The BAR's place in vernacular
Buildings are just as important to the culture and region as the natural environment is, and I understand and agree heavily with the need to adjust design to match historical sites. I want to look at Charleston for example. The BAR is so strict when it comes to its historical preservation that building design almost feels fully up to the board. It makes me think to some extent "do we even need architects in these regions when the BAR knows exactly what they want?" It's hard. Architects get turned down left and right trying to revitalize and old way of building and it doesn't make sense to me. Vernacular regionalism shouldn't be a thing that requires architecture to look exactly like the architecture of the past but should strive to integrated more modern techniques while keeping the flair of the past. I get that people want their city preserved but we dont live in that time anymore. You dont see victorian era buildings being built because we are over it now.
The bottom line is that vernacular is important and I agree with the BAR to an extent but they are starting to reach past the boundary of review into a a role of design and political stances that they should stay out of for the betterment of industrialization.
As someone who has worked for someone who held a position on the BAR of Charleston for quite some time, I regret never asking my boss about the diversity of the BAR. I wonder if it is run solely by architects from around the city or if they have the forefront to include historians, preservationists, and other disciplines. If not, I am certain that it would result in some more efficient and understandable comments that would be taken by the designers of the city a little easier.
ReplyDelete