Architecture vs History

[delphinus]

Well the question is not so simple as it seems. I'm aware that we live in different cities and the feeling we have towards historical places could be extremely different. We may be used to historical buildings and jealous of them, or we can even not consider them at all, because a matter of culture or maybe just because we don't have historical buildings.

 

To explain better what the topic is about, i will post a couple of images of a contemporary style museum made by the american architect Richard Meier, in the center of Roma, along the Tevere river; The museum of Ara Pacis:

 

http://www.teknemedia.net/esposizioni/2008/TKimg47a73a3ef308d.jpg

 

This building contains this altar, made by the first emperor Augusto to celebrate the end of the civil war in Roma, in 1st century b.c.

 

http://www.erco.com/projects/museum/ara_pacis_2631/images/eur_erco_ara_pacis_intro_1_0.jpg

 

Well, a good part of the roman population has aroused agaist this museum, many saying that it doesn't fit the shapes of the historical center and for that reason is considered ugly. Personally i think that it's a nice work, no more, no less. It's not so contemporary as it seems, it takes much from the style of the modern rationalist italian architecture of the '20 and '30 years, so the architect tried to make it as simple as possible, maybe too much, to avoid huge contrasts with the surrounding historical context.

 

So, if you live in an historical centre of not, what is your feeling towards contemporary architecture? and more specifically, do you think is good or bad to build these things in an historical centre?

[Lisnpuppy]

I find this an interesting question...I look at the Louve as my example...all that beautiful building then they build some bizarre neo-pyramid right in front. I can't say I likeiti bu that is personal preference.

 

I don't think US Americans have the same take on historical buildings as the rest of the world. Our history is limitied to 400 years tops. Most buildings..if they get to be 50 years...it is like "OH that building is so old...lets tear it down" All about progress and change here.

 

I think that I like to keep a balance of historical and "new' but who is to really say what should be kept...which is the most important...and what goes. Obviously this battle rages. Also every culture has had the argument and there is wide spread evidence of ancient buildings used in the building of newer buildings. In ancient cities you can walk down the street adn its like a bloody architectual time machine!

 

However "progress" can not stop and not everything can be kept as is.

 

So I think that people will continue and should continue to make beautiful new architecture. We can not save everything, but hopefully will be smart enough to save the really great buildings of antiquity. And who knows..maybe in 600 years that freakin' pyramid that I hate so much...will be considered groundbreaking and having huge historical significance...

 

I sure hope not though!

[hoots7]

Architecture is subjective, what’s beautiful to one person may be ugly to another.

As part of my studies in college I had a professor ask the class “if a client were to pay you to design & build a house or building that was dark blue with black trim, gaudy or cheesy would you do it?” One guy stood up & said it depended on how much he was paying; the prof said “you’re darn right you will.” I never agreed with that but it gives me good laugh thinking about it.

 

I think it’s good to have community buy-in on a project no matter what style you use.

The safest thing is to not mix contemporary (simplistic white, sweeping lines Miami Vice) with classic styles.

Some can pull it off well by contrasting just enough to make it look good but in my opinion Meier’s building doesn’t work.

 

Lisnpuppy said it very well “So I think that people will continue and should continue to make beautiful new architecture. We can not save everything, but hopefully will be smart enough to save the really great buildings of antiquity.”

[Malchik]

I'm not sure it is easy to make contemporary assessments on the beauty, rightness, desirability etc. of architecture. Of course in the 12th and 13th centuries when many of Europs most famous cathedrals and abbeys took shape you couldn't do a whistle stop tour ending up saying 'oh no, Lisa, not another gothic heap with pointed arches and blind tracery, it's just like the last fifty we've seen'. But even then there was a distnctive 'style' at any particular period. Nowadays with so much building going on it tends to make cities look like clones. So I'm against destroying what is unusual or unique whether or not it is ugly. On the other hand contemporary and historical together don't have to clash. I seem to recall a museum at Merida in Spain (I think) where a contemporary building was adjacent to their extesive Roman ruins without looking out of place. I've also been to Jacobean houses hung with modern art that does not jar.

 

Some styles seem so ubiquitous (the 'pizza-hut school in the USA for example) it is hard to imagine it becoming a protected species. But the building in Rome that houses an altar I seem to recall seeing in the open years ago does not seem either incongruous or popular-trendy to me. I'd have to see it in situ though to say how it affected the whole location.

 

So my answer is keep what it is practical to keep and never destroy a building to replace it with a nonentity building. Otherwise go for modern and inventive. Time is a great healer.

[Carah]

I'm not a fan of contemporary buildings, they seem sterile and un-inviting. I love old world, with ornate carved stone. When I was in Edinburgh I'll never forget The Sir Walter Scott monument. It is very gothic in appearance, and breath taking.

 

http://www.edinburgh-sherwood.com/scott1.jpg

[Marcus Wolfe]

I'd like to show you a picture of the Royal Ontario Museum. It used to be a very old building, but then this happened:

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/2007/11/rom_newmindspace_lighsabers_05.jpg

DISCUSS!

[Kresselack]

Personally I would preserve old architecture, especially wooden and stone buildings. I really dont care for concrete.

 

If I had my own country I would say "no" to modern buildings, such as supermarkets or small dental clinics. Just look at how bland and square they are.

 

Everything would look better with medieval flavour with modern appliances.(pipes, wires, lighting) The old charm really looks better. I would attempt to combine both styles of architecture(modern and old) If I had to choose modern architecture, it better not be bland and boring.

[AfroSamurai]

Personally, I can't even stand the sight of contemporary ANYTHING! The architecture of old is so much more...appealing than a glass pyramid. Its just...weird. Stone and wood carved buildings have such a natural beauty compared to the almost forged appearance of new and modern structures. Although, everybody has their own tastes, and I'm fine with the new stuff as long as we keep our old as well.

[Vagrant0]

If you're going to blame someone, blame those who were responsible for comissioning the project, not the architect. Architects like Richard Meier, Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano, and other contemporary architects tend to make building that look modern, and each one has their own approach to it. Richard Meier goes for simple geometric designs, boxes, arcs, black and white, ultra conservative, Frank Gehry, the oppisite, having wild curves and shapes, bright colors, shiny surfaces. In this day and age, most cities who are looking to build can usually know enough about the achitect they're going to hire to know what to expect. When they hire for the name, the project usually falls into complications, as neither want to accept the other's vision.

 

By contrast, many cities don't want to use more classical designs because the building tends to look either old, or like a poor attempt at duplicating the sorrounding buildings. There was enough of that neo-classical stuff going around in the 1920s and 1930s, and some considder it as trying to tap into the old glory of Rome, which has never really worked well for anyone.

 

The good thing about going with someone like Richard Meier, is that the building doesn't distract from those things inside. If a more classical styled building were used, it would make the older pieces on display blend in too much with the structure, making them harder to be appreciated. If you have an ancient column and a new, classical column next to eachother, some people may not be able to tell which one is which without a sign. Where as if you have an ancient column next to a modern style column, you can differentiate between the two instantly. In many cases, lighting, and the kinds of colors and textures on the walls playes a HUGE roll in how that piece of are is experienced. In a more classicaly styled building, getting good lighting is always a challenge since you tend to have larger, more monolithic forms that don't lend themselves well to having a light installed in them.

[Chesto]

I think that the modern vs. traditional thing depends a lot on the material used in the construction, in this case,of the modern. I have seen ultra modern designed buildings built of traditional materials- wood, lots of wood, stone, etc., which are truly sublime, to me, and fit into any context.

 

So many modern buildings are built with materiel that does not, and can not, age gracefully. Smeary, moldy concrete for eg.. Some modern materiel, glass and steel, will age with grace, or not appear to age at all.

 

Of course it depends on the aesthetic integrity of the design. The new Scottish Parliament , to me, is a joke, a horror story, even though it has a lot of wood in it. Those kinds of buildings can only ever blight their surroundings ; in this case beautiful Edinburgh.

 

I actually like the Louvre pyramid, even tho i am a diehard trad. It is supremely simple classical in shape. And the glass and steel wont look crappy in the years to come. It actually draws attention, not only to itself, but sets off the classical pile behind it by its simple contrast.