Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

"A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic." [Katz, EPA] This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Modernist building out of place

From the Charleston Post and Courier, about the plans of the Clemson School of Architecture to build a modernist building in Charleston's historic core. The points made in this letter to the editor by Andres Duany have relevance to all center cities, even Washington:

Why do American modernist architects insist on building in historic urban cores? Why will they not accept the policy of Paris, Rome or Stockholm wherein the traditional city is maintained in character, while the modernist buildings are allocated to their own urbanism elsewhere?

In the case of Paris, after the disasters of La Tour Montparnasse and Les Halles, modernist buildings were relegated to La Defense. Few buildings have since undermined the unique harmony of Haussman's Paris. Rome adopted a similar strategy with the code of 1934. The results of this discipline are evident in their flawless urban core.

The ever-progressive Stockholm, having been severely harmed by its 1950s modernist experience, has recently passed a new code that locates new modernist buildings in modernist areas and assures traditional buildings in areas where they support the context. These fine and sophisticated cities have concluded that what works best is an architecture of place rather than an architecture of time.

Why then do modernist architects insist on building in Charleston's delicate historic core? I cannot help thinking that the traditional urban context is what makes their buildings acceptable. Modernist architects are clever this way. They know that when their buildings are relegated to a modernist urban context, they become exposed. Their unique designs must stand on their own merits - and among their merits rarely can a decent urbanism be counted...

Modernist buildings to be successful, must be located within traditional urban fabric. They are parasitic. That is the reason that the Clemson School of Architecture so grimly insists on a site within historic Charleston - where few want it - instead of accepting a site a couple of blocks away at Ansonborough Field, where most Charlestonians would be glad to have it.
_____
Also see "Clemson facility draws protests: Some neighbors don’t want school in historic area." And this webpage for the proposal.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home