Now the topic in the city of Sydney of heritage architecture is one which gets many dug into the trenches ready for war. With everyone at times appearing to make sure developers do not get their way. It can get the emotions stirring for many in the community.
Now, I love historic buildings, but at times I am confused with the need for keeping facades for the sake of facade sake, yet 'gutting' and removing the remainder of the building. Is it a comprise of sorts? I was riding my bike through Bondi Junction (and apologies for not having a photo added in for this example and no note in a bike lane) on the weekend I noticed a grand new building 12 storeys high, yet the facade had been kept which went for two of those levels by memory. It looked (in my non-trained architecture head) out of place. Contrary to this I love grande historic buildings. I love how they make you feel walking in. Customs house at Circular Quay in Sydney a case in point. Added to that it is a building which has been remodelled being used as everything from a library, offices to bar and a fancy restaurant.
Another great example of extremely well preserved and restored architecture (some say the best opera house en el mundo) Tearto Colon in Buenos Aries, Argentina. It is a grand building which has been restored to its glory days. Buildings like this I think should be kept for their grande appearance and use. As too the building from Seville in Spain below.
As too the building from Barcelona in Spain below.
Rightio - please feel free to pass a comment on this blog and let me know your thoughts on heritage of architecture. Particular facades and the beauty of them. I'd love to learn on this and develop my thoughts.
Cheers Josh
Ps: One part of my blog I would like to be is letting people know what jobs and work there in the built environment. Please let me know if know someone who works in the built environment. It can someone such as a bricklayer, electrician or a professional person like an engineer or environmentalist. Or it may be someone who works educating people in or for the built environment. I won't discriminate (i.e. someone who works with commercial property per se) so drop me an email to joshuaryan14june@gmail.com
Now, I love historic buildings, but at times I am confused with the need for keeping facades for the sake of facade sake, yet 'gutting' and removing the remainder of the building. Is it a comprise of sorts? I was riding my bike through Bondi Junction (and apologies for not having a photo added in for this example and no note in a bike lane) on the weekend I noticed a grand new building 12 storeys high, yet the facade had been kept which went for two of those levels by memory. It looked (in my non-trained architecture head) out of place. Contrary to this I love grande historic buildings. I love how they make you feel walking in. Customs house at Circular Quay in Sydney a case in point. Added to that it is a building which has been remodelled being used as everything from a library, offices to bar and a fancy restaurant.
Another great example of extremely well preserved and restored architecture (some say the best opera house en el mundo) Tearto Colon in Buenos Aries, Argentina. It is a grand building which has been restored to its glory days. Buildings like this I think should be kept for their grande appearance and use. As too the building from Seville in Spain below.
As too the building from Barcelona in Spain below.
Rightio - please feel free to pass a comment on this blog and let me know your thoughts on heritage of architecture. Particular facades and the beauty of them. I'd love to learn on this and develop my thoughts.
Cheers Josh
Ps: One part of my blog I would like to be is letting people know what jobs and work there in the built environment. Please let me know if know someone who works in the built environment. It can someone such as a bricklayer, electrician or a professional person like an engineer or environmentalist. Or it may be someone who works educating people in or for the built environment. I won't discriminate (i.e. someone who works with commercial property per se) so drop me an email to joshuaryan14june@gmail.com
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI've always been a big fan of heritage architecture and I think generally Sydney does a good job of it. The Rocks for example used to be a ghetto of sorts but thanks to preservation, it's perhaps the most charming area of the city.
I live in Vietnam and this issue is one that is magnified due to the rapid progess of this country. The difference between foreign and local views on protecting heritage buildings is completely opposite. But, it's their country, who are we to stop what they consider progress and prestige by having more skyscrapers? There is an interesting article about this topic and how it is affecting Saigon here: http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20120309-out-with-the-old--in-with-the-new.aspx
I think the key point is that many cities around the world have managed to find the balance. Buenos Aires as you say is a good example, even London and Paris have been great with this. In Asia, some cities have rightly understood that it's not all about nostalgia, the governments need to understand the commercial implications of knocking down heritage architecture. Tourists come to see this stuff, profits can be made. Saigon has now lost most of its character all in the name of commercial necessity from the governments viewpoint. I fear Hanoi will be next and it will lose the charm and personality people love it for.
Not being big on architecture, I'm going to try and understand this from a different perspective (that I hope I can relate properly here). I am not sure if we are trying to protect history per se in the architecture of a building, but also diversity of image/etc that each building represents. Each country, architect and time (in history) has an image we can try and relate to and catergorise. By trying to preserve this image/building we try and hold onto who designed it, what culture that building fits in (included in the time in which it was built and how long it has lasted for), the building practices/materials that were used at that time, and then also what that building may represent to the community it is/was a part of.
ReplyDeleteI guess the term 'diversity' above shows my slant in related it to the diversity of biology/life in this world, and how we try to 'steward' it as humans. I see then that relating it to the building being built behind the facade as you spoke of Josh, what I saw was like trying to put an elephant in a gorilla suit. The building just isn't going to represent itself if only the 'skin' is kept. Do our council's focus on facade mean it lives by 'beauty is only skin deep', putting important on streetscape, just so they can redevelop the land. But then progress is also an issue that needs to be dealt with as we live in a world of entropy where things break down and buildings fall down.
The diversity of design can also bring a diversity of situation, which I guess is why it has become such a big issue, with consultants to help give direction. What I like Joshie is that you have decided to make it a topic you want to bring up in this forum, this early into your blogship (though, there is a nice randomness to issues you have brought up already). What do you think we are trying to preserve through this issue of heritage Joshie?
Classic PBL mate...Gotcha!
Classic PBL indeed John - I think it is time to bring in a heritage consultant. Leave it with me.
Delete