But that's not brick...
After reading a few blog posts and learning about Kenneth Frampton, I realize that the Charleston BAR is particularly a good discussion when it comes to how a city is developed. Not only from a historical standpoint, but also from a public perspective. I also studied with Jessica in Charleson last semester and she mentioned that even material is scrutinized under the BAR. This is true and I think something that is a positive and negative part of the BAR. Being from Charleston, myself more than anyone, never wants to see something like a crazy, glass skyscraper go up in the middle of the downtown historical urban fabric. However, some of the projects I have witnessed being presented through the BAR often get turned down because it ultimately becomes the public decision. Kenneth Frampton expressed how cities should strive to help the city as a whole. I think the BAR’s goal is also this, but sometimes the biased opinion takes over the final decision. The public who live, walk, and breathe their city, should always have a right to stand up for how they want to live, walk, and breathe around these buildings.
Molly, after living for a brief time in Charleston and seeing so much of the city change as quickly as it is, I understand your view. The BAR and other boards within cities should mitigate but not limit the growth of the city. It is important for members to recognize what makes a city unique and allow a growth in those elements, and not limit to use of such in a traditional, "old-fashioned" manner.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate this being brought up because my biggest issue the the BAR is how the mostly focus on the aesthetics. It seems like they have a "vernacular palette book" and their decisions are mostly based on material and form. My favorite quote from Towards a Critical Regionalism is "But it is necessary, as I have already suggested, to distinguish between Critical Regionalism and simple-minded attempts to revive the hypothetical forms of a lost vernacular". In Charleston it's a little different because the vernacular was never "lost", but I still think that the BAR loses the critical part of critical regionalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the above. There is something to be said for protecting Charleston from ugly architecture, but the rigid rules surrounding what can and cannot be built often hurt intentional modern architecture more than the developers that come into the city. I live downtown and have watched my street change drastically in the last 15 years. Several buildings have gone up that keep this "palette book" aesthetic but manifest in really cheap and annoying ways. I think if the BAR were to critically engage the history of Charleston rather than try and abide by some checklist, it would be a really cool city.
ReplyDelete