Modern Vernacular
The vernacular architecture of a place, especially on old place, is derived from its context. Charleston is a very old city, by American standards, and has a very strong vernacular. The “single house” is an iconic identifier of the city. The narrow houses nestle into their long parcels with minimal street front. Piazzas can be found on the long side of the house, either the south or the west, to protect from the harsh sun and take advantage of the breeze. Some are raised several feet off the ground to avoid flood waters. These old houses were built with the city’s context in mind. They take advantage of the good, and guard against the bad.
Working in downtown Charleston has made me familiar with the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and all of the difficulties it can bring. The BAR is essential for protecting and enhancing the character of the city, and I do not envy their responsibility. Although the BAR is there purely for the good of the city, they often seem like the bad guy.
There are several different camps on how new architecture should be created in Charleston. There are some who believe that buildings should still look as if they were built in 1880, even though they are constructed with modern methods and materials. Others, particularly developers, want to force density and height into a primarily two and three story city. They are indifferent to a traditional facade, as long as they can get the most for their money. There are others who believe strongly in contemporary architecture, although sometimes too strongly. This camp can often ignore the surroundings in order to stand out.
These differing opinions cause a never ending struggle in the BAR. What should the city be? Are we preserving the past or falsifying it with copycat architecture? Are we diluting the vernacular with new additions? Perhaps the ideals of Critical Regionalism can help provide an answer. The single house developed as a product of the peninsula context. By reacting to the current context: sunlight, breeze, topography, flooding, adjacencies, etc. architects can develop a modern vernacular that blends seamlessly with the old. There is no need to falsify an architecture from the 1800s. Careful consideration of context can create a new vernacular architecture that blends with the old to enhance the city’s future.
I think Charleston and the BAR is a perfect example of this weeks readings. Many really great architects in Charleston are making a big impact and are using the "single house" strategy in new and interesting ways, but still some people downtown fight this method when we use too many contemporary building materials or make it look contemporary even though we are using a similar design strategy. How do we make the "average" person appreciate this way or is it even necessary? Perhaps we can't please everyone and we just have to know that we have designed to the best "good design" that we could.
ReplyDeleteI think its also a product of how buildings are being designed today. Now, we are constantly pushing the way we think about materials, tectonics, and aesthetics and I think what happens with situations like this is sometimes the essence of the single house is lost or unrecognizable to the "average" person. A perfect example is the building we were supposed to have for the CACC. The architect implied that the design accounted for traditonal Charleston Single House motifs. While this may have been so, the building felt out of context and utilized used too many contemporary building materials, as Rebecca mentioned. Im not sure either how we can work around this but im sure there can be a way to accomplish this.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good idea to update historic buildings using modern methods. Imagine people from the future look back all the evolution of historic buildings. The building itself is a timeline instead of a frozen specific time. Each phase of the timeline can also reflect the technology, social condition and culture at that time. Through the property of responding to the context, people can know how the city changes during the time.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what they are doing in Charleston, even though it can be frustrating for developers and designers alike. I think trying to preserve the historic character of Charleston has helped it more than hinder its development. Having these set limits allows a better integration with the old buildings and makes for more innovative design approaches because there is a context and a fabric that is worth keeping. Otherwise it would just devolve into another "Mount Plastic". I guess the question is how much freedom do we allow and how much are we allowed to deviate from the context?
ReplyDeleteI think there is a sweet spot when it comes to the design of new buildings and additions downtown. I agree that the truly historic buildings should be preserved as accurately as possible. The history of the city is what makes it. However, I believe new buildings or additions should speak their own language. The last picture on the post is of an addition to a carriage house on the Battery. It is one of my favorite pieces of architecture in the city. The glass face was added on to the historic carriage house and it is totally subservient to the grand house on the lot. The design accounts for the views of the water front and the situation of the existing buildings. It is quiet, yet distinct. Fifty years from now, the progression of the property will be obvious and a new layer can be added.
ReplyDelete