The Monterey Bay Aquarium, EHDD, photo by Rick Browne.Is historic preservation a reactionary movement undertaken by people who fear the future, preferring to hide in a false nostalgia for the past? While such may be true of some people, I believe the preservation of older buildings is an optimistic activity, one that assumes that our society will extend many generations into the future and that, in order for the future to have meaning, there must be continuity with the past.
Preservation takes a long view, believing that each generation will produce its own crop of well-designed new structures, which subsequent generations will also consider worthy of preservation. Historic preservation and new architectural design are not in opposition to each other, but are in fact very much related, connected by society’s interest in architecture, history, and the future.
We began our architectural practice in 1980 with great enthusiasm and some core beliefs in the importance of reusing existing older buildings. Twenty-two years later, the youthful enthusiasm has gone a bit gray, but the core beliefs continue to form a basis for our practice. Over that time, the field of historic preservation has grown and matured, now recognized as a basic element of good urban planning and respected as a component of professional architectural practice.
We have considered historic preservation from two sides, as advocates for buildings and as practitioners designing projects for clients. This process has certainly informed and perhaps broadened our philosophy of design and preservation.
Through working on the rehabilitation of many 19th-century and 20th-century buildings, we’ve also been able to observe the practices of earlier generations of architects. A few of them were great designers. Many others were perhaps less bold or talented, yet they still left a legacy of carefully designed, well-built structures, worthy of preservation.
Many contemporary buildings will someday be considered historic—not only the monuments produced by high-profile designers, but also the much greater number of structures produced by the majority of architects.
There are as many valid opinions about what makes good contemporary design in historic environments as there are architectural critics. The lessons of historic preservation suggest, however, one way to evaluate the quality of a contemporary design: ask whether it is good enough that someone may actually want to preserve it 50 years from now. This is a difficult question to answer without the perspective of time, but it is a reasonable question to ask.
Our own design philosophy has developed largely from lessons learned through our preservation practice. The following are some thoughts for evaluating contemporary design in historic environments, and a few examples.
✺ First, do no harm. New buildings should not be built at the expense of important existing buildings. A well-known architectural critic once said that he would advocate demolition of the Parthenon if he thought it could be replaced with something better. This remark seems a bit extreme, but in fact it is not unusual thinking for some architects. The new Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, designed by Gae Aulenti, may well turn out to be a spectacular new building. It is, however, being created through extensive interior demolition of the old Main Library, which was important not just for its architecture but also for the meaning it had for many generations of users.
The converse to this idea also applies: not all change to a building is harmful. The proposed new Jewish Museum, designed by Daniel Libeskind, will completely transform the interior space of Willis Polk’s Jessie Street Substation. The original, open, industrial character of the space will, however, still be readable, and it will offer a contrast to the new elements inserted into the building. Certainly, the design will cause great change to the interior of the building, but the interior was never intended for the public and has no real history of shared use and memory, as the Main Library does. The changes proposed to the building, while dramatic, may be worth the loss if a great new building is the result.
✺ Design for a long life. Just as art conservators must think about how future conservators will view their work in 50 years, architects must plan to design buildings that will still be useful in the future, in order to be deemed worthy of preservation. Buildings should be constructed with substantial materials, time-tested technologies, careful detailing, and a recognition that they will change and adapt over their lifetimes.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium, by EHDD, constructed in 1984, is a great example of these ideas. This large building was carefully fitted into a historic industrial neighborhood. It has stood the test of crowds, the marine environment, and the need to expand, and it has done so gracefully. Although less than 25 years old, it will soon be discussed as though it were a historic building.
There are also exceptions to this idea, the most notable being Bernard Maybeck’s Palace of Fine Arts, designed for the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition. Originally intended to have a short life, the building has remained a perennial favorite of the city’s citizens. It was reconstructed in the 1960s, and efforts are currently underway to restore it again. (Editor’s note: for more information, visit www.maybeck.org and select “Palace Restoration.”)
✺ Context is still important. Although “contextualism” seems to be out of favor, the importance of designing with a consideration for the authentic context has not changed. Whether the best response to a historic context is to be contrasting or to be carefully understated depends on what is appropriate in each specific situation. In either case, a careful judgment based on the significance of the context must be made.
The Cantor Center for the Arts, The Polshek Partnership Architects, photo courtesy of Degenkolb Engineers.The new addition to the historic Stanford Art Museum (now the Cantor Center for the Arts), by the Polshek Partnership, was designed with a respectful eye to the context of the original museum. The new addition is physically independent of the old building yet links to the existing circulation pattern and maintains the original main entrance. In materials and details, it also is both distinct from and compatible with the original. This building relates, in a contemporary way, to the specific historic building as well as to the fabric of the Stanford campus.
✺ Style is not enough. Architectural style, like fashion, is temporary. Each generation of architects seems to reject the styles of the preceding generation, while simultaneously rehabilitating the sullied reputation of an earlier generation (proving the adage that it’s always easier to love your grandparents than your parents). Witness the current rediscovery of “Midcentury Design.” In fact, every generation creates good buildings; the best have more going for them than just their appearance. At their roots, modernism and post-modernism were both more about ideas than style.
Much has been said about the design for the new Prada Building in San Francisco. It seems that the best things that have been said about it are that it doesn’t require demolishing a significant building and that it is a refreshing counterpoint to the existing historic context. While the district can surely handle contemporary and contrasting infill buildings, the Prada Building seems to be a fashion statement about screen walls that will probably look dated in ten years. The question is, will future generations rehabilitate it? We hope it will not spawn too many children.
✺ Modesty can be a good thing. There is certainly a place for bold, center-of-attention buildings, but not every building should be designed in that way. Restraint and modesty of design, especially in sensitive environments, are great virtues. The urban fabric of some of our favorite cities is largely created by modest buildings.
The recently completed Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, designed by our firm, needed to provide for an ambitious client program, coexist with an adjacent Ernest Coxhead building and other less sensitive university structures, and provide a transition to the residential neighborhood to the north of campus. In addition, the proposal of a structure on this site resulted in threats of litigation from that neighborhood. Working with the university —while also keeping neighborhood concerns in mind—has resulted in a structure that has received highly positive comments from both the school and the neighborhood, an unusual development in Berkeley. The building owes its success to its modest intentions.
Goldman School of Public Policy, Architectural Resources Group, photo by David Wakely.The relationship between the objectives of historic preservation and contemporary building should not be one of opposition but of shared goals—creating varied and vibrant environments that allow for growth and change, yet still respect the achievements of previous generations. The questions of how much change to historic environments is acceptable and how strongly to embrace contemporary elements will always be hotly debated. The lessons of the 1950s and 1960s taught us not to embrace change uncritically, with total disrespect for past generations. The more recent experiences of the 1980s–1990s have perhaps shown that a review process that strongly restricts change and development has the potential to reduce the interest and life of historic environments and to limit our current generation’s ability to produce contemporary buildings of lasting value. The unfettered arrogance of the 1950s–1960s is unlikely to return, but it does appear that attitudes are changing to recognize the importance of contemporary design. Evaluating the quality of contemporary design in historic environments will continue to generate a healthy dialogue among architects, review boards, critics, and the general public. Asking how our grandchildren will look at it may be one way to add some perspective to the evaluation.
Author Stephen J. Farneth, FAIA, is a founding principal of Architectural Resources Group in San Francisco. He has over twenty years experience in historic preservation architecture as well as training and expertise in materials conservation. He serves on the executive committee of the California State Historical Building Safety Board and worked on the re-writing of the archaic materials section of the State Historical Building Code. He is a trustee of US/ICOMOS, the international preservation and cultural resource organization.
Originally published 3rd quarter 2002, in arcCA 02.3, “Building Value.”
