Thoughts on Building Conservation

Abstract:

The aim of the article is to understand Conservation as intent and as practice. Different terms associated with the process have been spelled out and defined for clearer understanding of the related issues, to develop one’s theoretical position and to question the intent of the people involved, namely, the owners, the care-takers and the professionals. The opinions expressed may be seen as conflicting but debate is centered on doing what is theoretically right.

Architecture is the art and science of designing buildings and other physical structures.

Architecture is both the process and product of planning, designing and constructing space that reflects functional, social, and aesthetic considerations. A wider definition may comprise all design activity from the macro-level (urban design, landscape architecture) to the micro-level (construction details and furniture).

John Ruskin, in his book Seven Lamps of Architecture, says, while referring to architecture “We may live without her, worship without her, but we cannot remember without her”, thus establishing a connection between architecture and memories. Spaces are inextricably woven with our memories.

Building conservation talks about conserving the architecture in turn to conserve the memories attached to it. Conservation as a term has an extremely broad meaning which encompasses anything that helps to ensure the survival of something of value. Where historic buildings and artifacts are concerned, conservation starts with simple maintenance and repair work but the term also includes alterations and other proactive measures which are required to ensure the survival of a part or a whole.

From the moment a building is first constructed, its deterioration starts: the forces of nature and of general wear and tear erode its surfaces and fabric, and intermediate alterations carried out over the years gradually replace original components, altering its character and sometimes compromising its structure. Where the building in question is of historic interest, or is simply old and beautiful, its deterioration can be tragic for everyone who loves the building, and its loss may impair the beauty of its surroundings. Conservation is the process designed to halt this decline.

I am an architect and happen to love old buildings. I still cherish memories associated with my grandparents’ house which was at least hundred years old before it was abandoned because it was deemed ‘unfit’ for further use. It had lived its life to the fullest and now it was time to say goodbye. The honourable thing was to let it go. Why should we restore an old building which can no longer be used and is dead? Why should we put it on life support or mummify by assigning it some passive function of a museum. Isn’t it already a relic? It is better to tear it down and do something constructive out of its debris rather than change its character by plastic surgery. Furthermore, how do we decide which building should be conserved? Taking the case of an old palace in ruins, which once must have served as a residence for a king, even after restoration and conservation will never be reused for the purpose it was designed for. Why should it be frozen in some time frame and for what?

A building which has stood the test of time and is still in use has proved itself as timeless. It has braved through ages owing to continuous care and use, adaptive or otherwise. It should become the responsibility of the users and people in charge to take care of it. Such a structure, in the true sense earns the right to be conserved.

“The principal of modern times is to neglect the buildings first and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments and you will not need to restore them.” - Ruskin

It is imperative to understand what it is that is to be salvaged. It’s the character of the building which needs to be saved. A human analogy can be appropriately considered with respect to buildings. Every person has a character, which is meant to be stable and fixed, something one ‘settles into’, and any alteration (unless it is the redemption of bad character in case of literature) is seen as unfortunate. The same can be said for buildings. Every building has a character which is historically constructed and has its own history. This character is inbuilt – not applied. Character can be destroyed by remarkably small differences in detail. Serious damage can be caused by simple things like pointing a stone or brick wall with a modern mortar, or coating the exterior surface of a solid wall with a waterproof material.

A distinction needs to be made between conservation, preservation and restoration which are often erroneously used to mean the same thing. The term 'preservation' is generally used to distinguish a particular type of conservation work sometimes referred to as ‘conservation as found’, in which the fabric is preserved in the state in which it was at the start of the project.

Restoration is another term used erroneously to mean conservation. Here the issues are more complex, since some restoration work may involve stripping away historic alterations to reveal earlier fabric, and in most restoration work new material is introduced to match missing components. In this respect the aim of restoration is clearly different from that of conservation, and some restoration work may actually damage the historic character of the building. Nevertheless, most conservation work involves some element of restoration, particularly where essential repairs are carried out to match the original form of a decayed component, where the aim is primarily to conserve fabric. But, replacing an old components or erecting walls on exposed foundations do not serve the purpose. What finally stands as the end product in form of the new structure is a bad imitating the original. Of what consequence is this new structure, erected on the grave of the original, imitating the original is debatable. How can one copy a surface which is worn down by half an inch?

It is through Ruskin that we first realize the necessity to make a crisp distinction between 'restoration' and 'repair', and it is a distinction of fundamental importance. Ruskin felt that “…restoration means the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed”. He goes on to say; “It is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture” where he compares a living being to a building. In context to the tearing down of St. Owen abbey in France he commented “The principal of modern times is to neglect the buildings first and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments and you will not need to restore them.”

The policy of ‘minimum intervention’ lies at the heart of conservation philosophy today. Minimal intervention argues that as much of the original fabric of a building as possible is saved. These will be the elements which carry the marks of age, not merely the marks of the tooling, but of the weathering, decay, and consequent repair of the fabric.

Jonathan Taylor describes what he calls ten ways to ruin an old building. They are as follows:

1. Employ consultants and contractors who do not specialize in historic building work

2. Do not carry out any essential maintenance work

3. Use cement in place of lime for mortars

4. Paint or coat surfaces which were originally left natural

5. Extend or alter the accommodation in a manner which conflicts with its style

6. Introduce mix-and-match ‘period style’ detail

7. Replace original components unnecessarily

8. Position modern services and equipment intrusively

9. Use cleaning methods which damage original surfaces

10. Overload an existing structure

Taken out of context, this long list of don'ts would no doubt cement many people’s view that conservation is all about freezing buildings and places in a perpetual time warp at the expense of any function. Although conservation does not mean freezing a building in its present state for perpetuity, it does mean that all alterations must be carefully justified beforehand, taking into account not only the affect of the works in the short term but also their consequences for the building, its character, historic interest and its functionality in the future.

In sum, conservation philosophy can be seen either positively or negatively. It can generate much discussion, or it can reinvigorate and inform our decision taking about the care and repair of historic buildings. There are strong arguments for acknowledging that dealing with buildings of the Modern Movement needs a different approach, which is beyond the scope of this article.

References

1. The Seven Lamps Of Architecture – By John Ruskin

2. The Anatomy of Theory – an essay by James Simpson, the author of British Guide to the principles of conservation of historical buildings BS7913:1988

3. Jonathan Taylor, editor of The Building Conservation Directory

4. A Question of Ethics – The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings, 1995, an essay by Peter Burman, Director, Centre for Conservation Studies, loAAS, University of York.

5. Synopsis – Conservation Theories at the end of Nineteenth Century, Architectural Institute of Japan

6. www.buildingconservation.com

7. www.wikipedia.com

About Author:

Neeti Gupta is a student of architecture, currently pursuing Masters in Architectural Theory and Design at CEPT University, Ahmedabad.