|
Architecture may be defined as a combination of function and beauty in the art
of building. Until the mid-19th century, all building was governed by three
structural principles: the post and lintel, the wooden truss, and the masonry
arch. From then, and especially since the 1930s, architecture has been revolutionized by the use of new materials, basically the steel skeleton and
reinforced concrete. Thus, structures were freed from the weight limitations
imposed by stone and brick at each floor level, so that greater flexibility in
design was possible and virtually no limitation imposed on height. From very
early times until the 19th century, building limitations had imposed certain styles
on architecture, now known as classical styles. In the 20th century, certain
innovative architects, such as Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies van den Rohe
broke away from these styles and produced fundamentally new buildings both
for public and domestic use. Most modern architecture derives from these
pioneers.
Such is a very general statement about what has happened in the Western
world. All countries, however, have their indigenous architecture, differing
widely in outward appearance but historically limited by the same weight
considerations as have applied in the West. Alongside this, the new
architecture has been adopted in the East. An observer could stand in Hong
Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, London or New York, and not note any essential
differences. However, many capital or large cities have placed these new
buildings alongside traditional examples, with dire results. St Paul's Cathedral
in London is overshadowed by a skyscraper bank complex, a tragedy to
anyone with aesthetic values. Wren's magnificent structure once dominated the
high ground on the north bank of the Thames and was visible from most parts
of London. This is no longer so. The Prince of Wales has rightly
castigated the
modern architects who have been responsible for this visual vandalism.
Partly as a result of his efforts, the problem of inappropriate architecture is now being taken seriously in Britain. Local planning authorities are made well aware
of public feeling. Where, for example, there exists a high-street facade
belonging to the 18th - 19th century in a small town, any new buildings are
made to conform to this particular style. Not all countries take this line. There
are, for example, no planning regulations in Spain. As a result, visual vandalism
is unrestrained.
The above indicates the writer's prejudices! Yet it also raises various pertinent
questions. For example, what is beauty? Is it an abstract constant, or does it
lie in the eye of the beholder ? And what is practical? Is it, in domestic
architecture, something which solves the problem of housing, insofar as roofs
over heads are provided, or should it have a social dimension?
It is generally accepted nowadays that buildings should match up to the
traditions of the cities, towns or villages where they are built. Thus, new
buildings in Regent's Park or Regent Street in London, have to conform to
Nash's neo-classical style. In other areas in Britain, Elizabethan half-timbering
may predominate. This cannot be copied, but ways to conform can be, and
are found. In many London areas, the hideous and inhuman tower-blocks of
the 50s and 60s are being demolished in favor of old-style low level and
terraced housing with gardens. Thus the social dimension is being re-introduced into domestic architecture, and this fosters a sense of collective and
personal identity completely absent in the large complexes of flats and maisonettes, where conditions are depressing, and where vandalism and crime
flourish.
Except where there are severe space limitations and little traditional architecture
of much aesthetic importance, as in Hong Kong, many countries now realize
that some kind of compromise is the right way forward. Obviously. the
advantages of the new materials should be exploited. Height is a crucial factor.
Traditional facades can be combined with modern interiors without doing
violence to the advantages of either. Beauty and practicality are not mutually
exclusive considerations. You can throw a bad picture away or destroy a bad
sculpture. Not so a bad or inappropriate building. We owe it to future
generations to be extremely careful.
|
