Architecture that has social, cultural and/or historic significance has the potential to continue to contribute to its context for generations after its initial “lifetime” has ended.
A wonderful characteristic about architecture is its ability to survive when given new life structurally and programmatically. Unlike humans, a building can continue to function with proper maintenance and contribution to human use long after the initial lifespan. It is therefore my firm belief that not all buildings that have been rendered useless, especially those that have significance to architectural history, social history or communal memory, should be destined for a wrecking ball when the potential is there for betterment through adaptive reuse or other preservation methods.
I’ve heard many times the idea that architects design a building to last for the next, on average, thirty years, but I don’t see why any building should be given a time stamp when there are so many examples of buildings (considered both significant and not) that have withstood this timetable. There are also examples of buildings that were never given such a short life prediction that are still standing and others who never made it close to their anticipated expiration, which leads me to question the validity of building life spans. When a building has reached “the end” I beg to differ. There is always the potential of saving, but then the question becomes when is a building worth saving and when would it be best to let it be destroyed to make way for something new, (possibly) better, and (possibly) different? An obvious choice in my mind of buildings that are worth saving would include those that are historically significant to either the profession of architecture due to its unique and innovative design/construction/etc or significant to the collective memory of the community (either positively or negatively or both). When there is a negative impact on the community the argument to save becomes even harder, but I also feel that it can potentially be more important to save a negative example as a way to teach future generations not just about how that specific building failed, but also to showcase how much of a social impact architecture can have and how a building that was once a scar on communal memory can strive to remedy past afflictions rather than just admitting defeat. In this consideration buildings are more than just places to inhabit and use, but they are stories and insights to our past with potential to teach the future. Every building has a story to tell about the people who designed it, built it, used it, abhorred it, loved it, etc. and it is necessary to preserve these stories while also creating new ones. Therefore I am determined in my thesis to be a doctor of architecture and remedy, revive, and restore a building that has potential for rejuvenation and rehabilitation to continue to serve its community for many more years to come.
You seem to have been very careful to restrict your use of the word "preservation", opting for others like "rejuvenation". It's an important distinction and the words you use, while they overlap, will be very important when navigating the intense political climate surrounding the building you want to save.
ReplyDeleteIt might be worthwhile to also consider, in addition to the building itself, but the land too. You seem to be hinting at it (the word "community" several times), but I mean specifically the dirt the building sits on. The history of the land, its physical characteristics and the politics surrounding it will all help you develop a richer understanding of your project.