Monday, April 14, 2008

Why Do We Like Old Stuff?

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?


Regards
Victor

Victor Pleshev Director Interface Architects Ilford NSW Australia
T: +612 6358 8511






Tuesday, April 8, 2008

No Profit in Public Space

In our never ending rush to the suburbs (the expanding universe) I have been struck by the one dimensional nature of developments. It seems to me that subdivisions are only about cars and not people.

Now this seems strange, in that, the design of where we live is all about getting there and leaving. What we do when we’re actually there seems to have been ignored completely. So, in this issue I’d like to discuss public spaces. Not the grand St Peter’s type space but the simple, humble gathering, meeting, gossiping space. Why doesn’t it exist any more? Or has it taken on another guise?

It’s pretty obvious that the car is to blame. We devote so much space, money, time and energy to our vehicles that there’s very little left over for anything else. Consider that roadways, driveways and general vehicular circulation takes up about half the land area of any subdivision. Add to this the fact that all other considerations are secondary to the road layout and you begin to get the picture. The fact is that our mobility has created a social straight jacket and changed the way we interact with each other.

I’m not suggesting that we dump the car and wear hair shirts. But I do think that along the way we’ve been seduced into giving up bits of our humanity. Now, instead of walking to the town square to do your socialising, you drive to the shopping centre. So what’s wrong with that? Quite a bit actually. First the shopping centre is there to spend your money, not for social interaction, you’re not encouraged to linger. Then, it’s not local. It’s regional, you don’t know many people there and there’s no sense of ownership. It’s not OURS, it belongs to the big boys.

But is this a problem? I think it is and so do lots of other people. Look at your own response; you visit a real village, say in Europe, or Paris or Greenwich Village in New York (Can’t go? A photo will do) and the first thing that hits you is that the spaces are filled with people not cars. The scale of the spaces is related to pedestrians and there’s always somewhere to pause, to chat, to sit and take stock.

In the modern context, in Australia, public space only happens in densely populated areas, the inner city, or tourist destinations. It never happens in regional or rural developments. Well almost never. I’m designing a town square in a small country town for the Mid Western Regional Council. Take a bow MWRC you understand about people, not just about cars. But, as far as I can see, this is the exception.

I’d like to see the public space reinvented and incorporated into all developments and subdivisions. Or maybe we don’t need social interaction any more, just roads and cars. What do you think?


Regards
Victor

Victor Pleshev Director Interface Architects Ilford NSW Australia
T: +612 63 588 511

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Where we build. Does it matter?

Living and working in rural Australia I see a lot of the country and how people live. It never ceases to amaze me that the biggest investment that most of us will make (your house) is generally a result of legislation and economics. How you aspire to live, what your needs are and your aesthetic values hardly enter into the equation.

In this instalment I’ll discuss the first, essential part of our built environment. The land it occupies.

Let’s say you buy a block of land in a subdivision. It’s location, size, aspect and ambience is mostly the result of legislation. The local council regulates land use, density, open space, remnant vegetation, access, etc, etc, etc. The remaining wriggle room is left to the developer, who naturally, tries to get the most out of their investment. The subdivision of the land, location of roads, services, amenities is all carefully planned to get the greatest number of blocks possible. Since land development is a risky business, most developers play it safe, minimise the risk and go for maximum numbers and a safe return on investment.

So, what’s missing here? Mostly everything. Any regard for climate, views, topography, vegetation, orientation, privacy, communal space, circulation, doesn’t exist. Or if it does it’s usually a happy coincidence.

The result is that most land subdivision is the same thing with different street names, competing on price. So the very foundation of the biggest investment you’ll ever make is already missing most of the things that matter.

In the past, the European village has served us well as a development model. A close packed core with human scale, changes of level, views, private space, public space. In short, respect for place and people. And around the village? Open space.

So, with some obvious adaptation, could this be a desirable model to take into the 21st century? Or has humanity changed so much that we need a totally new approach? Or is today’s development strategy OK?

Now I want your opinion, whether you’re an expert developer, a real estate agent, an architect or someone who owns a block of land somewhere, let me know what you think. Maybe you’ll tell me that cheek by jowl, ramshackle buildings and crooked streets don’t work any more? Or maybe there’s someone out there who wants to do something new? I’d love to hear from you.

Regards
Victor

Victor Pleshev Director Interface Architects Ilford NSW Australia
T: +612 6358 8511