16 Yvonne Lee ponders on the appropriate criteria for judging modern architecture THE DILEMMA OF 'LISTING' MODERN BUILDINGS Everyone is familiar with the concept of preserving the old and beloved mediaeval cathedral, and to a lesser extent the eccentricities of the Victorian age, but what of 'modern architecture' and the problems that its preservation brings? For example: • should modern buildings be protected in a manner comparable to old buildings? • are modern buildings worthy of retention? • how is a perspective to be gained in a subject that is prey to aesthetic and personal judgement? A concern for the conservation of the built environment is not a modern phenomenon; for example, in 1715 Nicholas Hawksmoor was advocating conservation based upon the philosophy of custodianship; a concept taken up by William Morris over 150 years later. Morris believed that the custodianship by the present generation of the architecture of the past was important not least as evidence of the needs and aspirations of ordinary people, and his conviction was that a vernacular architecture of the future could only develop by the study of the forms and techniques of the past. Individuals such as Hawksmoor and Morris were eloquently expressing the views shared by many people and were undoubtedly outlets for current public opinion. So-called classes of preservable buildings have all attracted varying degrees of reference and action to preserve, for example Society of Antiquaries, SPAB and the Victorian Society. All these organisations were conceived in a surge of emotional reaction against what was seen as ignorant destruction. While popular opinion has spawned many reputable conservation-oriented lobbies it must none-the-less be concluded that current popular taste, or fashion, is a poor guide to how and which particular buildings should be preserved. This is particularly true of 20th century architecture which has come to mean all things to all men. In asking for people's views as to good examples of the period, one should not be surprised to receive a diversity of views, from Le Corbusier to the high-tech of Rogers and Foster. If fashionable tastes had been allowed to prevail, so-called monstrosities such as St Pancras Station and Hotel would have been demolished without a murmur in the 1950s. It is undoubtedly public opinion that has led and legislation followed in the sphere of conservation and preservation. The first principles governing conservation in this country today undoubtedly flow from this concept of custodianship and the need to protect the built environment or at least key parts of it for future generations; this esoteric philosophy which makes conservation such an emotive subject has been taken up and accepted by the legislator, currently culminating in the 1990 Act and the newly published PPG15. PPG15 provides valuable advice on the listing of buildings and in particular the criteria used to assess such buildings. Unfortunately, the guidance still remains locked into a time perspective, with the age of the building remaining allimportant. Architecture through time within the parameters of current legislation and guidance is not viewed in a balanced or objective manner. The emphasis, whether intentional or otherwise, remains firmly with 'old' buildings. But if one accepts the principle of custodianship as the guiding philosophy in the conservation of our built heritage, then modern architecture must be considered for retention and protection in a manner which respects its very peculiar needs. It is recognised that this will not be an easy task. Undoubtedly modern architecture, and in particular post 1945 architecture, has been a period of great creativity and of major building opportunities: • no preceding period has seen such diversity of style; • the range of building types as well as styles has greatly altered and widened, eg high-tech industrial, leisure, new concepts in retail development, and major engineering projects; • many immediate post war buildings were built to very tight budgets using inexpensive materials and employing experimental techniques, thus giving rise to issues of quality and the high maintenance cost liability; • many post-war buildings were constructed as a series rather than individually. The issue then becomes how best this protection and preservation can be achieved, and the question to be answered is: where do we go from here? I would suggest that there is a need for greater public understanding and appreciation of modern architecture. This does not mean to say that suddenly the 1960s tower block should be rehabilitated back into society. Rather a wider awareness of architecture is required which, for example, appreciates the technological innovations and inventiveness in the use of materials. This would encourage objectivity to enter into the debate. I also believe that clearer guidelines for protecting the best of our modern heritage need to be established. The present system is a good starting point but it is inadequate. Further guidance is needed not only on the criteria for listing buildings (which in part has been addressed in PPG15 and in the work currently being undertaken by English Heritage in the identification of exemplar buildings), but also positive recognition needs to be given to the need to allow modern buildings, in particular, to evolve. If we are to leave original, interesting and adventurous architecture of the 20th century to future generations, the paradox is that we must not be over zealous in its infancy. Fundamentally, we need to ensure that the system retains a good perspective and, wherever possible, CONTEXT 44
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=