Last month the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad put out an "Expression of Interest" for the design of new student housing at its main campus. In it was the assumption that 14 of its existing dormitories would be demolished and replaced with something new.
The problem with this assumption is that these dormitories were designed by one of America's most noteworthy architects: Louis Kahn. And so there was immediate public outcry. Architectural historian William J.R. Curtis -- who seems quite fond of real estate developers -- had the following to say in this op-ed piece in The Architectural Review:
Such is the smash-and-grab approach of developers in a world of astronomical land values and real-estate profiteering, especially in Modiland, the heartland of the Gujurat economic ‘model’. The price of everything, the value of nothing, quick returns on loans and investment above anything: such is the virus of neoliberalism as it spreads so quickly, far and wide across the globe. Timeless architecture has no role to play, and preservation is a pesky nuisance that gets in the way of profiteering. The public interest, social values and any long-range sense of history are thrown to the winds.
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.
Last month the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad put out an "Expression of Interest" for the design of new student housing at its main campus. In it was the assumption that 14 of its existing dormitories would be demolished and replaced with something new.
The problem with this assumption is that these dormitories were designed by one of America's most noteworthy architects: Louis Kahn. And so there was immediate public outcry. Architectural historian William J.R. Curtis -- who seems quite fond of real estate developers -- had the following to say in this op-ed piece in The Architectural Review:
Such is the smash-and-grab approach of developers in a world of astronomical land values and real-estate profiteering, especially in Modiland, the heartland of the Gujurat economic ‘model’. The price of everything, the value of nothing, quick returns on loans and investment above anything: such is the virus of neoliberalism as it spreads so quickly, far and wide across the globe. Timeless architecture has no role to play, and preservation is a pesky nuisance that gets in the way of profiteering. The public interest, social values and any long-range sense of history are thrown to the winds.
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.
4.2K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
4.2K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
These are photos from the terrace of a restaurant in Old Montreal called Boris Bistro. It's not new -- it's been around since 1999 -- but that doesn't change the fact that its outdoor space is absolutely magical.
The terrace sits behind an old stone facade on McGill Street that is held up with a three-storey steel structure. Hello façadism! I have tried to figure out the vintage of the original building through a cursory look online, but I came up with nothing. (Drop it in comment section below if you happen to know.)
What we were told at the restaurant was that the original building burnt down, leaving just the facade and then an open space behind it. The size of the trees on the terrace do suggest that it's been this way for a long time.
There's an office building beside it that looks to be of a 90s vintage (465 McGill Street) and this open space was apparently a place for office workers to go smoke. But now the ground floor of the office building and the terrace function as one large contiguous space.
The result is what you see above. Magic.
Montréal has been city building for a lot longer than Toronto. Some 400 years depending on how you calculate it. This history has created one of the most beautiful built environments anywhere in the world.
The Architectural Review also started a petition to save Kahn's IIMA's dormitories. But just like that, the school came forward with an announcement that it had decided to pull its Expression of Interest and that it would go back and deliberate on what to do next. (The dorms were apparently built using "second class bricks" and are currently in a state of extreme disrepair.)
As a developer and fake architect, I think I have a fairly good appreciation for both perspectives. Restoring old buildings is both difficult and expensive (the two usually go together). But I also grew up studying the work of Kahn. He happened to teach at the University of Pennsylvania until his death, though this was well before my time there.
I've also visited a number of his projects including the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California and the National Parliament House in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Many credit Kahn with introducing modern architecture to Bangladesh with this project. It has unquestionable cultural significance.
Some things are worth saving.
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.
These are photos from the terrace of a restaurant in Old Montreal called Boris Bistro. It's not new -- it's been around since 1999 -- but that doesn't change the fact that its outdoor space is absolutely magical.
The terrace sits behind an old stone facade on McGill Street that is held up with a three-storey steel structure. Hello façadism! I have tried to figure out the vintage of the original building through a cursory look online, but I came up with nothing. (Drop it in comment section below if you happen to know.)
What we were told at the restaurant was that the original building burnt down, leaving just the facade and then an open space behind it. The size of the trees on the terrace do suggest that it's been this way for a long time.
There's an office building beside it that looks to be of a 90s vintage (465 McGill Street) and this open space was apparently a place for office workers to go smoke. But now the ground floor of the office building and the terrace function as one large contiguous space.
The result is what you see above. Magic.
Montréal has been city building for a lot longer than Toronto. Some 400 years depending on how you calculate it. This history has created one of the most beautiful built environments anywhere in the world.
The Architectural Review also started a petition to save Kahn's IIMA's dormitories. But just like that, the school came forward with an announcement that it had decided to pull its Expression of Interest and that it would go back and deliberate on what to do next. (The dorms were apparently built using "second class bricks" and are currently in a state of extreme disrepair.)
As a developer and fake architect, I think I have a fairly good appreciation for both perspectives. Restoring old buildings is both difficult and expensive (the two usually go together). But I also grew up studying the work of Kahn. He happened to teach at the University of Pennsylvania until his death, though this was well before my time there.
I've also visited a number of his projects including the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California and the National Parliament House in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Many credit Kahn with introducing modern architecture to Bangladesh with this project. It has unquestionable cultural significance.
Some things are worth saving.
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.
