged as well as the prevailing building. (Fig) Many complexes that were designed and erected during the sixties and seventies are actually considered eyesores, and tend to be torn down. Could this be the case for modern style structures, or like the Victorian style, which was out of fashion during the 1950s and 1960s and is currently a sought after does it simply become stylish again in the near future.
Fashion and craze play an important role in the design as well as the future of properties so it is important that the building is smartly designed and thought out, not relying simply on the current style, but has a timeless aspect to it. "Its not about whether it's modern or if its old it's whether or not its quality" (Coffey 2009) Using the 60s as an example, many cases of 60s and 70s structures were terribly designed and cheaply made, this can even be said for most 21st Century structures, made as cheaply as is feasible to fulfill a simple need with little architectural merit. However there was some architecture that was created during the sixties that was better designed and more durable. Carlo Scarpa was an architect who preferred dealing with and increasing an existing framework than creating his own. His most famous work Castelvecchio was completed in 1964 (FIG). It was his refusal to replicate old styles within his work that his contemporaries found strange, but his work has been ideas for many well renown architects. "His work greatly inspired that of other Italian interior designers, especially Franco Albini", (ref check) as well as learning to be a model of ideas for architectural students "His buildings and assignments were being researched by architects and students throughout the world, and his decorative style had turn into a model for architects desperate to revive craft and luscious materials in the contemporary manner. " (REF check) Thus commenced the beginnings of juxtaposing the latest materials and technology with historic structures.
The destruction of the first world battle lead to the thought of protecting old complexes to become comfortable enough to restarted literal historicism, (although some times later became to influence the exact opposite) specifically in Italy, which created a course towards to something more thought provoking and sensible. . Continue with Work by architects such as Pierre Chareau and Ignazio Gardella.
There is the question of if the building which is not necessarily beautiful, or historically important but is still classed as historic need to be maintained in a treasured restrictive fashion or is it that with historical structures, irrespective of their caliber people feel a duty to safeguard and preserve record like a photograph and this is seen to be the most appropriate option. In such a modern society, this is not necessarily the right practice or should buildings which were created to be used, be redesigned to match our ever changing needs. It may be that protecting a building has a negative impact on the building as it is compelled to be utilized in an out-of-date way and become like a museum piece not to be touched rather than building which is intended to be inhabited and found in order to be enjoyed. A good example of this is actually the opposition to the suggested new addition to the British isles museum(FIG). However it is architects and a local conservation group who are opposing the addition as it has already received permission from the planning authorities and British heritage. "Committee spokesman Hugh Cullum director of Hugh Cullum architects added that punching holes in the just lately restored great hall to provide access to the exhibition space was a criminal offense against an impressive and simple facade. " He added a new facade on Malt Street demonstrated a "specific insufficient response to the road and no matter style, doesn't belong to either Georgian or Edwardian context in conditions of level, grain or materials. " (Cullum, 09)
Extensions to structures have received bigger plus more high profile within the last 20 years. The main architect in charge of some of the most well known additions is Sir Norman Foster. Projects including the Reichstag (FIG) and Hearst tower (FIG) have become iconic. For your building that is such a landmark alone like the Reichstag it would normally be looked at too treasured a building, to benefit from any addition, ". . . you can get some good properties that are so valuable are so exceptional and historically important its most likely not the right thing to do" (Venning 2009) nonetheless it has become an iconic building alternatively than just a landmark because of its glass dome rooftop addition. This is how a building can be enhanced in order to seriously define the region in which it is situated, and become a tourist interest in itself. It offers a truly ethnical experience and people travel from around the world to see it. The dome contributes a looking at experience to the building, developing a platform where almost all of the city is seen. It has helped to reunite the building with the German people, and for that reason added a new dimension of history to the building rather than detracting from what been around previously. "It's important to recognise that structures change and adapt. . . and parts that are added to the building as time passes become part of its record. " (Venning 09)
The Reichstag is a wonderful example of how the extension has been well considered and reflected the buildings record. Based on the idea that a landmark is established by things that eventually the building or the to individuals who inhabit it rather than the bricks and mortar itself, an idea has surfaced that old buildings have a form of speech. Architectural Voices written by David Littlefield and Saskia Lewis suggest that for a new involvement to be truly successful the old building needs to be properly paid attention to, "'If it might speak what would it say? What would it not sound like? Would it be worth hearing?' Questions such as these are especially relevant for architects getting into projects of reconstruction, interpretation or extension. " (Littlefield, 2007). The Reichtag dome like many other projects confronted opposition " The rebuilding project was inevitably questionable, given the Reichstag's position in twentieth-century German history. " (powell 1999) and Foster's original idea however was rejected to be too extreme as he wanted to encapsulate the whole building in just a glass dome. Nevertheless the task as it was realised turned out is considered to "reinstate the building as a focus of the capital and the seat of Bundestag" (Powell 1999) This specific task truly embraces the thought of 'being attentive' to the existing building, and shows that in cases like this that involvement and addition can be more effective than simply a simple recovery, in creating something iconic, "Above rises a dome, not a restoration of that which used up in 1938 but certainly making use of the memories of days gone by". (Powell 1999) The idea that the general public know about the politics occurring inside the building is accentuated by the fact that the dome rests above where in fact the politicians convene. This creates a transparency metaphor as with the Welsh parliament building the guests of the building can watch the politicians from above, and feel more of a part of the system than in earlier times. That is of course symbolic of the change in the German administration, with the united states being unified by the demolition of the Berlin wall structure. This changes the stigma of the original building and creates a new positive image for the building, to relate the old building to the new Germany. This building opposes the idea introduced at the beginning of this section from Phil Venning of the SPAB that some structures are too precious to be modified, it can be an exemplory case of how old complexes have to be adapted in order to stay relevant to society. The building was ruined during the war and had not been fixed when the war ended. Instead the building remained in disrepair and became a symbol for the damage of Germany and its government. It had been unloved due to the stigma that was attached to it and what it represented to the people of Germany, which was a government that has ruined their country and their lively hoods. This is all reversed with the new improvements and the restoration, which allowed the symbolism of the building to be modified and allowed the building to be reintroduced within the German culture, with the addition of to the prevailing, and respecting its past and enhancing it alternatively than endeavoring to dismiss it.
This building is another example of a building that would normally be looked at too valuable for adaption, as it is exceptional for a castle of its era to make it through wars and fights. Nonetheless it shows how an old building can be more appreciated when it's adapted for contemporary use than be still left untouched. After that it becomes less of any boring museum piece and more a thrilling place for people to use and revel in, The Oxford Castle extension and regeneration programme has prevailed in developing a general population space. The old castle building is now a hotel which forms part of any Pedestrianised area, which draws in locals and holidaymakers alike. Opening up a location and a building once closed off to the public is beneficial, but looking at the delicacy of the new treatment shows that every care and attention was taken into consideration to preserve and improve the historic properties, both in the design process and in the development. The initial building was originally used as a prision, and this creates a distinctive space for a boutique hotel. This reuse of the building has created a tourist interest in itself and the development is currently referred to as Oxford's number one tourist attractions.
the addition of the glass surprise shop between two regions of historical stonework. The intervention itself bridges a space between two unconnected areas to make a unison between the areas, but also does not obstruct the view of the rock work or all of those other building from the shop, as the cup roof covering allows the elevation of the castle to be truly loved (FIG) There has been some interventions to the stonework, and get the glass to sit between your walls some natural stone has had to be moved. In (FIG) you can see the glass roofing is supported by several wine glass beams. These perforate the stone wall, however the damage is little, with stones replaces and matched to the prevailing, and lime mortar used so that the wall can be conserved. In the areas of the development you can see the seamless move between historic and modern-day. In (FIG) you can view how the walkway slots into the elderly building using a preexisting area which is recessed in the same decoration. This creates the illusion that the two were created together. There's a sensitivity between the conjunctions between materials as you can plainly see here in (FIG) the solid wood panelled roof in the surprise shop leaves a little distance between it and the stone wall. This roof is not structural and so can sit right above the stone wall structure and does not have to perforate it at all. This approach leads to bare minimum disruption of the historical stone. Another example of this is actually the glass panels at the front of the surprise shop (FIG). The cup does not perforate the natural stone wall instead an adhesive is employed to bridge the difference between the goblet and the natural stone work. This is significantly less intrusive to the stonework and can be removed with out a trace of facts to the existing if required. This task has opened up a building once shut away from general public admiration and has created a cosmopolitan pedestrian area where gleam homage to the castles background with the new 'castle unlocked' visitor appeal. It has been good for the building as it includes allowed it to become tourist interest and has become more of Oxford's heritage than it was before the renovation.
This example shows how that you can transform a properties function successfully with the addition of a contemporary intervention. The old building, once the former Cotton Exchange as soon as the greatest room for commerce on the planet, it is now a nationally and internationally renown as it's the largest round theater in the UK (FIG). The way this building has been improved means that alterations to the prevailing structure is minimal. The only intervention is in the primary four marble columns which support the original domed ceiling. There is no effort taken to hide these interventions, instead the strictures that branch faraway from the main composition in to the old structure are artwork of the design (FIG) This pod style intervention becomes the central little bit of the building, allowing a building which no longer houses the function it was designed for continue being relevant in the 21st Century. Just how this building was redesigned in the 1970s means that the building still has an important place within Manchester's city centre. This job was only a genuine success because of the daring design "Conceived as a radical, experimental in-the-round playhouse by the overdue director Michael Elliot and the stage creator Richard Negri, it includes proved consistently successful, no marvel - the audience is packed in near to the celebrities, and at the same time stacked up high around them. "
There a wide range of factors which affect this topic. Since it has been seen the whole ideology of one country's culture is a poor process. There may be some gradual change and the look system is set to improve with so much opposition to its current steps. Being a government body the look system will have no choice but to modify in order to seek the best solution to problems in Britain such as the predicted shortfall of housing stock and the monetary climate and having less work with the built environment industry. The ideology behind the term Britishness is also changing, and this globalisation will have an impact on how the British population perceives contemporary structures. The way architecture changes is something that will continue to adjust as it did because the built environment has existed, and the controversy of the projects will lower eventually as it becomes increasingly more common.
As the worlds society increases the version of existing properties will become increasingly more of a required process, particularly because of the new knowledge concerning the environment.