Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 07:30, 17 February 2021

2021-02-17T07:30:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:30, 17 February 2021
Line 96:		Line 96:
	* Zeitgeist.		* Zeitgeist.

−	[[Category:Conservation]]	+	[[Category:Conservation]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_News]] [[Category:DCN_Project_Knowledge]]

Designing Buildings at 17:11, 13 March 2020

2020-03-13T17:11:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 13 March 2020
Line 82:		Line 82:

	* Architectural styles.		* Architectural styles.
−	* ~~Art Deco.~~	+	* Authentic Reconstruction: authenticity, architecture and the built environment.
−	* Art Moderne.	+
−	* Arts and craft movement.	+
−	* Baroque architecture.	+
−	* Bauhaus.	+
	* Brazilian Modernism lecture.		* Brazilian Modernism lecture.
−	* City beautiful.
−	* Concept architectural design.
	* Contextualism.		* Contextualism.
	* Demolishing Modernism: Britain's lost post-war gems.		* Demolishing Modernism: Britain's lost post-war gems.
Line 96:		Line 90:
	* High-tech architecture.		* High-tech architecture.
	* International Style.		* International Style.
−	* Listing of Sainsbury's supermarket in Camden Town.
	* Modern building.		* Modern building.
	* Modernism.		* Modernism.
	* Neo-futurism.		* Neo-futurism.
−	* Nineteenth century architecture.
−	* Placemaking.
	* Postmodern architecture.		* Postmodern architecture.
−	* Rococo.
−	* The architectural profession.
−	* Urban design.
	* Zeitgeist.		* Zeitgeist.

	[[Category:Conservation]]		[[Category:Conservation]]

Designing Buildings at 17:09, 13 March 2020

2020-03-13T17:09:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 13 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =~~
−
	By Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros		By Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros

Line 47:		Line 45:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[File:~~Figure Four A~~.jpg]] Figure 4 A: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[File:Figure_Four_A.jpg\|link=File:Figure_Four_A.jpg]] Figure 4 A: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4 B: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure		[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4 B: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure
Line 65:		Line 63:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[File:~~Figure Five~~.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[File:Figure_Five.jpg\|link=File:Figure_Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.
Line 80:		Line 78:

	Michael W. Mehaffy received his Ph.D. in architecture at Delft Institute of Technology and has had five appointments in university architecture departments in five countries. He is currently a senior researcher with the Centre for the Future of Places at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Nikos Salingaros is a professor of mathematics and urbanism and an award-winning architectural theorist.		Michael W. Mehaffy received his Ph.D. in architecture at Delft Institute of Technology and has had five appointments in university architecture departments in five countries. He is currently a senior researcher with the Centre for the Future of Places at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Nikos Salingaros is a professor of mathematics and urbanism and an award-winning architectural theorist.
		+
		+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
		+
		+	* Architectural styles.
		+	* Art Deco.
		+	* Art Moderne.
		+	* Arts and craft movement.
		+	* Baroque architecture.
		+	* Bauhaus.
		+	* Brazilian Modernism lecture.
		+	* City beautiful.
		+	* Concept architectural design.
		+	* Contextualism.
		+	* Demolishing Modernism: Britain's lost post-war gems.
		+	* Eclecticism.
		+	* Form follows function.
		+	* High-tech architecture.
		+	* International Style.
		+	* Listing of Sainsbury's supermarket in Camden Town.
		+	* Modern building.
		+	* Modernism.
		+	* Neo-futurism.
		+	* Nineteenth century architecture.
		+	* Placemaking.
		+	* Postmodern architecture.
		+	* Rococo.
		+	* The architectural profession.
		+	* Urban design.
		+	* Zeitgeist.

	[[Category:Conservation]]		[[Category:Conservation]]

Nikos A. Salingaros at 22:34, 1 March 2020

2020-03-01T22:34:52Z

173.173.112.118 at 23:28, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T23:28:21Z

173.173.112.118 at 23:27, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T23:27:03Z

173.173.112.118 at 23:25, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T23:25:56Z

173.173.112.118 at 23:25, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T23:25:02Z

Nikos A. Salingaros at 17:09, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T17:09:14Z

Nikos A. Salingaros at 17:00, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T17:00:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 1 March 2020
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[File:~~Figure Three~~.jpg]]Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[File:Figure_Three.jpg\|link=File:Figure_Three.jpg]]Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that ~~[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/~~modernism~~%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]]~~ (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that modernism (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[~~w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial~~:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[File:Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4 A: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

−	[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4 B: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...		But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[~~w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial~~:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[File:Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 29 February 2020
Line 27:		Line 27:
	First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).		First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).

−	[[File:~~Figure Two~~.jpg\|link=~~/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special~~:~~Upload&wpDestFile=~~Figure_Two.jpg~~?1580415636&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1~~]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541	+	[[File:Figure_Two.jpg\|link=File:Figure_Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541

	Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.		Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[~~w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial~~:~~Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[File:Figure Three.jpg]]Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure		[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 29 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =		= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]	+	By Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros

	From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020		From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020

−	[[File:~~Figure One~~.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_One.jpg?1580415621&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain	+	[[File:Figure_One.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_One.jpg?1580415621&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain

	Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.		Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.
Line 27:		Line 27:
	First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).		First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DW~~/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DW~~/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DW~~/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DSpecial~~:Upload~~%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two~~.jpg~~%3F1580415636%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1~~&action=edit&redlink=1~~\|Figure Two.jpg~~]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541	+	[[File:Figure Two.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Two.jpg?1580415636&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541

	Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.		Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure		[[File:Figure_Four_B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 29 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =		= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]

	From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020		From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_One.jpg%3F1580415621%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_One.jpg%3F1580415621%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain

	Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.		Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.
Line 27:		Line 27:
	First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).		First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two.jpg%3F1580415636%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two.jpg%3F1580415636%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541

	Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.		Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DW~~/index.php~~%3Ftitle%3DSpecial~~:Upload~~%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_B~~.jpg~~%3F1580415712%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1~~&action=edit&redlink=1~~\|Figure Four B.jpg~~]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[File:Figure Four B.jpg\|link=/w/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=W/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B.jpg?1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1&action=edit&redlink=1]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...		But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 29 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =		= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]

	From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020		From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_One.jpg%3F1580415621&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_One.jpg%3F1580415621%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain

	Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.		Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.
Line 27:		Line 27:
	First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).		First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two.jpg%3F1580415636&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two.jpg%3F1580415636%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541

	Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.		Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_B.jpg%3F1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure Four B.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_B.jpg%3F1580415712%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Four B.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...		But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610&action=edit&redlink=1\|~~File:~~Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 29 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =		= Colonialist Modernism Strikes Again =

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Safari~~-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/author/michael-mehaffy-nikos-salingaros%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros]]

	From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020		From ArchDaily, 2 February 2020

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_One~~.jpg%3F1580415621\|File:Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_One.jpg%3F1580415621&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure One.jpg]] Figure 1: Under new EU policy, the faithful reconstruction of, say, the campanile in Venice after a collapse (as happened in 1902) would be forbidden, and instead a “contemporary” insertion would be required — perhaps like this Madrid building?. Image © Public Domain

	Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.		Imagine the following scenario. It is 1902, and to the great shock and distress of the citizens of Venice, the beautiful campanile tower in its Piazza San Marco has just collapsed. That very evening, the city’s communal council votes to approve 500,000 Lire for the prompt rebuilding, “com’era, dov’era” — “as it was, where it was”. Future residents and visitors alike may now continue to enjoy this beautiful structure, which had also been restored and added to many times previously.
Line 27:		Line 27:
	First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).		First, there is the sheer value of economic development in places like, for example, the rebuilt historic center of Warsaw. Tourists come to such a place to revel in its atmosphere and its beauty, and to dig into its history — whereupon they may learn, through appropriate interpretive materials, all about the postwar reconstruction (a historic event in its own right). A prohibition against creating such an economic as well as cultural treasure — forbidden purely on stylistic grounds — would carry potentially enormous negative economic impacts. In some cases, these impacts would be felt most by remote communities that can ill afford to do without the appeal of reconstructed heritage (suitably identified as such).

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_Two~~.jpg%3F1580415636\|File:Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Two.jpg%3F1580415636&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure Two.jpg]] Figure 2: Warsaw’s beautiful and much-loved Old Town, a major economic engine of the city, was entirely rebuilt after the Nazis leveled it in World War II. Such a reconstruction would be forbidden under new EU policies. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Users Jedrzej1224 / Olaf1541

	Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.		Second, there is the troubling spectacle of experts arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to dictate what kinds of environments regular citizens may occupy and enjoy. Human environments must accomplish many goals, only one of which is to tick professional boxes of what some group considers as historic “authenticity”. They must also delight, comfort, support, and adapt to human needs. One of the ways we ensure they do so, particularly in a democracy, is to involve the citizens in the shaping of their own environments. By contrast, there is something fundamentally undemocratic about experts dictating “a project SHALL use contemporary design”. Of course, it is those same experts (and their architect advisors) who then deem what constitutes “contemporary” design.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.		This is complete nonsense. History is not a line but a fugue, with revivals and recreations and novelties all mixed up together. Nor is there one authoritative source of the “correct” expression of a given time and place, but rather, there are almost always multiple competing claims to expression of a given time or a given culture. That is an essential part of history, and we do ourselves no service by oversimplifying history to a neatly linear one-track scheme. Historians today acknowledge this complexity and multiplicity, and are focused on providing interpretive materials to allow viewers to sort out these complex and often competing narratives for themselves.

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_Three~~.jpg%3F1580415690\|File:Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Three.jpg%3F1580415690&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure Three.jpg]] Figure 3: History is not a line but a fugue, full of recapitulations and revivals. Here Jefferson revived Palladio and Roman architects. Image Courtesy of Dino Marcantonio

−	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=~~Safari~~-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.	+	Where, then, did the impetus for this stylistic dictate come from? The answer is all too simple: from stylistically biased architects, who hold the conceit that [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSafari-reader://www.archdaily.com/tag/modernism%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&action=edit&redlink=1\|modernism]] (and its new postmodern variants) is the one and only authentic architecture of our time. Curiously, it was also the architecture of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s… and apparently, all future time too. One thing is certain: anything like revival or reconstruction of what existed before 1930 — or even any new construction building on traditional pattern and precedent — must be forbidden.

	This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:		This philosophy was perfectly summarized by the enormously influential Athens Charter, purportedly the outcome document of the 1933 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne conference, but written mostly by the architect Le Corbusier and published a decade later. Here is Le Corbusier’s pronouncement, in Article 70 of the Charter, on new construction in historic contexts:
Line 47:		Line 47:
	We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.		We can be thankful that history is far richer and more complex, and that it exhibits the ready capacity to compound, to learn, and to evolve over time. Like natural systems, our human systems are able to build on what came before, not simply discarding it (in the modernist Walter Gropius’ tart phrase, “starting from zero.”) A biological analogy for that severe restriction might be that evolution may not use the rich genetic material of pre-existing organisms, but must always start over again with, say, amoebas.

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_A~~.jpg%3F1580415704\|File:Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_A.jpg%3F1580415704&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure Four A.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_Four_B~~.jpg%3F1580415712\|File:Figure Four B.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Four_B.jpg%3F1580415712&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure Four B.jpg]] Figure 4: The mandate for only “contemporary design” would not only forbid literal historic revivals, but also locally contextual eclectic fusions of new and old, like these buildings by the architect Christopher Alexander in Eishin, Japan. Image © Center for Environmental Structure

	But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...		But among architects, the 1933 Charter of Athens was a profoundly influential document, and it is difficult to over-state the impact on the human environment ever since. The results — eviscerated historic districts, sprawling suburbs, freeways slicing cities to pieces, and so on — have been profoundly negative, as many urbanists have since recognized. The idea that everything must be radically new, must be stripped of all ornament, must avoid ALL associations with the forms and patterns of the past — the enormity of that restriction, the enormity of its impacts around the world —is hard to grasp. Again to use an analogy from genetic evolution, this would be like saying to a dolphin, “your dorsal fin looks far too much like a shark’s, yet you are from 300 million years later — that fin design is old, outdated, and traditional, and therefore it has to go!” Perhaps the dolphin might adopt a swoopy fin too...
Line 65:		Line 65:
	This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!		This article flies in the face of the mandate for “contemporary” insertions, which often violate the scale, mass, form, color, etc. (The crucial question not usually asked: why this stubborn insistence on breaking every form of harmony?) Article 6 also clearly opens the door to sympathetic new construction in a similar traditional form that acts to “preserve the traditional setting” and the “relations of mass and color” — assuming that the new work can be differentiated through some kind of “contemporary stamp”. This could be literally — as in the photo below — a date stamp!

−	[[w/index.php?title=~~Special~~:Upload~~&wpDestFile=Figure_Five~~.jpg%3F1580415610\|File:Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps	+	[[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSpecial:Upload%26wpDestFile%3DFigure_Five.jpg%3F1580415610&action=edit&redlink=1\|File:Figure Five.jpg]] Figure 5: This building in a traditional character, located in the historic Nob Hill District of Portland, has a literal date stamp on its front showing its construction in 1992. No one would be fooled as to its historic origins. Image via Google Maps

	It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.		It must be noted here that, although the current proposal is for an EU regulation, this is not merely a European problem. After all, as a colonial power, Europe has historically been enormously influential in imposing its urban and architectural theories on the rest of the world, not least in its invention of the modernist “International Style”. The decision-making economic and political classes in other countries are unfortunately still swayed by these ideologies, as evidence shows — to the great detriment of local architectural and urban cultures. This is all the more ironic since, having ousted former colonial powers, many national governments continue to uncritically follow fashionable ideologies from power centers elsewhere.