Posted by  Paul Malo on May 13, 2002 at 18:36:17:

In Reply to:  Re: Would you put a Blob in Williamsburg? posted by JWmHarmon on May 12, 2002 at 21:27:18:

There's often a dichotomy between the conceptual and perceptual in architecture. One may argue that it's better not to fake the historical evidence by simulating old fabric, and that like Gothic cathedrals, buildings may become a record of changing times and tastes. Sounds good. That's at the conceptual level. But the realization may look horrible. That's the perceptual truth.

The verbal rationale can't alter the visceral reality of what one sees, and the designer can't be present to argue his or her case verbally once the building is built. It becomes its own reality.

On the other hand, this is not to say that all new building in a historic neighborhood should simulate the extant structures. I recall an instance where we restored a 19th-century courthouse, only to have the adjoining site acquired for an automobile service station. I was asked to support the community effort to make the new development as compatible as possible. I showed slides of one of the most beautiful service stations I have seen, on Nun's Island off Montreal--an elegant Miesian structure of black steel and tinted glass. I argued that the best course was minimalism--a disappearing building--but the community was not persuaded. They got what they wanted: a tacky fake "Colonial" gas station with pitched roof and cupola.

The historic courthouse was not "Colonial"--we have virtually no colonial buildings in Upstate New York. The landmark structure was a mid-19th century brick building with distinctive French influence (steep roofs and casement windows).

This case is evidence that there is no pat forumula for designing in historic context. Often modern minimalism is indeed the best course. But the architect may need to be reined in, to produced something that is deferential rather than proclaiming the designer's prowess.

"Less is More."

Responses:

Post a Response -