Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
One thing I have noticed is a lot of people seem to think there is a kind of authenticity that is separate from quality of work, materials, and use. The 19th century style building can only be authentic if it's from the 19th century. But I don't really see it that way. There is value in having neighbourhoods and districts that have a theme of coherent style and if the quality is good then what's the problem. Halifax has a certain kernel of the kind of skills needed for better masonry and woodworking on buildings but it has not really exploded as the city has grown.
It would be nice to see high-quality traditional carpentry work/detailing integrated into some new development. There are a couple examples like the Glubes townhouses. There are some close-but-not-quite-right examples like the Gladstone Ridge houses.
|
There are certainly differing perspectives on how to restore/rehabilitate old structures. This became a topic of conversation with the notre-dame reconstruction, since Viollet-Le-Duc, the last person to design the restoration of the cathedral, had a philosophy of using past architectural styles but making them grander with the aid of modern building techniques. His books describe someting along the lines of
"to restore [the building] to a state of completeness that may never have existed". For that reason, people argued the cathedral should not be replicated, and built to a grander scale using past styles.
I don't see anything wrong with improving heritage buildings using modern techniques, so long as it is respecting past craftmanship and style. Even if the storm porch on my Halifax example was lost, the building is certainly much nicer today.
There are exceptions of course, say for example having a certain story attached to that building. Perhaps you would want to preserve the structure as experienced in that era.
Really, either approach is good. There are other credible philosophies as well.