Preserving
Modern Architecture in the Postmodern World
by David
N. Fixler, AIA
Einhorn Yaffee Prescott
Summary: The
Modern movement in architecture produced a body of work of a scale
and impact unprecedented in the history of humankind. Modern architecture
was the physical manifestation of a broad social and philosophical
movement that forever changed the course of human history. At its
best, the Modern movement captured a spirit of progress, openness,
and an uplifting of the human condition, offering to convert lofty
civic ideals into physical reality. These ideas not only reflected
the sweeping social and cultural aspirations of the day, but were
also a manifestation of a response to the Enlightenment promise of
progress that continues to resonate around the world. It is therefore
imperative that we continue to take into account the context and
essence of this generative philosophy as we formulate preservation
strategies, so that they may yield interventions that both reveal
and clarify the meaning of the heritage of the Modern movement.
As a force that has shaped our environment on an unprecedented scale,
there are many sound economic and cultural reasons for the preservation
of Modern architecture. In the first place, there is simply too much
of it—hundreds of millions of square feet in many thousands
of buildings—for anyone to suggest that most of it should simply
be destroyed and rebuilt in other styles. This as a solution is neither
pragmatic nor ecologically sustainable. But we need to ask two key
questions: How should the work of the Modern movement be evaluated
and engaged, and what kind of theoretical framework should guide
the preservation of this work? To address these questions fully,
we must look not only to the future of Modern architecture, but to
the future of preservation itself, as it seeks to grapple with this
legacy and affirm its own relevance within contemporary design culture.
At its best, the Modern movement captured a spirit of progress,
openness, and an uplifting of the human condition, offering to convert
lofty civic ideals into physical reality
The history gap
We live in a post-Modern age, but we have emerged from the era of
architectural Postmodernism as it was defined between about 1970
and 1985. The distinction is relevant in that it acknowledges that
the Modern movement was finite, but that, as its echoes continue
to resound in contemporary culture, it also continues to challenge “traditional” historicism
as an approach to design. This becomes critically important as
we contemplate both a reason for and an approach to the very complex
task of conserving and enhancing Modern buildings.
We must acknowledge history, and that Modernism is a part of history.
History, in this case, should be seen as a post-Modern synthesis
that combines the Hegelian engine of relentless change with the more
contemporary notion that history is not fixed, but that every era
subjects history to constant re-interpretation. The theoreticians
of the Modern movement embraced the notion of a perpetually forward-looking,
linear history of constant progress, whereas today progress is viewed
as being relative rather than absolute, and history, rather than
being seen as that which is left behind, is instead constantly revisited
for the refreshment of ideas.
The theoreticians of the Modern movement embraced the notion of
a perpetually forward-looking, linear history of constant progress,
whereas today progress is viewed as being relative rather than absolute
Contemporary design references history in its continued embrace
of the aesthetics and technology of Modern architecture, but without
the polemic that was inherent in Modernism in its relationship to
the entire past history of Western architecture. As DOCOMOMO (the
working party for the Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement)
founder Hubert-Jan Henket points out, this polemic is both technical
and aesthetic, but at its essence it is social, driven by a collective
desire to create habitats designed with the instruments of modernity
to improve human life. This suggests, as we set out to infuse contemporary
design into Modern buildings, that it is appropriate to acknowledge
the continued meaning of this polemic by considering the social or
moral component inherent in any intervention strategy.
Preservation’s place
Carroll Westfall, in his article “What Are the Preservationists
Preserving?” (Traditional Building, July/August 2004, page
225) correctly notes that preservation, as we understand it today,
is a Modernist enterprise. He is also correct in his assessment that
preservation and traditional building—too often conflated in
the minds of those who prefer the traditional to the modern—are
fundamentally different things that are, in his words, only united
in their enmity toward Modernism. However, this attitude that preservation
evolved as an antidote to Modernism, and specifically to a Modern
movement that ruptured the timeless continuum of traditional building,
is both misleading in its oversimplification and corrosive in its
tendency to deny the necessity of coming to grips with how to address,
through conservation and judicious intervention, the considerable
and often wonderful heritage of Modern architecture.
If we accept Westfall’s premise that preservation, as it has
been defined in documents ranging from the Athens Charter to the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, is itself a part
of the Modernist project, then we should also recognize that preservation
must now be adapted to the post-Modern present.
Preservation can and should be an activist force for change. It
should acknowledge and plan for a future that can reflect only a
selective, and therefore subjective, view of the past. Preservation
strives to elucidate the past through the historical facts embodied
in a place, but in fact, the process of intervention will inevitably
bring new perception and hence new meaning to the work through the
modification of both the work and its context. To this end, a preserved
building’s future should be designed with the same intellectual
rigor and aesthetic sensitivity that inform any successful, contemporary
architectural project.
A preserved building’s future should be designed with the
same intellectual rigor and aesthetic sensitivity that inform any
successful, contemporary architectural project
This suggests that the conventional assumption that preservation
and design are diametrically opposed is rapidly dissolving. Preservation,
as it applies to buildings and urban design, is increasingly recognized
as being fully integrated within the practice of architecture, operating
out of a theoretical framework that recognizes the inevitability
of change. The goal of preservation will increasingly become to create
dialogues that heighten the perception of the original, while acknowledging
and acting upon this inevitability.
This revisionist approach is well articulated by scholars like Jorge
Otero-Pailos, the editor of Future Anterior, who
views contemporary preservation as an instrument that produces rather
than finds history, through the regeneration of context through intervention,
rather than a detached reaction to a fixed, stable context. While
Otero-Pailos advances a theory of critical historiography that clearly
moves beyond Modernism, Vittorio Gregotti describes in Inside
Architecture a concept of intervention that reconciles a Modernist theoretical
position with the principle of belonging. This concept embodies “interest
in the materials of memory, not nostalgically, but in terms of juxtaposition
. . . forming new orders and groupings by shifting the context of
those materials that belong to memory’s heritage.”
Both authors acknowledge the highly precise but fragmentary nature
of contemporary design, particularly as it relates to modifications,
and relative to the aspiration toward “total design” that
characterized much of the Modern movement. They recognize the increasing
tendency of successful interventions to be presented as a series
of “mini-narratives” that, at their best, can sharpen
one’s perception of both the original and the intervention;
create new, fundamental meanings for the whole; and also leave open
the potential for future modifications. In the world of heritage
conservation, the legitimacy of this approach was acknowledged in
a May 2005 memorandum by UNESCO, “World Heritage and Contemporary
Architecture—Managing the Historic Urban Landscape,” that
focused on how best to manage growth and change in historic precincts
through precise and sensitive, but contemporary, methods of intervention.
Preservation and Modernism
Let’s return to our original problem of what to do with Modern
architecture. On one level, the legacy of Modernism should be documented,
classified, and treated in the same manner as the architecture of
any historic period. Significant works should be treated with many
of the same disciplinary tools that are used in the preservation
of traditional architecture, though with perhaps more focus on the
idea of the building, where this idea was important in giving meaning
to the original work. However, we need to acknowledge that the scale,
diversity, and material nature of many of the works of the Modern
movement—especially those sometimes labeled Ordinary Everyday
Modernism (OEM)—offer unconventional challenges to traditional
preservation practice. These challenges can best be met by the kind
of rethinking of preservation itself that is outlined above.
We acknowledge that there is a necessary human dimension found in
traditional urban form and place-making that is lacking in a lot
of OEM. This situation should be viewed as an opportunity to mine
the artifacts for latent meaning through a process of critical discovery
meant to transform and “re-humanize” the original. This
resembles the strategy that has been adopted by the U.S. General
Services Administration in the “First Impressions” part
of its Design Excellence program that is creating sensitive contemporary
interventions within the large body of OEM owned by the federal government.
In this case, the quality of the original architecture may be augmented
through using the existing buildings as structural armatures upon
which to build new experiences, introducing elements of scale and
texture that will reinvigorate and make contemporary (one can’t
really say “modernize”) works that might otherwise seem
to have exhausted their useful lives. This strategy runs counter
to the notion of “total design” and recognizes that design
is often most successful focusing on solving small problems and local
issues. Compensation for these shortcomings are made with contemporary
elements in line with a UNESCO statement that: “. . . preservation
. . . [should avoid] all forms of pseudo-historical design, as [it]
constitutes a denial of both the historical and the contemporary
alike . . . history
must remain readable, while continuity of culture through quality
interventions is the ultimate goal.”
Contemporary design principles
The application of contemporary principles to the preservation of
Modern buildings has interesting consequences. Engaging the Modern
movement often means dealing with structures designed with finite
life spans and with materials that were not designed to age well.
This means that conservation often has to yield to replacement
or substitution as a solution for material degradation. Because
of this, and because of the notion that much of the significant
architecture of the Modern movement was driven by the expression
of an idea, there has been a tendency to foreground intent over
materials conservation as criteria for authenticity. This is important
to acknowledge in those significant cases where the interpreted
work should still evidence the original architect’s intent,
but it should not—as any preservationist will agree—detract
from the necessity of engaging the material artifact. The difference
now is that more stress will be placed on the creation of a critical
dialogue with the essence of the original—both the idea and
the material—rather than treating it as a fixed object awaiting
the overlay of the intervention.
Engaging the Modern movement often means dealing with structures
designed with finite life spans and with materials that were not
designed to age well
The argument is sometimes made that the aesthetic and technical
distinctions between the works of Modernism and much of the significant
output of contemporary architecture is sufficiently blurred that
we may ourselves still be defined as late Modernists. As such, on
one level, we can treat modifications to High Modernism as works
that can still build upon the form and spirit of the original, but
we must nonetheless acknowledge that Modernism’s own history
was finite, that we are now in a different place philosophically,
and that the temporal gap between the original and the intervention—however
much the latter may seem to extend the former—should be acknowledged.
As preservationists, our response to the original Modernist idea
can be through extension or through the emphasis of difference. The
important thing is that the act of intervention is clearly acknowledged
as a starting point for an architectural dialogue. The process then
becomes one of weaving the modifications into the original in such
a way that a continuum is created that both reveals the past and
leaves open possibilities for the future.
As we engage the works of the Modern movement as preservationists,
so we also advance the transcendent goal of humanizing our environment
The urgency of meeting the challenge to preserve the heritage of
the Modern movement, and the emerging activist, critical approach
to preservation, are inextricably linked. We suggest that this new
synthesis—with its notion of a continuum evolving around a
set of values about building and accommodating the inevitability
of change—actually parallels some of the rhetoric and practice
of the traditional building movement, as noted by Westfall. His notion
that there is a continuum of building that has been interrupted by
the anomaly of Modernism has now in a sense been turned inside out,
as we are now dealing with a parallel continuum building upon the
Modern tradition that has moved into the post-Modern era. These efforts
should all have the ultimate goal of encouraging contemporary intervention
in a humanist spirit. As we engage the works of the Modern movement
as preservationists, so we also advance the transcendent goal of
humanizing our environment, thus preserving and sustaining not just
buildings, but a significant part of our collective cultural legacy. |