Death by Nostalgia – What architecture can learn from archaeology.

Hugh Kavanagh challenges the prevailing view that conservation of historic structures is preferable to their restoration. The title of this piece “Death by Nostalgia” is a quote from Frank Zappa’s autobiography where he describes the continual recycling of styles in popular culture as stifling progress and innovation in contemporary music. This view has been common amongst the creative arts in the 20th century, where innovation and avant-garde is seen as superior and definitive. Architects have fallen into this way of thinking too with the result that a serious interest in architectural heritage has been seen as backward thinking. Amongst many in the modern creative arts, past artistic accomplishments are seen with patronising fascination like something from an alien culture, to be kept in glass cases in case of infection. Our separation from the past is something that society takes for granted today but this is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, artistic progress was slow and methodical so we did not feel so alienated from our proceeding generation’s work. The 20th century has seen an infatuation with the future and in some way it has been archaeology which has benefitted by being an expression of the basic human need for us to feel in touch with our roots. The spark for the writing of this piece was when I recently came across an online discussion concerning the restoration of famous examples of Brutalist architecture which have fallen into disrepair. For the uninitiated, Brutalist architecture is a sub-genre of the modernist movement and is characterised by the use of plain mass concrete and simple geometry in tower blocks and shopping centres built throughout the world. (Fig. 1) Like modern art, the philosophy which underpins much of modernist architectural theory is a rejection of traditional and historic values in favour of a rational and scientific approach. So it seemed strange to me that buildings which were built to be disposable were being lauded for their historical value and should be preserved. Of course when I politely pointed out this paradox I got the usual patronising defensiveness and was told in no uncertain terms that I needed to learn more about modernism. I had simply pointed out (not in these words I might add) that to restore buildings like these would be like putting a paper plate in a dishwasher. Modernist architecture is often claimed by it’s supporters to be a more honest and pure form of architecture than the Victorian and Edwardian styles that proceeded it. But I think most of us can see that most modern buildings are just like any other modern consumer product; they are designed to look great at point of sale but they are not designed to be maintainable or repairable. Indeed this seemed to be the accepted view when I studied Architectural Technology in the 1990’s. There is a deliberate built-in obsolescence in modern architecture which results in most modern buildings being simply easier and cheaper to demolish and build again when they become run-down. This way of thinking is simply unsustainable in the long-term and after 100 years of modernism it is clear that modernism is simply the manifestation in architectural terms of the consumerism that has characterised much of the twentieth century. Worryingly and perversely, the philosophy which as led to the disposability of modernist architecture has had an unexpected negative effect on our approach to protecting historic structures too. All pre-20th century buildings are now consigned the past which the modernist movement sheared us away from. This has created an artificial barrier between architects today and their natural cultural inheritance, and so historical building remains are now generally treated like lifeless artefacts instead of viable structures with their conservation in-situ being the preferred choice over restoration. This approach is clearly set out in the treaty of Venice which was adopted by ICOMOS in 1965. This treaty was created to set down guidelines for the conservation and restoration of ancient monuments. Article 9 states that “the process of restoration ... must stop at the point where conjecture begins…any extra work must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp” (Fig.2). It continues in article 12 which states “Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence”. But when it comes to modernist buildings, the accepted view by heritage groups like Docomomo is the complete opposite to the Treaty of Venice. In the case of modernist ruins, the total restoration of the building seems to be the norm with The Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier and the Barcelona Pavilion by Mies Van der Rohe being the prime examples. (Fig.3) So why the different approaches to our built heritage when restoration and rebuilding has for millennia been a normal part of the routine building maintenance? How is it that today that restoration seems to be acceptable for the modern but not the medieval? Why are we obsessed with trying to freeze buildings in time like this and who can judge exactly when architecture become archaeology? Is it because we have the technology and records to restore an early 20th C. building faithfully, but we have lost the know-how to restore a tower-house for example? A building like Villa Savoye never allowed for any maintenance or natural evolution so it is easy to say that such a building is supposed to look a certain way. On the other hand a medieval castle or timber-framed house was not built with the same rigid ideology of a modernist. It would have naturally evolved and was repaired and restored periodically over time. This is why the decision to restore a historic building is not as straight-forward as restoring a modernist building and why authorities are rightly cautious when making the decision for restoration. Recent work at Monkstown Castle and Kilcoe Castle both in Co. Cork (Figs. 4 & 5) show that restoration can be done very well, thanks greatly to progress in the field of buildings archaeology. The success of these projects make the views expressed in the Treaty of Venice look increasingly outdated. More importantly however, these examples show a return to a more sensitive restoration approach that not only conserves the archaeological integrity of the buildings but also reconnects us to the traditional system of natural growth and evolution of a building over its lifespan. Buildings archaeology is a relatively new specialisation and has grown in popularity and importance for a number of reasons. As modernist architectural theories have crumbled and society appreciates its architectural heritage more clearly, buildings archaeology has sought to satisfy the growing appetite for knowledge of our ancient structures. It has colonized the vacuum of technical knowledge left behind when architecture so brutally broke its ties with its past. And not for the first time, archaeologists have been able to answer questions where historians have failed. This is because they are uniquely adapted to identify the technical history of a building through their examination of evidence which most others would overlook. Buildings archaeologists are ideally placed to work with a growing portion of the architectural community which is trying to reclaim its sense of history and place. Modern architecture has committed a multitude if sins and so it’s not surprising that those charged with protecting our built heritage are rightly sceptical of architects and their ideas on restoration. (Fig.6) For example architecture has tried to reclaim its past with the pastiche of the post-modernist movement, but no-one wants a return to the Po-Mo buildings of the 1980’s with its ironic cutting-and-pasting of classical motifs. (Fig.7) And even today we can see countless examples of natural materials being plastered onto modernist boxes in a vain attempt to claim some link with a past based on craft and vocation. (Fig.8). These unfortunate examples show us that architecture is at least trying to find some sense of a past but that it is hopelessly out of touch and needs help. I believe that the main reason for the lack of understanding of built heritage amongst architects is because the traditional vocational system of architectural training was completely destroyed in the modernist mania of the 20th century. Without the foundation of tradition to underpin its convictions, architectural education is floundering badly as society has completely rejected its ideals. Despite its infamously high workload and drop-out rates, the architectural education system is not producing graduates with the skills or knowledge to produce buildings that we need or want. (Fig.9). It is a rigid system that can only produce graduates in it’s own image and for a profession which prides itself on innovation and free expression, it does not know how to handle anything outside of it’s narrowly defined logic. Architecture has an immensely rich heritage that stretches back millennia and for modernist architects to think that they could reject it all and start from scratch now seems laughably naïve. But this is exactly what happened. Modernist pioneers sold their priceless inheritance for short-term personal gain and in its place created convoluted contradictory theories that have shown to be as structurally sound as the average concrete tower block. It might have been forgivable if these theories were largely confined to the drawing board but instead there were taken up most enthusiastically by the most corrupt regimes the world has ever seen. Millions of people across to world have suffered because of this dreadful intellectual experiment and cultural cul-de-sac. Is it no wonder that modernism has been the architectural style of choice for most post war totalitarian rulers, from South America, to Central Africa to the USSR. I for one feel cheated by the way our collective architectural heritage was so irresponsibly cast aside. But what architects have lost, buildings archaeologists have gladly reclaimed, fishing countless untold treasures from the modernists reject pile. There is now a very small but very clear movement of neo-traditionalist architects spearheaded by organisations like INTBAU, and I laugh to myself to think that traditional architecture is being considered as the new avant-garde. Conservation has had a very important role in recording and understanding the heritage that was abandoned by the previous few generations. But I believe that sympathetic restoration is superior as it not only conserves a building but it also resuscitates it and gives it new purpose. Architects need to really listen to buildings archaeologists if they want to work together in the future but at the same time archaeologists need to be bold and to realise that conservation is not always enough. Restoration should be seen a huge opportunity for archaeologists to express and share their knowledge to those outside their own profession who don’t know what they’re missing! I for one have learned far more about buildings from archaeologists than from architects! For more or less a century, humanity largely turned its back on its past and it has been the archaeologists who have primarily stood in the firing line to protect endangered built heritage. No-one has a monopoly of ownership on we call heritage and we are simply guardians for the future generation who will inherit this unique gift. It can be argued that archaeologists have played the most important role in passing on this gift but now their role is now growing and expanding. Whether it is through food, craft or in this case architecture, we are re-establishing our links with a forgotten past; a past that is the only solid foundation from which we can move forward into the future. Modernism has had a profound effect on the way we build today and how we view buildings from the past. Modernism broke a link in the chain of architectural progression that had been passed on from generation to generation of builders. It broke the relationship we have with the past and consigned our architectural inheritance to the sterility of artefact, But buildings should not be treated as archaeological artefacts, and it’s about time we realised this and stopped trying to put building ruins into glass cases. Hugh Kavanagh trained as an architectural technician but has worked as a surveyor and illustrator in archaeology since 1996 forming his own company “Landmark Survey” in 2007. He is also a member of the International Network for Traditional Building and Urbanism. www.landmarksurvey.ie “Architecture - Choice or Fate” by Leon Krier “Exploding the myth of modern architecture” by Malcom Millais “Beauty” by Roger Scruton www.intbau.org

The Local Area Planning Guidelines & Manual are a good reason for not doing an LAP

If ever there was instrument to slow down the planning process, and add cost and bureaucracy its the LAP process as now described in the Guidelines and Manual published by the Dept. of Environment. However the Draft Guidelines fail to ask the most important question. Is doing an LAP the best way of solving problems and resolving issues? Big problems lie in the multi-disciplinary approach advocated. It is an approach that serves the professions and process, but not people and towns. Achieving all this professional representation, changes the conversation. We start talking about road capacities, geometries and traffic models. We focus on SUDs, drainage and water treatment. We focus on Energy Standards, contemporary architecture of our time, and landmark structures.... and loose focus on town planning. Have any of the LAPs set out in the Draft Manual actually worked? Kilkenny, Liberties, Robinstown, Mountjoy? Why are they regarded as good examples if they have not resolved the issues faced? If planning is to be truly evidence based, it should go far beyond basic demographics and land capacity zoning requirements. Evidence means we should learn from past failures. Failures that are dominated by traffic-engineering, and bad architecture that planners continually have to face. We should be learning from Christopher Alexander’s pattern language – an open-source code. An approach that allows plans to evolve over time, with a multitude of design inputs, and not just one comprehensive ‘vision’. This I believe is the great strength of planners. It is scandalous how planners have been relegated to the role of Project Manager in this LAP Draft. We are urban problem solvers, not project managers. Planning risks finding itself labelled as the profession that makes things difficult and complicated, wedded to process for process’s sake. We have already seen the RIAI President’s agenda that architecture should assume the lead role in plan-making. Its an approach that the Draft Guidelines and Manual does not discourage. Why don’t we have a planning-led discussion about how we can do things incrementally and sustainably? The Draft LAP Guidelines are on public display until 27th July.