At last! Logic that refutes landmark commissions who declare with finality: “New construction should reflect the architecture of our time – and that means Modernism.”
Many architects and clients have faced the frustration of submitting a traditional design for an addition to an historic building – only to have the design rejected because it wasn’t sufficiently different from the original building and/or the surrounding context. For example, the current New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission is notorious for insisting that new construction in landmark districts be executed in a Modernist or non-traditional style.
In a brilliant essay appearing in the current issue of “American Arts Quarterly” magazine, ICA&CA member (and a Fellow Emeriti) Steve Semes exposes the logical fallacies that lay behind today’s conventional definitions of an “architecture of our time.” And in so doing, Semes challenges the reasoning that most design review boards – and many preservationists – use to define what is “appropriate” when it comes to additions to old buildings and infill construction in historic neighborhoods. Most important, Semes’ article also challenges the logic behind the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as they pertain to additions to old buildings.
Semes’ essay traces the origins of the Standards’ fallacious architectural theory to the philosophy of Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) and his historicist doctrine which held essentially that History (with the capital “H”) is progressive, and each era has its own unique spirit (zeitgeist). Semes shows the torturous path by which these history-is-progressive concepts became embedded in the architectural theories of the Venice Charter (1964) and its philosophical stepchild, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (1977). The 1977 Standards essentially made the Secretary of the Interior the arbiter of what was the “architecture of our time” – and that was commonly interpreted to be Modernism.
The Secretary’s Standards have become the de facto national preservation rules and regulations applied by landmark commissions across the United States. And current interpretations of those rules have been responsible for creating thousands of additions and infill buildings in landmark districts that clash aesthetically with existing historic structures. Under Modernist theory, that visual disharmony is “a good thing,” because it clearly differentiates new from old.
Steve’s article illustrates several of the ludicrous constructions that have been forced into historic districts by “preservationists” who make misguided judgments as to what constitutes “architecture of our time.” He also describes the growing backlash against the absurdities that result from formulaic Modernist interpretations of the Secretary’s Standards. With his typically lucid language, Semes demonstrates that traditional, historically inspired design is as much an “architecture of our time” as is Frank Gehry’s latest metal-mangling conceit. I urge everyone to read the full text of Steve’s ground-breaking essay.
-- Clem Labine