Yvonne Lee ponders on

the appropriate criteria for

judging modern architecture

THE DILEMMA OF ‘LISTING’

MODERN BUILDINGS

Everyone is familiar with the concept of

preserving the old and beloved mediaeval

cathedral, and to a lesser extent the

eccentricities of the Victorian age, but

what of ‘modern architecture’ and the

problems that its preservation brings? For

example:

•

should modern buildings be protected

in a manner comparable to old buildings?

•

are modern buildings worthy of

retention?

•

how is a perspective to be gained in a

subject that is prey to aesthetic and

personal judgement?

A concern for the conservation of the

built environment is not a modern

phenomenon; for example, in 1715

Nicholas Hawksmoor was advocating

conservation based upon the philosophy

of custodianship; a concept taken up by

William Morris over 150 years later.

Morris believed that the custodianship by

the present generation of the architecture

of the past was important not least as

evidence of the needs and aspirations of

ordinary people, and his conviction was

that a vernacular architecture of the

future could only develop by the study of

the forms and techniques of the past.

Individuals such as Hawksmoor and

Morris were eloquently expressing the

views shared by many people and were

undoubtedly outlets for current public

opinion. So-called classes of preservable

buildings have all attracted varying

degrees of reference and action to

preserve, for example Society of

Antiquaries, SPAB and the Victorian

Society. All these organisations were

conceived in a surge of emotional

reaction against what was seen as ignorant

destruction.

While popular opinion has spawned

many reputable conservation-oriented

lobbies it must none-the-less be

concluded that current popular taste, or

fashion, is a poor guide to how and which

particular buildings should be preserved.

This is particularly true of 20th century

architecture which has come to mean all

things to all men. In asking for peopl&s

views as to good examples of the period,

one should not be surprised to receive a

diversity of views, from Le Corbusier to

the high-tech of Rogers and Foster. If

fashionable tastes had been allowed to

prevail, so-called monstrosities such as St

Pancras Station and Hotel would have

been demolished without a murmur in

the 1950s.

It is undoubtedly public opinion that

has led and legislation followed in the

sphere of conservation and preservation.

The first principles governing

conservation in this country today

undoubtedly flow from this concept of

custodianship and the need to protect the

built environment or at least key parts of

it for future generations; this esoteric

philosophy which makes conservation

such an emotive subject has been taken

up and accepted by the legislator,

currently culminating in the 1990 Act

and the newly published PPG15.

PPG15 provides valuable advice on

the listing of buildings and in particular

the criteria used to assess such buildings.

Unfortunately, the guidance still remains

locked into a time perspective, with the

age of the building remaining all-

important. Architecture through time

within the parameters of current

legislation and guidance is not viewed in

a balanced or objective manner. The

emphasis, whether intentional or

otherwise, remains firmly with ‘old’

buildings.

But if one accepts the principle of

custodianship as the guiding philosophy

in the conservation of our built heritage,

then modern architecture must be

considered for retention and protection in

a manner which respects its very peculiar

needs. It is recognised that this will not be

an easy task. Undoubtedly modern

architecture, and in particular post 1945

architecture, has been a period of great

creativity and of major building

opportunities:

•

no preceding period has seen such

diversity of style;

• the range of building types as well as

styles has greatly altered and widened, eg

high-tech industrial, leisure, new concepts

in retail development, and major

engineering projects;

• many immediate post war buildings

were built to very tight budgets using

inexpensive materials and employing

experimental techniques, thus giving rise

to issues of quality and the high

maintenance cost liability;

• many post-war buildings were

constructed as a series rather than

individually.

The issue then becomes how best this

protection and preservation can be

achieved, and the question to be answered

is: where do we go from here?

I would suggest that there is a need

for greater public understanding and

appreciation of modern architecture. This

does not mean to say that suddenly the

1960s tower block should be rehabilitated

back into society. Rather a wider

awareness of architecture is required

which, for example, appreciates the

technological innovations and

inventiveness in the use of materials. This

would encourage objectivity to enter into

the debate. I also believe that clearer

guidelines for protecting the best of our

modern heritage need to be established.

The present system is a good starting

point but it is inadequate. Further

guidance is needed not only on the

criteria for listing buildings (which in part

has been addressed in PPG15 and in the

work currently being undertaken by

English Heritage in the identification of

exemplar buildings), but also positive

recognition needs to be given to the need

to allow modern buildings, in particular,

to evolve. If we are to leave original,

interesting and adventurous architecture

of the 20th century to future generations,

the paradox is that we must not be over

zealous in its infancy. Fundamentally, we

need to ensure that the system retains a

good perspective and, wherever possible,

CONTEXT 44