The Architecture Thread - Page 66

The new staircase is just just completely out of place with everything around it. Sometimes this works, like a piece of modern art in a very classic space can sometimes be interesting and benefit from the juxtaposition. But, here, to my eye, it just looks silly.

I think I like everything in the other pictures you posted. Cool place.

One of the important concepts in the renovation of old buildings is that there generally needs to be a material contrast to differentiate the two phases of construction. Renovating old stone with new stone or old brick with new brick masks the evolution of the building's history because after 10-20 years those new materials will be largely indistinguishable from the originals if they are from the same geographic origin.

really enjoy this architectural based tumblr
http://theurbanalchemist.tumblr.com/

Why is this undesirable?

For the same reason that museums and collectors make sure to differentiate the original and substituted parts of artifacts. Altering the appearance of original objects/structures changes history. Notre Dame Cathedral in 1831: Today:

Yes and no, from my perspective.

I completely agree with the concept in some cases. Certainly with ceramics and sculpture. Also, if you go to Masada in Israel, they have rebuilt some of the fallen stones on the ruins, using original stones that were right at the foot of the old walls (so it was pretty easy to determine where the stones originally were). Nevertheless, they have drawn a black line all around the ruins to differentiate what was there versus what was subsequently rebuilt.

That said: History is fluid. Especially with buildings. When you look at old manor houses in the UK, for instance, they typically have had half a dozen different additions and remodelings over the centuries. They've probably all had fires at some point and had to be rebuilt. There is often no one moment that you can point to and say "this is when this building was constructed." If Buckingham Palace were to have work done to add another story to some public rooms, I really don't think there's a good reason to add some modern wooden staircase rather than something that is in keeping with the rest of the architectural style of the room/wing of the building. IMO there is really no need to do each renovation/restoration in a different style than the last just so that everyone is clear on what is "original" and what isn't. What is "originality" anyway? --- not to get all Faulknerian, but history is never done, it is still being created. And at the end of the day, I don't think it would have been a giant historical disservice to put a stone staircase there in keeping with the surrounding style.

How do you feel of painting old sculptures? We're left with these beautiful ancient sculptures in gray marble... and yet at one time they were painted. Kind of tastelessly. If we could repaint them in the same colors, with the same techniques, would you? It removes from how we've seen them, but is basically the same as repairing the roof on an ancient church.

^^ People who discuss the fluidity of history are not usually proposing it as a goal or excuse, but as a useful perspective on the consequences of cultural inertia. In the instance above, why does Notre Dame look so 19th century? Because several tons of Victorian features were added in the 19th century, during a time of major upheaval in France surrounding the identity of the state. Make the past look more like the present, make the State seem more solidly grounded and history more linear. Maybe it seems innocuous to you, but to those who study history it is not. There are differing views on such things, so your Buckingham Palace example is fine, and much of medieval Europe was rebuilt to look identical to how it had looked following World War II, but I think the structure that StephenHero posted was an abandoned and somewhat dilapidated complex. The renovation in that case makes it more like a restored statue in a museum, or Masada. When someone dies you try to remember the good things about them, and forgive much of the bad. Let's spare them total accuracy:

The sphinx also used to be extremely colorful, I believe.

Stone masons specializing in ornamental fixtures don't really exist anymore.

Is this a fact? Not questioning you, I have no idea whatsoever, but I assumed there would be some small niche left-over for exactly this reason. We still have real sword smiths, and there's not a high demand for that.


Also, this reminds me of another thread about Ralph Lauren's car collection. Someone pointed out he replaced the headlights of an old car, but another person (perhaps it was even you?) defended it by saying that's exactly what the original car owner would have done. It's the spirit of something, and what it was was built for, that's more important than how it was built in some cases.

For the most part, it's true. They just aren't there. Before the 19th century, entire towns in Italy, France, Morocco, and Greece were devoted to enormous workshops of architectural stone carving. It's incredibly expensive to do now because the technology hasn't sped the process up and it's largely a waste of time because there is so little application for it in contemporary architecture. Cars a separate concept from this project. If you're replacing the exact same thing in a restoration application, the perfect match of the original is necessary as it would be in this building if they were replacing stairs that were there before. But if you're applying a new program to an existing space by adding program and new buildings/structures, the only option is to acknowledge the contrivance of trying to mimic an old design that never existed. In this case it would be in the form of those stairs, which were never there until 5 months ago. It's disingenuous to pretend something is what it specifically isn't in order to deceive.

Here is a staircase from a friends house. The steps are each a single large piece of old growth redwood. Ignore the add on railing and the ugly plate and it is a perfect example of a certain N.Cali style of the wood butchers art. THe pictures don't quite capture the color.

Beautiful stairs. Their surroundings are a disservice.

Haha, I do like that idea. But isn't history suppose to strive to be an objective collection of facts. We can subjectively interpret them, but not showcase them as such.