My last two chapters have suggested that we look back to previous examples for inspiration. This got me thinking as to why we find buildings of the past so attractive.
In this chapter I’d like to lift the lid on the past and see why most of us are mad about old buildings. First let’s discuss quality; it wasn’t that good. I’m in the business and I’ve done a lot of inspections so believe me the middle to lower part of the market was built much worse than today’s. There were no regulations to speak of, insulation was unheard of, ventilation was hardly considered, heating and cooling was primitive, materials were untested and untreated, building techniques were basic and water got in everywhere.
It was only the major, expensive buildings that attracted the best tradesmen, the best building techniques and the best materials. It’s these buildings that stick in our minds. After all, when we think of past architecture we don’t remember cracking walls without foundations, mortar with almost no cement, bricks so soft you could gouge them with a fingernail or timber floors built straight onto the soil. We think of beautiful sandstone blocks, each one hand trimmed to fit perfectly, intricate wrought iron tracery, beautifully detailed lead lights, dove tailed joinery and French polishing that still looks perfect 200 years later.
Even these fine examples of the past are still with us because of the care and maintenance lavished on them and not from superior building techniques. So what is it that attracts us to the past? I believe that it’s the richness of detail. The first thing that strikes you is that almost everything is covered in carvings, squiggles, decorations and embellishments of one sort or another. The more detailed the better we like it.
The explanation for this is pretty simple. We are hunters by nature our eye is drawn to movement. The play of light and shadow, colour and pattern attracts and fascinates us. If there is no contrast, no movement then we tend to ignore it. This was understood by past generations of builders and used to good effect, not only in the detail but also in the arrangement of spaces. Small spaces flowed of larger ones, there were surprises in shape, contrasts in textures, interest throughout.
So, where’s it gone? Detail began to die with the industrial revolution when the machine started taking over and finally disappeared after the Second World War when craftsmen and materials were in short supply. Economics played a part, of course, and today we simply can’t afford craftsmanship of the kind that we see in past examples. Are we then destined to look at acres of flat white plasterboard? Not necessarily. I think we should reinvent detail so that it expresses today’s materials and building techniques.
We should use detail to better explain our buildings, how we build and use them. Detail should be used to communicate with the building user, to enrich their experience. So, in effect, we’re not just adding stuff, we’re using what we have to anyway, to get the job done. But with a little bit of thought the necessary can also be the decorative.
Our buildings shouldn’t duplicate the past but with a little thought they can be just as satisfying and a good deal more efficient. What do you think? Are there only two positions, the old and detailed or the new and boring? Or is there a Middle way?
In this chapter I’d like to lift the lid on the past and see why most of us are mad about old buildings. First let’s discuss quality; it wasn’t that good. I’m in the business and I’ve done a lot of inspections so believe me the middle to lower part of the market was built much worse than today’s. There were no regulations to speak of, insulation was unheard of, ventilation was hardly considered, heating and cooling was primitive, materials were untested and untreated, building techniques were basic and water got in everywhere.
It was only the major, expensive buildings that attracted the best tradesmen, the best building techniques and the best materials. It’s these buildings that stick in our minds. After all, when we think of past architecture we don’t remember cracking walls without foundations, mortar with almost no cement, bricks so soft you could gouge them with a fingernail or timber floors built straight onto the soil. We think of beautiful sandstone blocks, each one hand trimmed to fit perfectly, intricate wrought iron tracery, beautifully detailed lead lights, dove tailed joinery and French polishing that still looks perfect 200 years later.
Even these fine examples of the past are still with us because of the care and maintenance lavished on them and not from superior building techniques. So what is it that attracts us to the past? I believe that it’s the richness of detail. The first thing that strikes you is that almost everything is covered in carvings, squiggles, decorations and embellishments of one sort or another. The more detailed the better we like it.
The explanation for this is pretty simple. We are hunters by nature our eye is drawn to movement. The play of light and shadow, colour and pattern attracts and fascinates us. If there is no contrast, no movement then we tend to ignore it. This was understood by past generations of builders and used to good effect, not only in the detail but also in the arrangement of spaces. Small spaces flowed of larger ones, there were surprises in shape, contrasts in textures, interest throughout.
So, where’s it gone? Detail began to die with the industrial revolution when the machine started taking over and finally disappeared after the Second World War when craftsmen and materials were in short supply. Economics played a part, of course, and today we simply can’t afford craftsmanship of the kind that we see in past examples. Are we then destined to look at acres of flat white plasterboard? Not necessarily. I think we should reinvent detail so that it expresses today’s materials and building techniques.
We should use detail to better explain our buildings, how we build and use them. Detail should be used to communicate with the building user, to enrich their experience. So, in effect, we’re not just adding stuff, we’re using what we have to anyway, to get the job done. But with a little bit of thought the necessary can also be the decorative.
Our buildings shouldn’t duplicate the past but with a little thought they can be just as satisfying and a good deal more efficient. What do you think? Are there only two positions, the old and detailed or the new and boring? Or is there a Middle way?
Regards
Victor
Victor Pleshev Director Interface Architects Ilford NSW Australia
T: +612 6358 8511
1 comment:
Not so sure I agree you with Victor, but I know you’re being provocative in order to elicit a response …
Public space is an essential part of development – if ultimately you are attempting to create infrastructure which engages with and compliments the urban community you are working with. To isolate yourself and your development and not engage with the local community – whether through consultation wise and/or built form wise is a pretty risky thing to do – certainly not something or a process we do with our developments.
Our success to date (and hopefully ongoing) has been through an open dialogue, including the provision of public space with the communities in which we engage.
I have to say I enjoy a polygamous love affair with both old buildings and contemporary buildings – even moreso if they combine both – this is reflected in our developments right down to my own house. Our house for example is a 103 yr old terrace at the front which transitions to an open space of structural steel, aluminium, metal cladding and glass. The blend of both including the contradictions is what heightens the love.
What creates a timeless building and timeless design, whether it is the nsw art gallery, governor phillip tower, aurora place, rose seidler’s house, or a paddington terrace is being faithful to the time and circumstances which influence and define the design. The problem is both designers and the planning authorities do not seek to keep redefining our time and instead we are bombarded with lazy attempts of mimicry which simply attempt to blandly copy the past. The buildings we admire, whether old or new, are typically bold expressions of our thinking and circumstances of that particular time.
Presumably you have also read some off alain de botton’s (young English philosopher’s) musings … refer http://www.alaindebotton.com/architecture.asp
Best regards
Howard
Post a Comment