hi! Im currently doing a research on how architects create a new building which blends well with the existing building. This is crucial when the new development is done at a historical sensitive site, with a lot of old building in context.
Most of the architect, for example, Norman Foster, will minimize the impact by using light structure (glass + steel).
Can u suggest some building worthable for my case studies... Links and resources from internet are most welcome .
Thank You
do a seach for soldier field in chicago [there is so much out there....] there was lots of controversy regarding the appropriateness of the solution as the original facade was historic, and the completed building just lost its historic status.
after you do your reseach, contract the arch directly [woods zapata, ny] and discuss their ideas directly.
Old Montreal has a lot of good contemporary architecture that blends well with the historical context, but without copying the old buildings or being derivative. Many new buildings also are joined to old stuctures, so creative solutions and juxtapositions are a splendid norm there.
On my last trip to Montreal I actually found a book at the CCA's bookstore specifically on new architecture and urban design in Vieux-Montreal. Can't remember the name, but when I get home I'll post the title.
thanks a lot. I must say sometimes the new building blend well with the the old is just because of PROPORTION. They may contrast in terms of material, construction techniques, the facade elements.. but they will still look nice and contemporary (without literally copy from the past).
The new (i think it was) Grimshaw spa in Bath, UK, nice and smooth integration...mmhh also mmhhh there's a Mies Van der Rohe prize awarded to some Brazilian guy a couple of years ago for an adaptation of an historical buolding with a contempranean intervention... mmhh what else?? there's plenty...try to look more for mediterranean places or latin america places that seem to have more interesting work (as the one u require)...
check also Alberto Campo Baeza i think he has a couple and of course Boffil and Herzog & deMeuron projects lately....
u can virtually cite any 'published' (ergo respected) building to that effect. Your questions invites more ambiguity than clarity (inviting the proliferation of random answers upstairs)...most new buildings in urban plots will occur in a context that predates them and 'blending well' is an impalpable feature realised in many different and particular ways. In fact, some persons' version of 'blending well' is one of aesthetic friction and antagonism...others might describe it as willfully un-blending.
Perhaps if you give more thought as to what the denominator is...a certain disposition of the new relative to the old (a material/spatial ...idiosyncrasy) if it doesn't delve too deep.
If you aim deeper still, then pondering over what a 'context' is...a word that would reverberate differently in different circles (planners, economists, architects, historians..)...of what constitutes a context (where/when does it begin and where/when does it end)...and then how the very word context invites a relationship with a forthcoming nominator (whenever anyone says context...we expect them to introduce, verbally or otherwise, an entity that the context depends on for its being- the context is subject to the forthcoming object as much as we percieve it the other way around, it is an inversable fraction. How our perceptions of 'blending well' stem from particular cultural prejudices (whether in the malignant or benign sense)...the context sieved through different levels of the 'contextual' culture....Perhaps even what 'context' means to us in a contemporary air, my grandparents would still struggle with the notion of archinect.com as a relevant context. Context can be nationalist..and yet it can be, contextually, subverted..Predappio's architecture can be seen as a inherently atrocious reminder of a yuky era by some, a relic of Italy at its best by some others, and simply as a product of an acute aesthetic sensibility divorced from politics by some other others. Context as its own chameleon.
i had a prof put it like this...there are three ways to deal with existing context: a part from, a part of, and a part within.
if you are dealing with modern interpretation of historical context, specifically facade elements, check out a good example at www.hlt.dk Henning Larsen's Danish Design Center illustrates this principle quite well.
As uneDITed pointed out, its about response. responding to the context, in either polemic is still responding to it, and therefore 'considering' it...it IS an inversable fraction...the context changes as soon as you build....so the new context is forever changed.....context just IS. it is there to respond to, but on whatever level you choose to encourage, dismiss or address aesthetically. responding to one level may indeed be simultaneously ignoring another potential...there IS always something else.
Many modern cities almost cease to deal with this issue on the basis of being overwhelmed with context. small districts may impose code restrictions based on a predisposed aesthetic, but many times, the context is changing so rapidly, and nothing delineates what the appropriate level of context is to consider.
The original museum building, c. 1911 is a neoclassical revival. it has grand, columned arcades and oozes classical details. Its a quality building on a challenging and changing sub-urban site. it is within sight of downtown but in a residential district...bordered on one side by an interstate highway.
After an addition in the early 20th century which saught to build upon this existing context of neoclassic/beaux arts style....the next addition to the site was a small steel and glass box housing the glass and ceramic arts program...it does its best mid-century modern impression and does quite well. this was an obvious departure from the neighborhood's preferred aesthetic...it may have been met with distain from the surrounding neighbors...i don't know. it was tucked back in a grove of trees and i doubt many paid attention to it. it hid.
The next major addition commissioned by the museum was done by frank gehry. it too was quite a point of departure, from the neoclassicism...and equally so from the mid-century modernism. it changed the context again but addressed each aesthetic in its own way...and it did it well.
The neighborhood screamed and went NIMBY but since it wasn't all that close to them, they lost. it challenged the aesthetic norm and it won.
Recently the neigborhood went into aesthetic arrest when the museum announced its plans to build the new Glass Center to display its large and exceptional collection...it was going to be built close to their Revival homes and thier brick facades, their wood trim and their stained glass....and they nearly choked on their Old West End design guidelines when they saw the museum proposed a clear glass minimalist box. it was concrete and it was expansive glass....everything to bring their rising property values to new lows.
....and they lost...the museum showed how culturally, their community was getting stronger...how the museum was the lifeblood and the salvation for this neighborhood. the museum did what it had to do to further the arts and education in their perceived context....they chose and they chose wisely. they chose a building that fit their purpose and its own purpose...and that's hard to argue with.
Architecture should not petrify forms, nor should it deny their existence. The existing context and its character should be encouraged to evolve and transform, thus establishing a connected sense of being and a management of environmental change.--this is my thesis topic.
You should really research different ways that the past is dealt with. I researched Carlo Scarpa, Eric Owen Moss, Morphosis, Coop Himmelblau, as well as typical random examples of facadism.
Kevin Lynch's book "what time is this place." Is a good text stressing the importance of a "time-place" relationship. He addresses issues of preservation and adaptive use. Its a great read.
Other general references that may apply are: Nietzsche, All the gods of Modernism, Jane Jacobs, David Chipperfield, Aaron Betsky, Architectural Philosophy by Andrew Benjamin, and Kenneth Powell.
Aug 18, 04 2:15 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Co-exist of old and new building
hi! Im currently doing a research on how architects create a new building which blends well with the existing building. This is crucial when the new development is done at a historical sensitive site, with a lot of old building in context.
Most of the architect, for example, Norman Foster, will minimize the impact by using light structure (glass + steel).
Can u suggest some building worthable for my case studies... Links and resources from internet are most welcome .
Thank You
do a seach for soldier field in chicago [there is so much out there....] there was lots of controversy regarding the appropriateness of the solution as the original facade was historic, and the completed building just lost its historic status.
after you do your reseach, contract the arch directly [woods zapata, ny] and discuss their ideas directly.
Old Montreal has a lot of good contemporary architecture that blends well with the historical context, but without copying the old buildings or being derivative. Many new buildings also are joined to old stuctures, so creative solutions and juxtapositions are a splendid norm there.
Check out Dan Hanganu and Saucier + Pierrotte.
On my last trip to Montreal I actually found a book at the CCA's bookstore specifically on new architecture and urban design in Vieux-Montreal. Can't remember the name, but when I get home I'll post the title.
maybe check out carlo scarpa?
bernard tschumi's la fresnoy is interesting. i don't think it's exactly what you're talking about, but it certainly relates.
check out the harvard club's new building in new york, big controversy over it's relationship to neighboring neo-georgian building.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICQ/is_2002_Jan_7/ai_81411646
In reference to my earlier post:
The New Montreal. Urban Projects in Old Montreal
thanks a lot. I must say sometimes the new building blend well with the the old is just because of PROPORTION. They may contrast in terms of material, construction techniques, the facade elements.. but they will still look nice and contemporary (without literally copy from the past).
http://www.saucierperrotte.com/profil/rimou.jpg
?
The new (i think it was) Grimshaw spa in Bath, UK, nice and smooth integration...mmhh also mmhhh there's a Mies Van der Rohe prize awarded to some Brazilian guy a couple of years ago for an adaptation of an historical buolding with a contempranean intervention... mmhh what else?? there's plenty...try to look more for mediterranean places or latin america places that seem to have more interesting work (as the one u require)...
check also Alberto Campo Baeza i think he has a couple and of course Boffil and Herzog & deMeuron projects lately....
u can virtually cite any 'published' (ergo respected) building to that effect. Your questions invites more ambiguity than clarity (inviting the proliferation of random answers upstairs)...most new buildings in urban plots will occur in a context that predates them and 'blending well' is an impalpable feature realised in many different and particular ways. In fact, some persons' version of 'blending well' is one of aesthetic friction and antagonism...others might describe it as willfully un-blending.
Perhaps if you give more thought as to what the denominator is...a certain disposition of the new relative to the old (a material/spatial ...idiosyncrasy) if it doesn't delve too deep.
If you aim deeper still, then pondering over what a 'context' is...a word that would reverberate differently in different circles (planners, economists, architects, historians..)...of what constitutes a context (where/when does it begin and where/when does it end)...and then how the very word context invites a relationship with a forthcoming nominator (whenever anyone says context...we expect them to introduce, verbally or otherwise, an entity that the context depends on for its being- the context is subject to the forthcoming object as much as we percieve it the other way around, it is an inversable fraction. How our perceptions of 'blending well' stem from particular cultural prejudices (whether in the malignant or benign sense)...the context sieved through different levels of the 'contextual' culture....Perhaps even what 'context' means to us in a contemporary air, my grandparents would still struggle with the notion of archinect.com as a relevant context. Context can be nationalist..and yet it can be, contextually, subverted..Predappio's architecture can be seen as a inherently atrocious reminder of a yuky era by some, a relic of Italy at its best by some others, and simply as a product of an acute aesthetic sensibility divorced from politics by some other others. Context as its own chameleon.
i had a prof put it like this...there are three ways to deal with existing context: a part from, a part of, and a part within.
if you are dealing with modern interpretation of historical context, specifically facade elements, check out a good example at www.hlt.dk Henning Larsen's Danish Design Center illustrates this principle quite well.
As uneDITed pointed out, its about response. responding to the context, in either polemic is still responding to it, and therefore 'considering' it...it IS an inversable fraction...the context changes as soon as you build....so the new context is forever changed.....context just IS. it is there to respond to, but on whatever level you choose to encourage, dismiss or address aesthetically. responding to one level may indeed be simultaneously ignoring another potential...there IS always something else.
Many modern cities almost cease to deal with this issue on the basis of being overwhelmed with context. small districts may impose code restrictions based on a predisposed aesthetic, but many times, the context is changing so rapidly, and nothing delineates what the appropriate level of context is to consider.
further...a case study:
The Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Ohio. http://toledomuseum.org/
The original museum building, c. 1911 is a neoclassical revival. it has grand, columned arcades and oozes classical details. Its a quality building on a challenging and changing sub-urban site. it is within sight of downtown but in a residential district...bordered on one side by an interstate highway.
After an addition in the early 20th century which saught to build upon this existing context of neoclassic/beaux arts style....the next addition to the site was a small steel and glass box housing the glass and ceramic arts program...it does its best mid-century modern impression and does quite well. this was an obvious departure from the neighborhood's preferred aesthetic...it may have been met with distain from the surrounding neighbors...i don't know. it was tucked back in a grove of trees and i doubt many paid attention to it. it hid.
The next major addition commissioned by the museum was done by frank gehry. it too was quite a point of departure, from the neoclassicism...and equally so from the mid-century modernism. it changed the context again but addressed each aesthetic in its own way...and it did it well.
The neighborhood screamed and went NIMBY but since it wasn't all that close to them, they lost. it challenged the aesthetic norm and it won.
Recently the neigborhood went into aesthetic arrest when the museum announced its plans to build the new Glass Center to display its large and exceptional collection...it was going to be built close to their Revival homes and thier brick facades, their wood trim and their stained glass....and they nearly choked on their Old West End design guidelines when they saw the museum proposed a clear glass minimalist box. it was concrete and it was expansive glass....everything to bring their rising property values to new lows.
....and they lost...the museum showed how culturally, their community was getting stronger...how the museum was the lifeblood and the salvation for this neighborhood. the museum did what it had to do to further the arts and education in their perceived context....they chose and they chose wisely. they chose a building that fit their purpose and its own purpose...and that's hard to argue with.
Architecture should not petrify forms, nor should it deny their existence. The existing context and its character should be encouraged to evolve and transform, thus establishing a connected sense of being and a management of environmental change.--this is my thesis topic.
You should really research different ways that the past is dealt with. I researched Carlo Scarpa, Eric Owen Moss, Morphosis, Coop Himmelblau, as well as typical random examples of facadism.
Kevin Lynch's book "what time is this place." Is a good text stressing the importance of a "time-place" relationship. He addresses issues of preservation and adaptive use. Its a great read.
Other general references that may apply are: Nietzsche, All the gods of Modernism, Jane Jacobs, David Chipperfield, Aaron Betsky, Architectural Philosophy by Andrew Benjamin, and Kenneth Powell.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.