The other day I was thinking about 'green' architecture. Actually, I was thinking more about the concept of redemption, and the idea of using old buildings. I wonder if even the greenest of new green buildings is more wasteful than re-using (with appropriate system and insulation upgrades), old unused buildings. Even if just the structure of an old building can be salvaged, and reinvigorated, the old energy embodied in that skeleton (materials AND construction) is significant.
I was paging through this week's EYE magazine on the (infuriating) bus-ride to work this morning, and noticed a short letter that someone (Graeme Stewart) had written in response to an article. I never read the article, but I gather that it was some sort of critique of a lot of the failed modern architectural ideas of the 60s. This letter called for an environmentally sound approach of re-use, rather than EYE's suggestion of bulldozing ugliness.
A new architecture that exists within the skin and bones of dying buildings, reclaiming, reinterpreting, redeeming the past. This is quite a beautiful concept.
And what sort of aesthetic expression would suit this architecture? I have usually seen this sort of problem approached from a slightly grotesque, prosthetic, parasitic angle... (see: the ROM)... I don't really mind this sort of harsh juxtaposition of new and old, but I suspect there is a more sympathetic and sensitive alternative - one which values the old as much as the new, and turns even the scars and failures of the past into something beautiful...
9 comments:
Would you just shut up and go get a Ph.D. already and save us from a life of poverty?
;P
I don't think a PhD will save you from a life of poverty. At least not in the first 5 years...:)
also, what a beautiful idea indeed (redemption of old bldgs, I mean...NOT getting a phd, haha).
Dude, you need to come to Sweden!
Leah, that is what I've been telling Zellyn, too! (except in his case it will save him from a life of mind-numbing boredom.)
Heck, I've been considering embracing a life of poverty and getting my Ph.D.
it is a beautiful idea. and, as a beautiful idea, doesn't necessarily have to be turned into a dissertation in order to be (1) realized or (2) recognized.
(clear anti-grad-school bias here)
Sue
I was just thinking about how having ideas/thoughts doesn't qualify you for grad school as much as it qualifies you to be a normal functioning human..!
if you can believe it, i have a good buddy named graeme stewart who writes like that. i'm going to e-mail him and see if he wrote the blurb.
update on small world to follow.
I really like the idea of reusing instead of scrapping. I like that people are reclaiming wood as well and making new furniture out of it.
Although it's 10 times more expensive.
trent -- preach it, brother.
;)
Post a Comment