“It is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.”
John Ruskin (1849), Chapter VI: The lamp of Memory, in The Seven Lamps of Architecture
This contemporary-seeming quote by Ruskin prompts an important research question: If it is impossible to restore architecture that was once great or beautiful, what should we as architects do with all the rest, with that which is not so great, which is common, incomplete, maladjusted, ugly?
The current period in which city centres all over the world are being crystallised could it be the ideal moment to pose this question before the ‘preservation syndrome’ spreads to the rest of the city.
From an architectural standpoint, this preservation syndrome leads to an overvaluation of extant building structures. Age is no guarantee of architectural quality; on the contrary, a natural process of selection should lead to renewal. Yet new and contemporary programmes remain liable to error. If in certain cases the possibility of adequacy can be successfully deployed in the spatial identity of the building, in others a change of spatial use fails, leading to inconsistent meaning. How should we proceed? Rehabilitation? Renovation? Demolition?