As I was going through this Twitter thread by Alex Bozikovic on the "Château Laurier battle," I came across a great line by Robert Wright: "We cannot recreate the past only parody it." I told him I was going to steal it, but here I am giving him credit.
The controversy in Ottawa stems from the fact that a number of people believe that a modern addition to the Fairmont Château Laurier (which was constructed between 1909 and 1912) amounts to heresy.
Instead, the addition should be designed to match the "Château style" that already exists. There should be no change. As Alex put it, "people want Disneyland."
We've had this very same debate come up on some of our projects, where people -- but notably, not the city -- have asked us to replicate something that was constructed in the 1800's using labor and material techniques that no longer exist.
This is where Robert's line comes in.
Architecture is a reflection of the cultural milieu in which it was designed and built, which is one of the reasons why we sometimes preserve old buildings. They communicate to us a particular moment in time.
The reason architects, designers, and planners so often respond -- negatively that is -- to Disneyland-type architecture, is that it lacks that same authenticity. It's only a simulacra.
"New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new."
This is not to say that we shouldn't be respectful of the past. Five of the eight guiding principles include the word "respect" in the title. There should be lots of that.
But we would be fooling, and cheating, ourselves if we believed we could mimic the past with any justice. We cannot recreate the past only parody it.
Today’s Architect This City post is being brought to you live from the mid-base lodge at Revelstoke Mountain Resort on Mount Mackenzie in British Columbia.
It’s currently foggy, rainy, and about 2 degrees celsius — which I’m told is fairly anomalous for this area. It’s unfortunate for my friends on the slopes, but it makes me feel somewhat better about hanging out all day to rest my back and shoulder.
The town of Revelstoke was founded in the 1880s when the Canadian Pacific Railway connected the area. And traditionally its economy has been closely connected to that rail. However, with amenities like the resort I’m currently sitting in, its economy now increasingly includes tourism.
One of the most interesting reminders for me on this trip through the Canadian Rockies is how instrumental rail was in unifying and then building this country. But in actuality, it wasn’t just rail. It was rail plus property.
Within the Canadian Pacific Railway was a division called Canadian Pacific Hotels, which built and operated both urban and rural hotels such as the Banff Springs Hotel and the Chateau Lake Louise (both of which I visited for the first time on this trip). And today, these railway hotels are absolutely some of Canada’s most inspiring landmarks.
The model at the time was simple.
Sir William Cornelius Van Horne — who was president of CPR in 1888 — believed: “If we can’t export the scenery, we’ll import the tourists.” He knew that it was all about moving as many people as possible. And to do that he needed to create accommodations and destinations all along the rail. In other words, rail alone wasn’t going to cut it. It had to be rail plus property.
This of course is a model that still persists today. Many public transit authorities, such as the MTR in Hong Kong, have been hugely successful by adopting a rail plus property model.
However as the case study of the Canadian Pacific Railway demonstrates this is not a novel approach. It’s actually a tried a true model. Rail, and infrastructure in general, goes really nicely with property development.
So why don’t all transit authorities adopt a rail plus property approach?
