"Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that provide the city's character and continuity and of incorporating them into living mainstream. This is not easy.Its is much simpler to move a few historical castoffs into quarantine, putting the curious little "enclave" or cultural red herring, off limits to the speculative developer while he gets destructive crate blanche in the rest of the city" - Hixtable from her essay "whats Worth Preserving"
what is the purpose of preservation? Should it showcase the architecture of previous generation? Should it purely be remained untouched in terms of architecture and repaint the space that displays its essence? Over the past couple of years, as i looked more into the preservation by the architects around the world , i came across extremely unique preservation where elements of postmodern design like proto-futuristic shapes are combined to historical architecture making a aesthetically figurative object.
what is the purpose of preservation? Should it showcase the architecture of previous generation? Should it purely be remained untouched in terms of architecture and repaint the space that displays its essence? Over the past couple of years, as i looked more into the preservation by the architects around the world , i came across extremely unique preservation where elements of postmodern design like proto-futuristic shapes are combined to historical architecture making a aesthetically figurative object.
THE RESTORATION OF CONVENT DE SANT FRANCESC…
When I think of about a preservation , I think about an old historic building true to its physical organization in the field of proximate social exchanges among the public in a coherent fashion, an eccentric ornamentation, and the use of modern techs showcasing the architecture.
On the other hand, it is important for a preservation to have the essence of its origin. In reading "What's worth preserving" Huxtable points the "facadism" renovation project 2009 of Henry Miller's Theater in New York City, I do agree with her there's no point in saving facade and destroying everything behind it. This makes me of the architecture of the movie set. The movie sets are designed just to showcase the scene and everything else is decayed structure. They are not designed in relation to its context. Lots of time and money are spend to capture a scene and after that it is destroyed.
The reading Even Smith Wergeland " When Icons Crumble-The Troubled Legacy of Olympic Design", I began to wonder are we leaving in an era of "moment". Lots of time and money was spend to create a memorable structure as an example OAKA. With the change of time and purpose the roots of the structure seems to be rotten and decay. And to this it makes me eager to compare it with a movie. If the movie is successful they would be able to pay off the expense they send. And in this way,over the period of time if the landmark i.e., the building structure have the engagement and purity within its context and materials. Would you think of it as temporal iconicity.
This brings me think of how should a landmark be? Like Millennium Park in Chicago wher the Mayor is still borrowing money to pay off the loans to run the park or like Athens Olympic Stadium where Greek economy crumbled.
This brings me think of how should a landmark be? Like Millennium Park in Chicago wher the Mayor is still borrowing money to pay off the loans to run the park or like Athens Olympic Stadium where Greek economy crumbled.
No comments:
Post a Comment