Posted by  Paul Malo on May 12, 2002 at 09:01:25:

In Reply to:  Re: Contextualism and Vernacular Building posted by Will Hayes on May 11, 2002 at 10:33:57:

Yes, "style" seems to be an issue here. Are we back to the 19th-centure "Battle of the Styles" as if Gothic (Modern) is to be held more "honest" (or "moral," or "true," or "beautiful"--whatever) than Classical (Traditional)?

Don't you think there is good architecture in any style? Do you really think that a particular style either validates or invalidates the merit of a building?

True, this peculiar mindset still pervades the academies, since a generation of teachers was raised on a modernist manifesto, which persists, even if what it is that we define as "modern" changes. It's bound up in the deep-seated culture of "progress" that was modernism.

Surely there are dreadful fake buildings puportedly designed in historical styles, just as there are dreadful "modern" buildings. As we know, this fashion was co-opted by builders of cheap buildings everywhere--the ubiquitous Big Boxes being the bitter end of rational fuctionalism and economic determinism.

But the issue, I think, is not the "proper style" (as concerned critics of the 19th century) since this tends to address mere appearance. We agree on this. The Disnoid plastic rendition of a historic models is the pits. Architecture is not theater--the game of illusions. Architecture is about buildings of integrety, which involves much more than venustas (appearance) but also purpose (utilitas) and construction (firmitas).

My contention is that in a historic neighborhood, say of 19th-century wooden frame buildings, there is no reason to suppose that wooden frame construction should be avoided, simply because it is not "modern" (i.e. high-tech). That's the Zietgiest nonsense that I can't abide. Wood frame construction is as feasible today as it was a century ago, so why not use it, if it is characteristic of the area? That's merely reasonable deference to context.

And if gable roofs are a natural way to build with wood, why not use gable roofs? You see where this is leading. Wasn't there a book called "The Natural Way to Build?" Architects tend to disdain the vernacular, since it is "Architecture Without Architects" (another book title, of course).

There was a reason for vernacular forms. More than because of superficial style, the forms evolved in response to conditions such as climate and available resources--factors that haven't changed that much. Why then must style change so radically? Fashion?

You say we shouldn't "mimic" historic buildings. That's a pejorative term. How about "learning" from them? I would say we should not ignore historic buildings, simply because we want to be "original," or to "be of our time." Why is originality or our time so great? We see abundant evidence around us of what originality produces, and what our time as created.

I see no reason whatever why a new structure inserted into a historical neighborhood should NOT look like other buildings there. If the designer understands how and why those buildings were construct the way they were, and if the reasons still make sense, why more build a new building the same way?

Given the 19th-century neighborhood with general wooden buildings, why not a wood-frame structure, clad with wood (not vinyl) siding, using wood (not plastic) double-hung windows. Maintenance? I would argue that maintenance ought to be accepted by the user as the price for buying into the ambience of a historic neighborhood. But of course, modernists often don't appreciate or value highly historic ambiance, do they? I mentioned the Internation Style building designed by a highly regarded modernist for a historic complex of buildings.

(Incidentally, I live in a Greek Revival house with a cedar shingle roof--which costs far more than most "modern" alternatives. We also have to repaint the clapboards periodically, but this we far prefer to vinyl siding!)

On the other hand, most of the new houses I have designed, when not in a historic setting, are quire different--like the commercial and institutional buildings, very few of which evidence historic character.

Responses:

Post a Response -