We can now be grateful for a theoretical inadequacy that allowed inconsistencies to develop and different characters to emerge, and ensured that individual buildings of the modern movement, while sharing a common purpose, ended up as a highly diverse and differentiated set of artifacts. The stated aim of functionalism was to free architecture from traditional forms like Corinthian columns and allow it to attend to functional imperatives and to social reality.
The new arose as much in art as it did in science. In practice, working necessarily in isolation, each individual architect found it easier to be an artist than to be a scientist. So the model of the artist as innovator remained powerful within the profession, even if the status was often denied. However, since the figure of the artist as redefined during the Romantic Movement had been endowed with redemptive status, he could not be seen as simply a craftsman, still less as a propagandist, but must be a visionary, seeking a new reality, a new truth.
The newness he revealed had to be investigated for its unexpectedness, for the strangeness it brought to life. Only in this way could it renew the spirit. From this link with art, the new functionalism quickly became part of a formal language, a question of style: the sin of formalism became the norm of revisionism. Attention switches to the indirect qualities of the thing-initself.
The object, in its very strangeness, attracts a gaze that is avid for meaning. So the meaning of a modern building was not to be restricted to its incidental place in an unfolding body of knowledge, but was to be interpreted as a step in creative. It has taken half a century for the art of interpretation to turn back within architectural criticism, and explain the motives of Functionalism, the illusions it fostered, and the failures it engendered.
And ironically, many of these failures were technical. A ten-centimetre thick wall of reinforced concrete is a perfectly strong component of a two-storey house: fine as regards structure, but inadequate as soon as we factor in the requirements for sound insulation, surface decoration, energy conservation, weather protection. Yet it is amazing how many examples of modern construction are now at risk of falling down or being demolished because of inadequate construction. The conviction that reinforced concrete was the material of the future far outweighed the rational analysis of its physical properties.
If we feel now that buildings showing these kinds of defects are worth preserving, it is not to economise on their replacement, but to recognise their value as a record of a quest, as part of a historical and cultural development that is crucial to our own identity; and in some instances, as an embodiment of values that make them part of an artistic and spiritual heritage. Now we can ask a question that in the s was not considered. Is Nature truly the model of the beautiful? Is it the basis of the aesthetic?
We see them as beautiful, but are they produced with the intention of being beautiful?
The “White City” and Egypt’s modernist heritage
We are continually attracted by the beauty of Nature: the glory of sunsets, the sheen of still water, the blue of the summer sky, the colourful riot of the fall season, the majesty of the mountain range, the perpetual motion of the waterfall and its rainbow, and so on, without asking, as we do about human art: what does it mean? The natural world that we characterise as good is part of the biosphere we inhabit, only within which is human life possible, and.
Our good automatically becomes our beautiful. Our aesthetic derives from an ethic. So then we feel a strange fascination when we see a snake swallowing a lizard live, or a bird swallowing a struggling fish, or a lion devouring an antelope, and we definitely feel a frisson when we note how the lion goes for the isolated calf or the injured animal, thus following natural law and the statistics of probabilities, but ignoring our sense of fair play. From this comes our cynicism, since the Nature that produces the good also produces the heartless play of chance.
Cynicism is the failure to draw together the loose ends. The very existence of a Nature red in tooth and claw then becomes the justification for capitalism, where, to exercise just a little hyperbole, only the fittest survive and only the rich make money. Chance is heartless, and innocence is not a property recognised by Nature. If today we review the list of the dead resulting from a plane crash we say, what bad luck, how about suing the airline, but we no longer see it as the result of a higher moral judgement, an act of retribution for sins not sufficiently acknowledged.
The religious spirit that sees God as providence faces a problem every time populations are overwhelmed by earthquake or flood, resulting in the destruction of the innocent along with the guilty, and making impossible a theory of religion as retribution and reward. Voltaire exposed this problem in his discussion of the Lisbon earthquake, and insisted that chance is chance and not destiny.
That, in a way, sums up modernity. Chance and complexity together destroy the narrative, along with the values that entered it. We are on our own now. In our materialistic system, we are by now almost incapable of distinguishing ethic from aesthetic. Yet we are discontent with the loss of meaning, meaning is what we desire to recuperate. The search for an aesthetic that follows natural law and is not the result of arbitrary human intervention continues today in the fascination with more complex natural patterns, the appeal of chaos theory, the allure of fractals, the charisma of accident in principle as the escape from the voulu.
It would seem that the same hunger for certainty that created architecture in the image of engineering is now at work re-creating architecture in the image of landscape, that is, as accident. Natural accident. To be within Nature is still an essential aspect that saves us from arbitrariness, and raises our work to the level of principle. We seem unable to free ourselves from the domination of the past except by inventing new myths with the power to exorcise.
All that we produce today shines with an aura, entices us into the future. In a scientific age, the future takes on the redemptive role that was previously supplied by theology. To this extent our moral universe is greatly curtailed. But instead of certainty, we now work within credibility, and the credibility of our value system is always on the wane, and has always to be renewed.
The problem for our ethics today is how to re-establish moral principles in a relativistic framework, how to maintain human value in a universe of heartless chance, and without the sanction of eternal punishment. To return to the artifact half a century later is to visit the site of a loss, of a dereliction.
But it is also to recover the site of a spiritual impulse that renders us back our humanity. Robert Maxwell London, November Architecture throughout history may be described in terms of the myths and technologies which influence its making. Classical architecture was evolved by, and served, the most successful empire in Western history for over six hundred years. This is a weighty, mythical inheritance which Modernism challenged. There is, however, no reasonable adjustment to these myths or the craft technology which supported them which might enable classical rubric to be transposed in toto to a period dominated by intellectual invention and technical developments unprecedented in history.
Semper and Viollet-le-Duc made possible a tradition of the new, and by the end of the nineteenth century a confluence of cerebral activity and industrial sophistication created conditions to which every nuance of human activity responded. Bertrand Russell summarised the inheritance: Western Europe and America have a practically homogeneous life which I should trace to three sources: 1 Greek culture; 2 Jewish religion and ethics; 3 Modern industrialism which itself is an outcome of modern science.
A new architecture inspired by secular needs became the inevitable product of the prevailing intellectual, social and technical conditions. Whereas the architecture which enriched past civilisations was evolved over periods ranging from hundreds to thousands of years, for that was the pace of history, the twentieth century has been in a hurry.
When dynamic change, equated with progress, replaced the security of a perceived, static order, the expectations of a society in whose name traditional values appeared to have been abandoned were challenged and sometimes supplanted. Modern architecture evolved as a recognisable, fully fledged cultural phenomenon in less than one tenth the average time taken to conceive and construct a Gothic cathedral. Picasso expressed the difficulties with which the twentieth century artist must grapple when normative expectations are abandoned: Painters no longer live within a tradition and so each one of us must re-create an entire language….
Five conditions may be selected to illustrate the operative beliefs which signalled the transformation of architecture from the nineteenth century to versions of this productive art which continue to evolve around the world:. Style, dogma and reliance upon tradition were, therefore, replaced with the description of a modus operandi.
Such priorities represented a displacement of static values with dynamic imperatives, paradigm shifts insinuating connections between the efficiency associated with Nature, and timeless beauty. The tradition from which the pioneers of the Modern Movement sprang reflected the truth, purity and lucidity of the Enlightenment.
The adoption of rational methodology implied any deviation akin to falsification and this, combined with economy of means as an ambition, reactivated the Utilitarian maxim, the greatest good for the greatest number, an ethical dimension new to architecture. The modernist mind-set has, for example, been described by its detractors as combining physics envy, zeitgeist worship, object fixation and stradaphobia6 which, if justified, would at best temper, and at worst remove the ethical dimension bestowed upon any version of formative ideologies.
On this characterisation Modernism has continued along the traditional evolutionary path it claims so emphatically to eschew, and replaced a nineteenth century, eclectic, historically style-based inheritance with twentieth century, equally eclectic, pseudo-scientific method and imagery.
The justification for this view is derived not from the heroic period of Modernism but from those who aped the imagery without regard for its agenda. An attempted escape from this bind has been the resort to the random expressionism of Postmodernism, hung off steel frames, contrived by culturally impoverished architects: Contemporary architecture bathes in the Pantheistic limbo of eclecticism.
Torn between the dilemma for a frenetic search for novelty and an inherited social mission for a popular language, architecture leafs through history caricaturing remembrances…. Collective myth is systematically fractured into countless individualistic trivia, into fastidious and uncompassionate evasions of the human situation.
Political realities have deflected the role of architecture linked to social purpose and it is now dominated by commercial patronage. Image conscious corporations worldwide promote rampant eclecticism devoid of any ideological, let alone ethical, substance. Architects are now perceived as the hired guns of consumerism. Where there continues an assault on the Modern Movement, it may be divided between professional criticism, the propaganda leeched from this source which feeds public prejudice and the more direct response of a visually uneducated public to an admittedly unfamiliar, experiential world.
Criticism has fed on misunderstanding of its intentions derived from the very propaganda issued to publicise the cause. A revisit to The International Style of discloses why, from the start, misreadings have taken root, the first of which is implicit in the title, deceptive in two fundamental respects. First is the false inference that a monolithic, co-ordinated, international movement existed and second, that it could be adequately described in terms of its outward, contingent appearance. The compositional rubric as summarised is indicative of the superficial interpretation: The principles are few and broad….
There is, first, a new conception of architecture as volume rather than mass. Secondly, regularity rather than axial symmetry serves as the chief means of ordering design. These two principles, with a third proscribing arbitrary applied decoration, mark the productions of the international style. Among other myths which have perverted much of the discourse around Modernism and been presented as imperatives may be included functionalism and economy of means as ends in themselves, total detachment from precedent and exclusive resort to modern technologies.
Modern architecture was even blamed for social breakdown. But it is an advantage in which even partial success has importance. What has become ever more certain is the necessity for a patient, revisionist dialogue to define and demonstrate a humanist Modernism, the optimistic cultural seeds of which were planted during a decade of unparalleled, dynamic, creative, intellectual activity which proliferated flawed masterpieces and left public comprehension far behind.
The conservation of our Modernist inheritance as an international movement was launched in See Appendix A. At the heart of the enterprise lies a paradox, how can the conservation of buildings dedicated to the future and to change, be intellectually justified?
- The Handbook of Autism: A Guide for Parents and Professionals.
- Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals?
- Seasonal Patterns of Stress, Immune Function, and Disease.
- Modern Movement Heritage by Wael Ajam - Issuu?
Architects of the Modern Movement were intent on building permeable borders: transparent walls, mobile installations and transportable houses. They even designed buildings which did not resist the wear and tear of time, but rather incorporated this inevitability into their structure…. The architects of the Modern Movement did not build fortresses or bunkers…. This makes the conservation of their permeable structures so difficult. In defiance of the sometimes ephemeral intentions however, the preservation of the object is, in our less certain times, crucial to the memory of the ideologies which spawned its making.
Figure 0. Significant areas of this painting have been reconstructed e. A building might become economically redundant, a matter of calculation, or be considered culturally redundant, a matter of qualitative judgement. We must acquire skills in the former in order to sustain arguments around the latter, which require a critical and evaluative repertoire to establish a degree of precision to match the fiscal equation.
In conservation, priorities must be clearly defined in order to temper such dictats as that of the noble lord who, if taken literally, would have promoted the demolition of the Maison de Verre, Villa Savoye and La Tourette, Casa del Fascio, Einstein Tower, Van Nelle factory and Zonnestraal Sanatorium, the Schroeder and Robie houses, and so on. Only hardened cultural philistines would have applauded such vandalism. For a building owner, the economic life of the investment is paramount. Buildings have to pay their way by serving human economic activities.
The equation is complex and requires value judgements. Any attempt to place cultural values, which are eternal, on an ephemeral economic scale is essentially problematic, but such paradoxes must be addressed. How may we equate our inheritance in qualitative terms? How is it possible to establish what place in our culture a work occupies?
All great innovations which inaugurate a new era, movement or school, consist in sudden shifts of a previously neglected aspect of experience, some blacked-out range of the existing spectrum. There is on-going debate among historians, critics and philosophers concerning the tampering with paintings by restorers. On the one hand are the London National Gallery restorers who will re-create missing or deteriorated areas of paint, Figure 0.
The questions concerning authenticity in architecture are equally apposite, and equally problematic but they lie at the heart of any activity under a conservation banner. First are those that result from the conception of an author who manipulates material with his own hands, clay, for example or employing tools as with painting or carving.
The action from head to hand to material is immediate and contiguous. The second category is again conceived by an author, but who has in mind its replication, either through casting or printing, the final product resulting from a semiindustrial process but not immediately resulting from hands-on manipulation. The object may be scrutinised and signed. The action from head to hand is direct but the final product is at one remove.
Let us assume that the third category of object is also conceived by one author but is constructed, remote in time and distance, from instructions conveyed through drawings or other means, by individuals who played no part in the conceptual process.
17 of Le Corbusier's works are already part of the World Heritage
Most buildings and some fine art objects are thus fabricated. In this third category it is possible that the author never even confronts the object at all let alone intervenes physically in its making. The action from head to hand is direct in formulating instructions but the fabrication is totally displaced,16 a process which distinguishes e. The question to address is which would retain its authenticity if damaged and repaired by other than the author or, in the more extreme case, if destroyed and reconstructed?
What are the attributes which might cause different value judgements to be applied according to the means of making and the methods of restoration? Are there clear distinctions between the act of conceiving and the act of making which might affect subsequent value judgements and the attitude to succeeding intervention?
Is Mies van der Rohe spinning in his grave at the reconstruction of his temporary pavilion in Barcelona Figure 0. Is the second version any less authentic than the first, is it robbed of its aura and have its intrinsic qualities been compromised? Photograph by the author. Architecture is not a discipline in the traditional academic sense for there is no clearly defined body of knowledge, no single organising principle, no central intellectual paradigm which serves it.
While it is a truism that most theorising by architects is post hoc, it may nevertheless be cause for concern that conservation is being conducted by practitioners obliged to invent theories and methods on the hoof, sometimes in exemplary fashion but often leaving much to be desired. No single volume is able to encapsulate, let alone encompass, the complexities encountered in documenting and conserving modern architecture. The attempts to portray Modernism as a failed, new orthodoxy have been ill-founded, a critical deception.
The motive in conserving selected manifestations of Modernism is not generated by nostalgia, rather the significance rests on their success as manifestations of worthy principle; the presence of the object must not obscure the motive for its making, for that is where the cultural investment lies.
The purpose of conservation is not an end in itself, but a means of evaluating our inheritance and providing a platform for the future. In this respect modern architecture is not a special case for it shares common ground with every other area of our culture which retains examples spanning thousands of years from ships, aeroplanes, automobiles, canals and bridges, to settlements, houses, palaces, temples, cathedrals and monuments. In each category the grounds of justification must be established, the public persuaded and relevant conservation techniques evolved.
Such are the causes around the Modern Movement Heritage this publication aspires to serve. Schildt, The Decisive Years: Volume 3, p. Instead of the depiction of the world of phenomena, its aim was the direct representation of the noumenal world of pure thought. Total reconstruction by Ignasi de Sola Morales. In its place was to appear a very different critique of modern architecture: namely that it was making people ill, turning them to crime, and driving them mad….
He states the situation thus: My own suspicion of the enormous generative part played by architectural drawing stems from a brief period of teaching in an art college. Bringing with me the conviction that architecture and the visual arts were closely allied, I was soon struck by what seemed at the time the peculiar disadvantage under which architects labour, never working at it directly with the object of their thought, always working at it through some intervening medium, almost always the drawing, while painters and sculptors, who might spend time on preliminary sketches and maquettes, all ended up working on the thing itself which, naturally, absorbed most of their attention and effort.
Nearly always the most intense activity is the construction and manipulation of the final artifact, the purpose of preliminary studies being to give sufficient definition for final work to begin, not to provide a complete determination in advance, as in architectural drawing. The resulting displacement of effort and indirectness of access still seem to me to be distinguishing features of conventional architecture considered as a visual art….
Any presumption to theory in architecture is suspect first, because normative expectations sit uneasily in any creative context and second, because the record reveals much architectural theory as contrived, post hoc justification. Popper challenged the certainty which theory implies, introducing the dynamic procedure of conjecture and refutation as a means towards the progress of scientific knowledge which tempers notions of truth, a process requiring openmindedness, imagination and a constant willingness to be corrected.
The criticism of conjectures is a means of revealing mistakes and clarifying the nature of the problem on hand.
- Intentionality, Cognition, and Mental Representation in Medieval Philosophy.
- Management of Pollutant Emission from Landfills and Sludge (Balkema: Proceedings and Monographs in Engineering, Water and Earth Sciences);
- Phthalate Esters (Handbook of Environmental Chemistry).
- 40 Daily Devotions?
- Projects by the same producer.
The conservation movement, far from proceeding on such a methodological basis, has been dominated by pragmatism, in many cases of a finger-in-the-dyke order, because the tide of decay and its economic consequences has obliged urgent response. Neither the public or, in most cases, building owners, are susceptible to culturally originated pleas.
Clarity must be sought, however, in order to inform action. Conjectures around conservation abound, but ref utations are not, as yet, ordered or accessible. Introduction Although the approach towards preservation1 in general does not differ between traditional and Modern Movement buildings, there are some specific aspects which demand tailor-made strategies for its relics.
Those strategies relate to the selection of buildings to be retained, the level of intervention and to the paradox of conserving2 Modern Movement buildings. In broad outline this chapter aims to structure a specific approach towards the Modern Movement. If an architectural object is not properly maintained, however durably it may be built, it will either be changed functionally beyond recognition over time, or will, in a technical sense, fall to pieces. The two almost always go together, because when a building is functionally or economically obsolete, nobody will spend money on its upkeep.
For example, great Roman temples were demolished when religious ideas changed; their columns were often reused as building materials for the foundations of Christian churches.
More titles to consider
They were technical ruins by the time Viollet-le-Duc started his conservation work in the middle of the nineteenth century And his efforts were only possible because interest in the Gothic heritage revived, so there were those prepared once again to spend money on these buildings.
Ever since, the conservation of old and valuable buildings has become an increasingly accepted phenomenon.
Twentieth century buildings, in particular Modern Movement buildings, are more vulnerable to the influences of time than their predecessors, and as a consequence, this exposes even more, the paradoxes of conservation. A static object versus changing demand Most buildings are erected to serve a purpose, otherwise no one would be prepared to invest in their realisation.
Yet we want a building to be more, we want it to touch our feelings, we want to elevate the utility above its everyday reality. And we could argue that this utility art becomes worthwhile if it has managed to capture the soul of a particular need and a particular context at a particular time, if it has managed to bring the prosaic and the poetic into equilibrium. Yet, a given fact of existence is that the only constant in life is change. We are faced with the paradox that whereas we, as living creatures, are dynamic by nature, the buildings we make, in fact most artefacts, are static by definition.
Before the nineteenth century, in general, this was not particularly disturbing, because requirements were mostly limited and only changed slowly. Besides, both the durable building fabric and the neutrally positioned load bearing structures enabled easy re use. However, since the Industrial Revolution, building requirements have increased dramatically and keep on doing so in order to raise the quality of the facilities being provided and to cut their costs.
The response to this dramatic increase meant that buildings began to be designed to suit ever more specific requirements. As a consequence, this resulted in an enormous explosion of building typologies. In a short survey carried out some years ago only seven university building types for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were identified and, for the second half of the twentieth century over types were counted.
These twentieth century buildings are not, of course, constructed any longer with technologies which are meant for eternal durability, but for the dynamic and economic reality of the day. A vast range of new materials and technologies hitherto unknown in the building industry have appeared, with a limited life span. This means that the transition of twentieth century buildings is both a functional and technical phenomenon.
A few examples will suffice as illustration: today, offices have a useful life of approximately ten years, factories eight years and shops only five years. The dynamics of building change today are so fast that, for example, a museum extension we designed seven years ago in Rotterdam is now to be altered into a restaurant. Our client for the new Law Court building in Middelburg was a property developer from whom the. Dutch State rents the premises for a period of ten years, because ideas and requirements change too fast to make ownership profitable.
As a consequence, regarding twentieth century buildings, the emotional appreciation of a building is often longer-lasting than its functional viability. Adapting the building fabric might result in an economically and functionally satisfactory solution. If not, the final verdict will be demolition. Yet, if the emotional or historic value of the building is sufficiently apparent, we must be prepared to temper our functional and economic desires. In which case it is the work of art we primarily want to keep, rather than its utility.
Before thinking about a conservation approach to suit these new facts, it is important, first, to establish a preservation strategy for Modern Movement buildings. It is necessary, therefore, to consider what to preserve and how to preserve it. Conservation, with its various levels of intervention, is only one option within the total preservation approach. A preservation approach At the start of a new century, it is important to decide what of the recent past we should preserve for future generations.
- Map of Kaunas 1919-1939: The Capital Inspired by the Modern Movement?
- Modern Movement Heritage.
- Registers of the Modern Movement.
- Finding the Center.
- Owners of Modern Movement buildings in Sydney object to their proposed heritage listing.
First there is a qualitative aspect. In the nineteenth and increasingly in the twentieth century, architects have devoted the main part of their efforts to a domain which, in previous ages, was left to anonymity. Their attention is not so much focused on the extraordinary any longer but on the ordinary, on the everyday artefacts elevating the life of the masses, on mass production, on housing for the lower income groups, on factories, offices, hospitals, sports complexes, schools, etc.
There is also a quantitative aspect. In this century, far more has been built than in all previous ages put together and it is not possible, or desirable, to keep it all.
Proposal to heritage list modern movement buildings and art - EDO NSW
How should we approach this phenomenon? The first question is why do we want to keep objects of the past if they are not funtionally and economically useful? As mentioned, it is primarily our appreciation for the work of art, our love and fascination for its beauty, its mystique and its presence.
There are also more scientific reasons for doing so, such as assembling knowledge and understanding the way of life of our predecessors, their technical innovations, the physical performance of their buildings, etc. Everything we do, imagine, make or invent, has its roots in the past. So proper knowledge and understanding of our recent past is a key to development in the future. The next question is, which twentieth century buildings should be selected to preserve and how should we preserve them?
To keep everything for eternity makes functional, economic and cultural nonsense. We have, therefore, to be selective. Not everything has to be preserved in the same way and not all buildings or building types of importance have to be physically conserved. In most instances, proper documentation in terms of drawings, photographs, models, interviews, videos or computer-aided virtual reality can be an effective way of conservation.
And this is particularly so when saving the architectural heritage of this century, since people who were involved in the design, realisation or occupancy of these buildings might still be alive and large quantities of relevant information are often still available. Although it is extremely important that a selection is made of all relevant twentieth century buildings as regards an approach towards preservation, the DOCOMOMO movement only concentrates on buildings, neighbourhoods, cities and landscapes of the Modern Movement.
Consequently, this is the primary concern of this chapter. Several well-known critics have made attempts in the past to arrive at a workable definition of the Modern Movement, but without success. What we can establish is that the pioneers of the Modern Movement and their successors have always had a proto-typical approach, experimenting with new social concepts, with new technologies and materials and with unconventional forms and colours.
Modernity, in an architectural context, might therefore be defined as that which is innovative in its social, technical and aesthetic intentions. For a building which fits this definition of modernity to be selected for preservation, it should also be historically clear that the object concerned was innovative at the time of its conception and thereafter.
In other words it should prove to have been more than a whimsical idea of the moment, it should have demonstrated withstanding the test of time. Thus, a certain time distance from the date of its original design conception is required, a period of say twenty years, before a decision can be taken with some degree of objectivity. There is, however, a certain danger in this approach. Other buildings, however, which are also manifestations of historically. This situation obtains particularly in a century which has witnessed such a vast building production.
Where many untested experiments were carried out, and where social and cultural concepts change rapidly, it is to be expected that a certain number of buildings or neighbourhoods are generally unpopular. These buildings might, however, be of extreme importance to preserve for future generations. For example, although post-war public housing blocks in Glasgow, Lyon, Moscow, or Saint Louis might not appeal to us today, they are representative of our recent social past, some of which are surely necessary to preserve one way or another.
Priority Obviously, we should be extremely selective which buildings and building types we do preserve. The main criterion seems to be that any example should represent an important way of thinking in a country or region in social, technical and aesthetic terms: for example, the postwar public housing drive witnessed the introduction of mass produced panelblocks, the abolition of decoration etc. Documentation is an effective way of preservation in most instances, particularly when a building or a neighbourhood is socially unsuccessful and becomes, consequently, despised.
In a few cases, actual conservation is justifiable economically or is desirable for emotional and scientific reasons. The most important reason for conserving a building is when its innovative influence has gone beyond national or regional boundaries although it goes without saying that it can also transpire that a building is conserved simply because it is loved and financed locally. Furthermore, it seems to make sense to introduce a hierarchy of interventions, since not all buildings have to be conserved to the same degree of authenticity.
Only a few buildings in any country have to be restored as close as possible to the original. In most cases where conservation is required one may accept a more pragmatic approach towards intervention, if the building is nationally or regionally important but does not justify ultimate top priority. Provided the alterations or additions are designed with great respect for the original and are worthwhile in themselves, these are acceptable in order to make the building suitable again for new functional requirements.
A problem frequently to be faced when conserving a building is the question of authenticity. First and foremost there is the authenticity of the original material. Interwar buildings of Kaunas are clearly important in the history of the country, but maybe not fundamental in World history. However, considering there are still few modern architecture buildings on the list, and with a strong supporting file, I believe it could make its way to the List.
The site has 1 locations. Register Login. Login Sign up. The List. All tentative sites. Inscribed Sites Tentative Sites. Our Community. All connections. It is meant for MSc education, but may be of interest to architects in general. They work in close cooperation to lay the foundations for the preservation and continuity of use of built heritage.
It contains the contribution of Prof. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.