|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
worthind
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: Question about changes made to historical or iconic building |
    |
|
| I am looking for examples of iconic or historical buildings that have been altered or added to at some point during their history in a way that has not had a detrimental effect. Examples of churches would be ideal, but examples could be for any building. We are considering adding a cross to the spire of our church and congregation members want to be sure we are not doing the architecture a disservice by making the addition. If anybody knows of any examples or of any books or websites that may have examples I would be very appreciative. Thank you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mx2
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1813
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you bought an original 1920 Model T Ford...would you add a spoiler on the back?
It's an issue of what does the owner want to accomplish and how well documented is the orginial architecture?
Is the building significant? Is it historic? Is it iconic? Is it in its original condition? Is the cross a previously existing element that you're restoring? Is it appropriate to add a cross? How will the cross be supported? Will there be significant demolition in order to fasten it to the spire?
Or if its not significant building but merely dear to those who are debating the issue, then perhaps it's time to let go and go for it...
But speaking of desecrations, the point is to be true to the original architecture as much as possible. Safety always overrules any other agenda.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madimel
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lambeau Field enjoyed a great renovation while Soldier Field was desecrated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Worthind,
There is a great book, Historic Houses of the Hudson Valley, by Harold Donaldson Eberlein, Dover Pub. with several
examples of historic buildings with very positive alterations at different times in their long lives.
Most notable is Montgomery Place in Barrytown, New York.
Mrs. Richard Montgomery, the widow of Major-General Montgomery, built the home between 1802 and 1805.
It began its life as a rather plain federal colonial and went through several major additions (1844 and 1860)
which transformed it into a very special home, well preserved and maintained today by the National Historic Trust.
The key to what you want to do is hiring the right person to make the change. Make sure you get references and
get a good look at the candidates past work. Good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1534
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many buildings have had complementary additions to them; many others have been damaged aesthetically if not also historically by additions. Architects have even messed up their own past work, albeit at the request of a respected client: Wright greatly enlarged the Rosenbaum Usonian, forever altering what was a carefully-considered and flawess street front in the process.
That said, the addition of a minor adornment to a spire seems unlikely to affect the quality, aesthetic or historic, of the structure -- though the congregation is to be commended for its care and consideration in the matter. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1813
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pleased when I see any owner trying to keep or improve an existing and historic building. Too often these buildings are ineffecient and/or too expensive to retrofit so they replace these gems in the rough with large boxes. But the "art" of restoration lies in the appropriteness of any NEW construction. Often times this is very subjective but by substantiating and justifying any new work in rleation to the character and history of the place many great improvements can be made to the original building. I always groan on each project because my biggest issues are always the same three headaches: 1) mechanical system, 2) ADA compliance and 3) Miami-Dade County Product Approval process...in which all exterior elements must have a product approval by the county, a requirement that limits the choices of products we can use on historic preservation. Many new products simply do not respect, replicate or signify the nature of historic construction methods. Bottom line, it's a PIA! But the final results of pushing through a project that restores a historic building is invaluable. It really is a great part of Architecture that I hope all Architects experience at one time or another...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1321
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
there are many many examples of church retrofits especially related to the addition or removal of religious symbols...
think of all the roman temples that were converted to christian churches or all of the christian churches that were converted to mosques...
one of the most common ways to do this was to add a cross or some minerets...
i would say your biggest concern is going to be to match the quality and materiality of the rest of the building with this new cross...
the last thing you want is a nice patina copper spire with a big ugly white vinyl cross topping it off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1813
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a preservation architect, the term "retrofit" scares the daylights out of me...that can mean anything. It's either preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction. The reason I even go there is that they specifically mentioned historic buildings...and yes, slapping any item on a historic building simply because it's the soup du jour is not a good idea without doing some research on appropriateness.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1321
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
you have to admit thougth that pretty much all of the additions of spires/minerets/crosses/etc that took place from the 300's thru the renaisances were 'retrofits'
of course in most cases the idea wasn't to compliment the existing architecture so much as subjigate it to the new ideology contained in the addition...
but without getting to architectural history here- i think the biggest concern is to be sure that this cross is complimentary to the rest of the church- because i highly doubt they are intending to proclaim some kind of religious revolution through its addition as the christians and muslims did
also i'd have to argue that 'retrofit' really is the best word for what is being described here.... there currently is no cross and they wish to add one on...to call it any of the other things would require the current or previous presense of a cross |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1813
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Believe you me, I more than admit that "retrofits" are more common place than not since the beginning of history of the built environment but this is not the point I'm making. More so today then ever before, there has been little effort to preserve any sense of history, and place for that matter. Most architecture today seems limited to the edge of the property line with little compliment to the immediate surroundings, certainly ignoring historic buildings. And historic buildings, or buildings of some significance, are often looked at as simple real estate by prospectors and property owners who feel its their right to do as they wish...hence the controversy over historic structures. So when private owners decide to retrofit, they often ignore any sense of historic sensitivity. It is a good thing to see one owner even ask the question. But in response to that question, the answer always begins with establishing appropriateness. This can be very subective, although there are multitudes of guildelines. So, essentially I'm saying that in the rare occasion that someone or people want to go above and beyond the simple right to do whatever to any building, there are indeed steps to follow that will help establish what is or isn't proper for any particular historic building.
In our town, any building designated as historic must be approved by the Historic Preservation Board for any work, remedial or whatnot, before even applying for any permit, let alone construction.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1534
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a designer and a fan of modernism (in particular) and architecture in general I am certainly 'on board' with efforts to retain worthy architectural fabric, whole and unadulterated and in its original context, to whatever extent possible.
That said, owners can be expected to wish to modify their properties in order to make yesterday's fabric useful to today's needs.
Perhaps someday buildings (if we still have 'buildings') will evolve themselves as needed while retaining the designers' aesthetic criteria intact. Science fiction has consistently predicted the future of our physical culture; there's no reason to believe (short of total meltdown) that this won't continue to be the case.
In that context, the issues we discuss here may seem ridiculously (and pathetically) irrelevant to future builders -- but the challenge of retaining past and present examples of culturally and aesthetically significant structures will still be there. These challenges have to be met on a case-by-case basis, with statutes assisting individuals and groups who struggle to defend buildings from alteration and destruction. As implied above, possession is king.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...but the challenge of retaining past and present examples of culturally and aesthetically significant structures will still be there. |
The challenge is only exacerbated in high density environments where land values and costs of renovations both rise at uncontrollable rates. Despite the state of national real estate markets, New York's skyline is still wrought with tower cranes. Small historic sites become the prey of developers all too often, even with the Landmarks Commission doing their best to preserve what they can deem most important.
Then again, the richness of the cross-cultural, time-varied landscape of older cities always surmounts these new cities that are instantly constructed--realities without a past. Dubai could very well end up as a city without fabric, merely a series of one-off, iconic instances from one street to the next. In my mind, where we are is a function of where we have been and negating history leaves us in a limbo that can lead to mistakes.
I've always found encountered two main sides to the renovation debate. The first is to respond in kind and blur the seams between old and new with a new intervention accepting the character of the existing work. The second is to exemplify the rift and make the authenticity of the original work clear. (Scarpa's Castelvecchio work is a prime example) I am always at odds between the two and ultimately have to agree with SDR that each case requires careful consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1813
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The first is to respond in kind and blur the seams between old and new with a new intervention accepting the character of the existing work. |
This is a common mistake, one I used to prescribe to myself until being fully immersed in the historic preservation world. It is clear that even when attempting to pay hommage to an existing structure the intent must always be to very succinct in expressing what was original and what is new. In fact, in true restoration projects, any article that is not original must either be completely replicated or not at all...one must never be tricked into believing that all that appears original is in fact not. The difficulty I have most of the time is finding fixtures that are new (even to meet "green" technologies or code requirements) but appropriate. Unfortunately the term "appropriateness" is a bit subjective but it is the best word for expressing the best intention of this kind of work.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1534
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I first confronted this question as an architectural design undergraduate, 45 years ago, in an historic East Coast city, when a handsome red brick public building from the early Nineteenth Century was in need of expansion. (Well, the building didn't "need" messing with; rather, its owners required more space.) The site allowed only for an addition to the structure, rather than a free-standing structure. My fellow students argued for a contemporary addition that would be an "honest expression" of today's building art; my instinct was to extend as faithfully as possible the volume and all its detail (use of the same brick was more or less a given by consensus, of course) including the row of tall round-arched windows -- assuming the program required such fenestration, of course.
My instinct has not changed, despite the conservationist trend mentioned by mx2, which seems to place a sort of "political correctness" above aesthetic or any other concerns. I ask: what can be wrong with respecting the existing architecture enough to replicate its forms, materials and details (when this will satisfy the new program) ? Isn't this the historic norm -- except when the later builder "knows better" and must "express himself" with "something new and different" ? Why must we stare at mismatched towers on an otherwise completely symmetrical cathedral -- as we will do for all time at Chartres, to name just one example ? What could possibly be satisfying about that outcome, other than to the egos that insisted upon on it ?
Isn't it enough to record the new construction in such a way -- as is inevitable, today, in any event -- so that no real confusion will be created between what is old and what is new ?
Would we repair a damaged Buick by grafting on a Chrysler front end after the accident ?
Here is a (to me) sorry example of such intervention: the 1895 Charles Follen McKim Boston Public Library, and its 1972 addition by Philip Johnson.
Of course, the material in the addition is a pink granite from the same quarry, and the volume and cornice line is roughly the same -- but how can those three massive and incomplete arches be said to respect the round-arched openings of the old building -- to say nothing of the almost complete lack of alignment of string course, frieze, or anything in between ?
I know this is a particularly unfortunate example (and I do recognize that a literal reproduction of all that decoration, in stone, is unaffordable now), but I believe it stands for many a lesser sin. We cannot let ourselves be run and ruled by the historians; architecture, at least as much as any other, is a living art. Sometimes the best of life includes true respect for past arts, rather than a technical "respect" that amounts to aesthetic abuse -- in my opinion.
I suppose the exact same language could be used to argue the opposite position -- ironically.
One of my fellow students proposed an underground addition to the old brick building in Providence. I couldn't argue with that. And no one thinks the recent all-glass addition(s) to the renowned midwestern Beaux-arts art museum is a bad idea, once they've seen it. But there, there was room to build at a little distance from the original. What could be wrong, as an alternative and when there is no room to do otherwise, to adding a pair of identically-detailed wings to such a building (for instance). . .except that it might deny someone the precious right to "artistic expression". . .?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is certainly something to be said for that side of the debate. On a side note: the addition to the Boston Public Library is indeed pretty awful in almost every way possible.
I feel like there is a fundamental truth that many modern designers never bother to accept:
Difference is not a justification.
Novelty is not an infallible guarantee of quality.
Creation does not equal improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
