Modern architecture vs. historic preservation

by Patricia Cove
Posted 2/10/22

Some design professionals believe that modern architecture can be a catalyst for preservation, and that old and new can coexist in harmony. I am not a follower of that premise.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Modern architecture vs. historic preservation

Posted

Some design professionals believe that modern architecture can be a catalyst for preservation, and that old and new can coexist in harmony; that large and small scales can be sympatico, and all types and styles of buildings can come together to create a unified whole.

I am not a follower of that premise. Cities, towns, and especially small communities, approached with design-focused intent, develop a unified distinctiveness that serves to define that community, and creates a specific character that their inhabitants appreciate and want to preserve. Too many designers and architects, rather than seeking to identify these distinct qualities, choose to select prototypes, formulas, and theories that are name-focused, rather than focusing on the character of the area.

There have always been architects who strove to “preserve first,” who understood that each new building becomes part of a whole, and that new structures should incorporate history into their designs, whether it’s through using a region’s unique stone, incorporating native flowers into a newly-developed park, or creating sidewalks with a city’s trademark Belgian block.  But most of all, it needs to be recognized that adaptive reuse, the use of an older building for an entirely new purpose, serves as the first choice when trying to preserve a community’s distinct character.

Since the process of preserving and adapting an older building is often more costly than building a new one, especially with nonconforming or inferior materials, designers need to consider learning from preservationists, and create structures that can one day become landmarks themselves. To accomplish that, architects need to remember that it is not the building that people will remember, it is the “place” that building creates. These are structures that become part of the neighborhood’s atmosphere, maintain the sense of place that is all important to the community’s residents, and prove to be the main reason people choose to live in a specific area.

Chestnut Hill is the perfect example of how an approach to a specific style of architecture developed into a Cotswold-style historic village. Thanks to the Woodward family, we enjoy the many scale-conscious building quadrangles of Wissahickon schist, the steep multi-colored slate roof lines, the quaint avenue offshoots leading to secret pathways and elegant walled gardens. But that approach has not been evident today, considering the development projects so many communities are facing.

It obviously is more of a challenge to ask architects to pay closer attention to neighborhoods at large, the design, scale, and materials of the other buildings, the history of all of the structures, their uses and their inhabitants. The architect and preservationist partnership can become a powerful and transformative force. That can only be achieved through architectural harmony, that emphasizes the past without destroying it, and that maintains the community character that is so critical to the sense of place, and quality of life that we all strive to preserve.

Patricia Cove is Principal of Architectural Interiors and Design in Chestnut Hill, and can be reached through her website: www.patriciacove.com