Long accustomed to basing its reputation on the grandeur of its old buildings, the city now finds it almost impossible to agree on how to build new ones.
In recent months, traditionalists have blocked efforts to introduce contemporary architecture in the historic core [...]. Modernists are rolling their eyes at new buildings that copy traditional styles, arguing that they pervert a record of architectural progress long documented in mortar and stone.
— nytimes.com
Don't miss these heated discussions on the subject matter:
167 Comments
It looks like the question of style is alive and well. The article falsely accuses "traditionalists" of blocking contemporary architecture in the historic core, unless one is inclined to allow the language to be coopted by modernists. Any recent building would have to be termed contemporary or modern, but the author falls into the semantic trap of the modernists who insist only certain styles are contemporary. Further into the article the author reveals the opponents to be preservation and neighborhood groups. If one where to take the whole 'listening to the people' bit at face value, it might be advisable to actually do that rather than label them as traditionalists, as in the kind that practice Christmas etc.
Be that as it may, the article clearly states what's at stake, ie: beauty, or the general lack of it in newer construction, especially of the modernist variety. Beauty, in an historic context means getting along with one's neighbors as much as the actual architectural composition. And it's not like America isn't filled with ample area to strut one's fountain head, should one chose, but in a city like Charleston, where the economy is heavily based on retaining it's charm, this isn't mere sentimentality. Beauty is like kryptonite to modernists though, not so much in fact, but in spirit. A debilitating idea best left to intellectual softies.
Good for the Mayor to see through the archispeak of our modernist comrades who would have you believe that "looking forward" only comes in one style. Why not look forward to a more beautiful future? Thank god they chose Andres Duany to look after Charleston's character. I hope he does a good job of it as there are many municipalities that are looking for ways to preserve their character and sense of place as we move inexorably forward.
Charleston is a very strange place.
I wonder if its actually impossible for an outsider or a "modernist" (as Thayer puts it) to make sense of exactly what hardcore traditionalists a striving for. I think it can't really be described in terms of Architecture. Its seems almost entirely about satisfying the ego and pride of select few.
davvid,
You must not have read the article where the author clearly states that it's the citizens of Charleston that would like to have the new harmonize with their beloved city. If you have any appreciation with music, you might understand that when an orchestra or band is playing a piece, it is incumbent on any joining musician to blend into the ensemble. The whole piece will surely change with every additional musician, but it's an evolution, not a revolution. This is the same with the frozen music of any beloved city and why the citizens of those places jealously guard their heritage. Why this idea is so inscrutable to modernists is obvious to anyone with an architectural education. And how funny you should conjure up an egoist with pride when that is exactly the kind of architect that the Mayor and citizenry of Charleston would like to tame.
As far as Charleston's strangeness for not caving into modernism's inevitability as one is lead to believe in schools, there are many strange places in this world. Most of which are the number one destinations to visit. Are there places that a modernist building would be appropriate in Charleston? Sure...never say never, but if playing well with others in a larger whole is that stifling, then might I suggest many a downtown or even highway that will welcome individualistic expression. But the beauty Charlestonians seek to preserve is one of the whole, not cacophony. This is something that doesn't even need to be taught, it's intuitively understood.
Sorry Thayer. I'm not buying any of that.
I don't really think its about beauty or even Charleston-ness. I think its political. Preservation groups are usually entirely about the preferences and the egos of a relative few. They're the ones who file the lawsuits. Deference to those key figures is an absolute must.
Complete bullshit. This has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with racism.
In Columbia the state capital building has gold stars where cannon balls hit when Sherman came through.
The state flag used to be flown above the American flag and when they had to take it down they put the state flag on its own higher pole in front of the American flag.
In South Carolina those who want traditionalist architecture are making a crypto-racist statement pure and simple.
I think that a building can relate to its neighbors and the context without mimicking the stylization of a particular brand of finishing details. Maybe Clemson reached out a little far with the beautiful but unique building proposed in this traditional city. I hope they are able to chose a design that speaks of its time while respecting the context. But you can't please everyone with any proposal.
On a tangent... It is stuff like selecting fake shutters to install on either side of a window like is seen in the picture supplied for this article in order to create a 'quaint' feeling that bugs me. If shutters are needed, make them functional and incorporate them into the overall aesthetic of the building and not just as some Disney-esc pretend elements. That rant isn't Charleston-specific but it is the kind of thinking that shows up in so much bad architecture.
How do I distinguish a crypto-racist from a garden-variety racist?
"In South Carolina those who want traditionalist architecture are making a crypto-racist statement pure and simple."
I am sorry, but this is maybe the most silly statement I have ever read.
By definition a crypto-racist would be difficult to distinguish.
Here is some fodder for the anti-traditionalists canons.... http://archinect.com/forum/thread/116510245/follow-up-to-dogma-of-design-process-ecole-des-beaux-arts
Let's state the obvious if Charleston was a blighted area - no one would give a fuck! I know plenty buildings and areas in Philly with as much history as Charleston, but no one cares and if a spaceship landed on one of the lots, even if it was Adolf Loos's Chicago Tribune Architecture Competition Entry - no one would complain....that's what Charleston needs a giant phallic traditionalist symbol....bringing Loos back baby!
Yeah, yeah... and Mies tried to market his services to Hitler, and Le Corbusier was all cozy with Vichy France. Can we please stop with the "architecture of oppression" stuff?
Come on EKE it's Friday. What would a giant traditionalist phallic symbol look like? Is it an obelisk?
EKE, This was not meant as an attack on you personally or as a screed against traditionalist architecture or those who like it, just a statement of fact.
It is not silly or difficult to distinguish.
Example: When someone says that the civil war was about "defending a way of life", pronounces the word liberal "LIBeral", "you can keep your own doctor" (Obamacare), etc. it is just a socially acceptable way of using the n-word. This is how people communicate south of the Mason-Dixon line.
The battle being fought in Charleston is not about traditional versus modern architecture.
The residents of Charleston associate traditional buildings with the antebellum south, a place where blacks and women knew their place. This is not an argument about beauty, proportion and harmony.
Didn't Corbusier want to flatten Paris and rebuild it as his 'Radiant City' or something? Odd how modernists want a walkable, mixed use, high density, city with buildings built with the climate in mind, and yet when confronted with a beautiful city like Charleston that meets all these criteria these same modernists would be perfectly happy to flatten Charleston and rebuild it in their own discredited styles.
Volunteer, Nobody wants to flatten Charleston.
Just visually destroy and ruin it with crap like the Aspen Art Museum?
So you just hate people from the South. I get it now.
I have quite a few friends who live in Charleston. Local architects, teachers, craftsmen. They love the traditional architecture of Charleston for many reasons. It's humane, its comfortable, it is climatically and regionally appropriate. I can assure you that nostalgia for a racist and misogynist Antebellum South is not one of them.
These kind of racially-tinged arguments are what gets trotted out when you are out of ideas.
Volunteer, Can you please explain why you think the Aspen Art Museum (designed by Shigeru Ban Architects) is crap?
EKE, I'm not convinced that there is such a neat correlation between retro style and retro power structures anymore. I think its more convoluted and intellectually lazier than that now. I suspect there are many white people who tour a plantation home, for example, and just see a pretty home because they just want to see a pretty home. They don't look for anything deeper than that. They would rather not spend too much time talking about the lives of slaves. Like I said before, its much more about the politics of decorum and satisfying the key figures and organizations in the community who hold sway. Activists are not interested in history because the history of the American South is tragic.
No, I hate the attitude of some people from the South. I live here in South Carolina and have to deal with the shithead beliefs on a daily basis. Maybe if you lived here you would understand just how prevalent it is.
Think of it this way: Tom Petty used to travel around with a confederate flag(to him it meant being a rebel) until he understood what it meant to some people living in the South. If you want to do traditional architecture in the South, you can not ignore its associations with oppression and are going to have to accept integrating some modern elements into the language.
"If you want to do traditional architecture in the South, you can not ignore its associations with oppression and are going to have to accept integrating some modern elements into the language."
Shall we also reject International Syle Modernism, since we certainly cannot ignore its associations with post-war totalitarian East Germany?
davvid, you have made my point beautifully. A building completely out of context, with no respect for its siting or neighbors or history or culture of the region and made out of cheap outgassing plastic weave, and you have to ask "what's wrong with it?". Even your precious New York Times though it was weird.
there is bad modernism and bad traditionalism.
some traditional represents this and some modern represents that.
it's all kind of bullshit isn't it? this style thing.
let me just point out the obvious that the "modernists" ignore because their 'crazy beliefs' are tied to the word 'modern' - you just as crazy as the nutt jobs you are screaming about.
style.
Modernism is not a style.
Classicism is not a style.
Modernism and classism are categories of styles.
Shivuy, In the photo the buildings between the church and camera appear to have been photo-shopped in. I believe the street shown is Meeting Street; Broad Street runs at a right angle to Meeting on the far side of the church. I am sure that when the buildings get built the shutters will be fully operable.
"Odd how modernists want a walkable, mixed use, high density, city with buildings built with the climate in mind..."
Volunteer, most people want this, and the point is that none of the above goals require any particar style. Any style of architecture can contribute to those goals.
And as said above: no one wants to flatten Charleston, or any other high-quality well -functioning existing environment. What many people want is to not be restricted by nostalgia; to be allowed to design and build buildings that are of our time.
Why do you always presume that those who want traditional places preserved are motivated primarily by nostalgia?
Truth is, pretty much the only people who want to build modernist architecture in places like this are modernist architects. By all means, build them if you want, just not in the historic center of Charleston.
Volunteer, The photo was taken from about 101 Broad Street. Check it out on Google Maps.
While you're on Google Maps, go to Aspen and look at the Aspen Art Museum's context.
"those who want traditional places preserved"
We're not talking about preservation. We're talking about severe restriction of style and expression when it comes to new construction.
We absolutely ARE talking about preservation. Preservation of the character of a neighborhood.
Its clearly not about architectural preservation, since we're talking about new buildings. So its about preserving "character". How do you define "character"? How do you know when "character" is being disrupted?
And since we're talking about new construction, is it possible to place character-based restrictions on new neighborhoods?
We are talking about new buildings in the historic core of Charleston, SC.
But what do you mean by "character"? Thats the part of this that seems political and irrational.
There are plenty of low quality new buildings in Charleston's historic core. So it seems like low-quality is fine as long as it somehow meets this amorphous standard of "character".
And buildings like the Carré d'art in Nimes show how idiotic and superficial American preservation theory is.
davvid and EKE your conversation reminds of this project below.
While in grad school had Winka Dubbeldam for studio and we visited her office in NYC and can't remember how we began talking about this building. It shows that in NYC with a Landmarks Preservation Committee you can put something 'modern' in, without offending everyone, etc...(text from her firms site)
"33 VESTRY // Tribeca's landmark district, originally a warehouse area, received a new ‘infill’. The choice not to copy a traditional building, but to focus on the quality of the Tribeca traditional buildings was highly appreciated by the NYC Landmark Committee."
Davvid, The church is St Michaels which has its columned entrance on Meeting Street. It appears to me that the photo was taken on Meeting Street one block south of the Meeting Street/Broad Street intersection. There are no buildings where the photoshopped buildings are now, just a brick wall along the sidewalk.
I'm offended.
:)
Aside from lining up with the other buildings on the street setback, and aligning one horizontal element with a prevailing line in the adjacent building (which is very successful, IMO), what are "qualities" of the other neighborhood buildings that this design focuses on?
Volunteer, Are you and Shivuy talking about the image at the top of THIS article or the NYtimes article?
I'll take a stab at it (you can obviously read the websites text...) so here goes nothing - Stone as the material instead of brick, even though the adjacent buildings have brick. A modern brick facade is considerably more flat than a traditional brick building that includes small iterations of the brick installation.
(not sure the above building by SHOP architects does what a traditional brick building does, it's kind of inverted decoration really, no trim but plenty of action in the sheething areas - pretty much decoration for decoration sake)
below is what 'modern' brick facade would have looked like
(Mies’ Memorial to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht (1926) /\)
So i think NO brick was a good choice.
The recessed space mid-way up actually makes the building (33 Vestry) read as if it had a base, something I call a water shelf given it's location, although doing the inverse here. As if the traditional design had functional purposes for doing this, ha...
Now I'm wondering if it should of had a cornice, but that would just be copying right? and given the proportions I would say the cornice would made it look squat versus the sky that appears above it.
EKE what do you think?
Davvid, you are correct. I interpreted the columns in the photo as being the ones in line along Meeting Street. Instead they are a couple of columns visible from Broad Street when the church entrance is viewed head on going east. Oddly enough the same photo is on another web site and the street is listed as Meeting Street also. But that is incorrect as well. The google earth street view does indicate that all of the buildings shutters are functional and not the plastic bolt-on kind.
Not bad, Chris. :)
you did as well as possible. No time now to give a thoughtful reply, but I will when I can.
There are many examples where modern/contemporary buildings tread lightly in historically sensitive locations without appearing faux historical. Contextually sensitive contemporary architecture should be acceptable to the Charleston aesthetes.
traditionalists must from now on wear 18th century wardrobes or Im not listening to them.
I do however find that there are many traits of "old" architecture that are superior, especially their longevity and materiality. modern architecture also has many superior qualities. The ism responsible for the shittyness of many "new" buildings is not modernism though...its capitalism....
Does anyone know how the hanging brick on Mies' memorial is supported? That's a gorgeous structure but I generally don't like to see hanging brick.
Here is modern brick:
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.