FEBRUARY 2010 » book review

The Decade's Most Important Book on Urban Architecture

The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation
by Steven W. Semes
W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY; 2009
272 pp; hardcover; profusely illustrated with b&w and color images; $60
ISBN 978-0-393-73244-3

Reviewed by Clem Labine

With the publication of this volume, Steven Semes has vaulted into the first rank of contemporary architectural critics and preservation theorists. He casts an informed eye over American cities and finds things going terribly wrong with our treasured historic urban fabric. Ironically, many of the problems Semes identifies are rooted in current preservation theory. The book goes on to show how and why preservation theory went wrong and – most important – suggests a path that will lead to more civilized, socially responsible and aesthetically pleasing urban environments. In particular, he lays out an intelligent, consistent basis for making design decisions about additions to old buildings and insertions into existing neighborhoods – a more rational guide than is provided by the current Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

This book rejects the Modernist ideology that is embedded in current preservation philosophy, which has led to government promotion of architecturally dissonant construction in historic places. Instead, Semes argues persuasively that visual wholeness and architectural continuity of historic areas should be the paramount design imperative. In many historic settings, new traditional architecture provides the best route to harmony with existing building fabric, and Semes calls for rethinking preservation policies that have blocked the use of compatibly styled traditional design.

The author details how centuries of building culture and architectural tradition have been shunted aside in favor of abstract theory. The net result has been that much new construction in historic areas has pleased a handful of architectural critics, but has dismayed the vast majority of people who live in and use the spaces every day. The book lays out a new conservation ethic that fosters beautiful, environmentally sustainable, pedestrian-centered and economically viable places.

The Central Problem
If you have ever presented a project to a landmark commission or a design review board, you've probably encountered the problem addressed in this book. Governmental review bodies, lacking any other written preservation guidelines, frequently fall back on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for guidance when approving additions to old buildings or for new construction in historic districts. Although the Secretary's Standards technically apply only to projects being submitted for Federal tax credits, the Standards have become de facto preservation policy for the entire country.

As a result, when considering design proposals for additions and infill construction, officials are likely to rely on this phrase from the Secretary's Standard #9: "The new work shall be differentiated from the old . . ." Unfortunately, there is much disagreement about how this differentiation should be made. Traditionalists point out that you can differentiate new work from old simply by bronze plaques and cornerstones with dates on them. However, advocates for Modernist architecture have seized upon this "differentiation" clause to argue that only new construction in radically contrasting styles will adequately inform John Q. Public which is old construction and which is new.

Since there's no doubt that Modernist design looks different from traditional design, many review boards adopt this "take no chances" approach, safe in the knowledge they have conformed to the Standard's call for "differentiation," and therefore can withstand any challenge – no matter how bizarre the new design might appear to the public.

Theory vs. Beauty
Author Semes traces the root of the "differentiation" problem to the preservation philosophy set forth in the 1964 Venice Charter, which became the foundation of post-war preservation theory and practice. Among other things, the charter declared that additions to historic monuments "must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp," revealing a prejudice in favor of Modernist design. (The architects drawing up the charter were all trained as Modernists.) The Venice Charter incorporated a philosophy that views historic buildings as artifacts "of their own time" – a time that can never be recaptured. This theory turns historic buildings into inviolable museum objects, instead of part of a living building tradition that extends into our time. This theory is also in direct opposition to the building culture that had operated continuously for three millennia.

When the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation were issued in 1977, they incorporated much of the philosophy found in the Venice Charter. The Modernist theory of historic buildings as exotic objects to be encased in amber was echoed in the Secretary's requirement for "differentiation" of additions. While the majority of the Standards have withstood the test of time, the "differentiation" clause has been the cause of some particularly bizarre architectural mischief.

As part of treating historic buildings as untouchable objects of another time, the Venice Charter also discouraged restoration or reconstruction of historic buildings. This obsession with "false history" found its way into the Secretary's Standard #3: "Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken." The Standards' admonitions on "differentiation" and "false history" are certainly at variance with centuries of building practice. Imagine what we'd have today if Thomas Ustick Walter had been told in 1855 that his new wings and dome for the U.S. Capitol should not create "false history" by using the same classical style that Thornton, Latrobe, and Bulfinch had used for the original building.

Semes demonstrates that since there is so much excellent new work being done today in traditional styles, it cannot be argued that Modernism is the only style that is "of our time." Nevertheless, advocates for Modernist design have vigorously promoted this view as part of the "differentiation" concept, and through repetition the notion has gained general acceptance. Semes' purpose with the book is to challenge this unquestioned acceptance.

Continuity vs. Rupture
The author illustrates how the principles of traditional design, operating across centuries, have created places loved by people through the ages – even though these public ensembles are composed of buildings of different styles. Continuity of an underlying building culture gives these historic spaces a sense of harmony and beauty – qualities that make them lovable. Modernist philosophy discarded the principles of this building culture – calling for "rupture" rather than "continuity" in architectural settings. To Semes, this is the triumph of "the head over the heart," whereby abstract theory overrules love of beauty. This preoccupation with abstraction poses a great threat to the character of historic places that preservationists claim to love.

Semes examines the four possible approaches to new construction in existing settings: (1) Literal replication; (2) Invention within a style; (3) Abstract reference to historical style; (4) Intentional opposition. The author does not insist that one is better than the other; rather he shows that each is a valid instrument in the toolbox of architects and preservation officials. Each must be used wisely – just like any other tool. The first three can enhance aesthetic and historic compatibility – and have been employed successfully for centuries, as Semes' photos illustrate.

The fourth option, intentional opposition, creates a rupture, both visually and philosophically, with millennia of building tradition. It's this fourth approach that has been greatly overused in our older cities, the author contends. Semes also notes ironically that officialdom's one major exception to "differentiation" is when there is to be additions or infill adjacent to older Modernist buildings: in these cases, only another Modernist building is acceptable. Obviously a double standard is at work.

The New Conservation Ethic
The book concludes by calling for a modern conservation ethic that combines head and heart. Semes' new conservation ethic emphasizes: (a) Environmentally sustainable construction; (b) Accommodation of the physical, social and spiritual needs of inhabitants; (c) The healing power of beauty. His goal is to replace preservation's current double standard with a more humanist ethic that applies a single set of values to all cultural resources regardless of style.

Under this new conservation ethic, for example, respect for traditional building styles is called for in new construction where traditional design defines the basic character of the setting. Daring experiments in building shapes and technologies have their place – but not in areas where radical design injures the essential nature of historic buildings and neighborhoods.

The new conservation ethic also dovetails with New Urbanism as rising energy cost directs attention to revitalization of run-down urban cores. The challenge will be to integrate new construction with historic resources to create aesthetically coherent streetscapes where people will want to live. Semes cites work that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. has done in downtown Providence, RI, as one potential model for the future.

Semes also notes that current policy is calling for preservation of icons of suburban sprawl in order to preserve "the architecture of the recent past." However, efforts to immortalize architectural forms that promote energy extravagance and social isolation would be contrary to a conservation ethic that aims to foster a sustainable civil society.

A Book for Many Audiences
Semes provides sufficient intellectual gravitas for his opus to be a valuable textbook when teaching historic preservation and urbanism. But the book's clarity and precision also make it a practical guide for urban planners, developers and designers tasked with creating additions or infill for historic areas. It also should be must reading for all preservationists and people serving on landmark commissions and design review boards.

In addition, one hopes this new treatise will be studied closely by everyone in the National Park Service who interprets and applies the Secretary of the Interior's Standards – especially those with the power to make the needed modifications to the Standards and Guidelines. And it would be wonderful if the book finds its way into the hands of Ken Salazar, the current Secretary of the Interior. Salazar might find it surprising to see the havoc being wrought in his name to historic places across the US. TB

Clem Labine, editor emeritus of Traditional Building magazine, is the founder of Traditional Building, Period Homes and Old-House Journal magazines. He has received numerous awards, including awards from The Preservation League of New York State, The Arthur Ross Award from the Institute of Classical Architecture & Classical America (ICA&CA) and The Harley J. McKee Award from the Association for Preservation Technology (APT). Labine was a founding board member of the ICA&CA. He served on the board until 2005 when he moved to Board Emeritus status. His blog can be found at www.traditional-building.com.

WEB EXTRA: Additional photos relating to Steven W. Semes' The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation.

«BACK TO FEBRUARY 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Have something to say about this article? Feel free to comment!

Comments feed