MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS

I. INTRODUCTION a highly-developed expression of the human quality ofsociety and of its historical continuity. Man had sud-denly corne to see himself in the works of his ownhands, and he now :)aw that such an unprecedented rateof development contained a threat of total destruc-tion for these very creations of his. The realization ofthis fact gave birth to the movement for the protectionof monuments, which strove to gain a foothold in orderto stem the tide and at least save what could be saved.This defensive movl~ment rapidly created its own legalstructures throughout Europe, and yet the role de-volving on it was, fTorn the outset, a role of oppositionto large sectors of society. It was possible to suppose atthe time that the town-planners, in view of the rise oftheir profession during the century, might be able withina few decades to pull down and rebuild all the ancientsettlements of Europe. Meanwhile that section of publicopinion which wa:) interested purely in the rapidprogress of material civilisation saw the protection ofmonuments as an obstacle to that progress and consid-ered that its sole purpose was to shield the past againstthe present and th,~ future. Fortunately, the face ofEurope as history had shaped it did not have to under-go a sudden and complete transformation; but as weknow, concern for the protection of monuments hadnothing to do with this.Thus for public opinion the enormous growth of thetowns and the simultaneous birth of the idea of protect-ing monuments were trends which ran in oppositionto one another, so that there was polarization ofopinions and attitudes on the basis of two extremeconceptions.There were, on the one hand, the extremist ideas ofthe partisans of conservation. The origin of theseideas dates from the 19th century: we are only toofamiliat with the mistaken and in some ways confusedideas which prevailed during the earliest decades of thelife of the movement. We need only refer to Dvorak,who, while ex pressing his pleasure at the greater respectnow shown for historical monuments and at their in-creased importance in culturallife, himself remarked, in1910, on the complete confusion of ideas with regardto the work requiring to be done, the conditions underwhich monuments !;hould be protected and even themotives behind their protection. This confusion, dueto an attitude and a system of reasoning which derivedfrom a generalizatio,n of purely subjective impressionsand feelings, was, it is true, gradually dissipated asdeas became cleart~r; but unfortunately certain mis-conceptions have slllrvived right into our day. The

The subject of this symposium of ours, arranged inconnection with the Third General Assembly of ICO-MOS, is "Contemporary architecture in ancient monu-ments and groups of buildings". At first sight it wouldappear to cover nothing more than the practical detailsrelating to the protection of monuments, and it was witbthis interpretation that the same subject was on theagenda for the first ICOMOS symposium, held at Ca-crs in 1967 and devoted to the problems connectedwith the conservation, restoration and revitalization ofareas and groups of buildings of historical interest. Itwas included in the Cacrs recommendations underpoint c. of the technica1 problems, under the title of"integration of modern architecture into the tissue ofold towns".It is certainly no accident if, from Point c. of the tech-nical problems the question bas now been promoted tothe rank of sole subject of a complete symposium. Webelieve we can now say tbat the problem of the connec-lion between contemporary architecture and ancientsettings is not just a tecbnical one; it is a fundamentaltheroretical problem for our discipline as a whole.Basically, what is it that we are talking about? We arediscussing the theoretical question of the relationsbipbetween the past and the present, the problem of thecreation of man's environment, or, in more generallerms, the philosophicill problems relating to man intimc and also in space. The subject we shall be dealingwith today therefore bas its roots in the very founda-lions of any protection of monuments, and the questionswe shall be needing to answer will go mu ch furtber thanproblems of detail of purely practical interest. Our taskwill be to define the part to be played by the protectionof monuments botb now and in the future and the placethis activity occupies in the awareness of contemporarysociety.Witbout wishing to enter here into its bistorical origins,l sball attempt to put forward a few ideas which willshow the true nature of the problem. In the bistory ofmankind, the 19th century represents the thresbold ofa scientific and tecbnical age wbicb some have venturedto compare, for its importance in bistory, with the ageof the discovery of implements and of fire. It is ccr-tainly no accident that it sbould have heen necessary towait until bistory took this turn to see European societyinterest itself in that background to its existence wbicbit bad itself created over the centuries. Such a back-ground is not inerely a place to live against; it is also

Fig. I. -St. Paul's Choir School in London designed by the Architects Co-partnership who won a limited competition in 1962.It is designed to frame the apse of St. Paul's Cathedral and the sculptural vigour of the campanile, both designed by Sir ChristopherWren.

ignorance of the importance of anc~ent complexes ofbuildings and with visible and complete indifferencetowards them. This attitude was responsible for thesacrifice of large numbers of irreplaceable works ofhistorical value alI over Europe; to take only our owncapital as an example, it is unfortunately true that theancient city centre on the Left Bank was almost entirelydestroyed towards the tum of the century to make roomfor inriumerable and more profitable apartment houses.ln the historic centre of Buda there are only a fewappalling traces to remind us of that period, but thisis due, not to any concern for the preservation ofmonuments, but to a fortunate turn in the developmentof the social and economic factors affecting urbanplanning.Are we therefore to be surprised if, for a whole sectionof public opinion, new building projects and the protec-tion of monuments appear to be two perfectly contra-dictory things, and if for a great many people a newbuilding in traditional surroundings is a dangerousmenace? Those who, out of respect for historical monu-ments, dread any introduction of contemporary archi-tecture in their vicinity can too often-and admittedly

result is that the prot~ction of monuments is seen evennowadays as an end in itself, and beauty is weighedagainst, or preferred to, truth and authenticity; theconception of the past is romntic and idealized, andany present-day interference is feared, if not categor-ically rejected.Meanwhile, the ever more rapid progress of materialcivilization, technology and economic development hadled large sectors of society to adopt a different but noless uncompromising attitude. These considered well-being and comfort as an end in themselves, weighedmaterial civilization against culture or preferred theformer, and idealized self-interest and tangible profits;in short, their distinctive feature was an absence ofinterest in the teachings. of history and a completerejection of the past.The consequences of these two extreme conceptionsmay be seen and studied both in the outward appear-ance of our towns and in the state of public opinion.Our sites invariably show open sores due primarily tothe large-scale urban development projects of the 19thcentury , though their number has been increased stillfurther by the successive alterations carried out in

Fig. 2. -Rowning College: new dining hall by Howell, Killick, Partridge & Amis. This new part of the College matches the GreekRevival building buiIt in 1875 by Wilkin.

a third attitude which consists in placing economic andtechnical development on a higher plane than life it-self and doing everything to secure maximum well-being and comfort even where these involve oblivionof the true and more profoundly human content of life.AlI of these conceptions have led, and are still leading,to large numbers of errors the world over, and are thusimperilling those treasures which the architects andtown-planners have created and prererved over somany centuries. Such errors are visibly detrirnentalto the culture of mankind, and thug serve to multiply thealready numerous objections raised by certain conser-vation specialists with regard to modem architecture.Indeed these errors explain, and even to an extentjustify, the mistrust, the reticences and the passivityinvariably shown from the very outset by the partisansof the protection of monuments wherever modemarchitecture or town-planning were talked of in thecontext of an ancient setting. lnstead of analysing thedeeper social and economic causes of the errors com-mitted, and denouncing them or attempting to deal withthem, they invariably reacted by assuming an attitudeof what we might calI "passive exclusiveness", involving

not without cause-invoke the dangers involved andthe errors more than once committed in the past, andstill being committed today, in the name of life, pro-gress, and the rights of those creators who are buildingour future.It would indeed scarcely be reasonable to delly thatthere exists an extremist attitude which goes so far asto treat historical monuments as mere hindrances to lifeand progress. Those who adopt this position see in themthe main obstacles to magnificent architectural projects,and would for this reason be perfectly prepared to doaway with them, or-from motives diametrically oppos-ed to those of their opponents--to relegate them towithin the walls of a few "museum" districts, so as tobanish them from life itself, in which they consider theyare no more than a nuisance. A different and moreindulgent attitude is adopted by some architects, who,without violently attacking monuments, confine them-selves to treating them as things of sentimental valuewhich should not be taken too seriously; in their opi-nion hisiorical monuments are playthings with no truerelation to life and the only appropriate reaction for thearchitect must be one of mere enjoyment. There is yet

spaces where the monuments had once stood and theproblems raised by the entire groups of ancient build-ings damaged or in ruins once again brought to theforefront the question of reconstruction principles andmethods. It is understandable that the enormous scaleof the devastation and the size of the losses sufferedshould have created a situation in no way conducive toa considered study of these principles and methods,and in several parts of Europe there was wholesalereconstruction of ancient monuments and complexes ofbuildings completely destroyed during the war. Publicopinion, which was neither able nor willing to resignitself to their voluntary destruction on so unprecedenteda scale, decided, as a gesture of protest, to resurrectthem, which in fact meant an experiment for whichthere was likewise no historical precedent. Thedemand for su ch reconstruction came, not from a fewexperts on the protection of monuments, but from so-ciety itself, and in circumstances which were dramatic.Even before they had enough to eat again, people want-ed their traditional surroundings back, and this at atime when the very continuance of their physicalexistence was at ~;take. Nothwithstanding ail its contra-dictions, this great tragic experience served as a demon-stration that man and society are un able to live withouthistorical surroundings, and that if some catastrophedeprives them of these surroundings they will attempteven the impossible in order to get them back.In most cases such work was considered without ques-tion to be unique and exception al and certain not to berepeated, and not as the embodiment of a change inthe principles laid down on the international level asearly as the '30's in connection with the protection ofmonuments, ar a systematic rejection of these princi-pies. Nevertheless, whether deliberately or otherwise,such work was in fact contrary ta the said principlesand an encouragement to th ose who questioned baththe necd for a theoretical basis for the protection ofmonuments, and the importance of authenticity. At thesame time there could be observed the development ofa practice which appeared to open up a new possibilityfor building within ancient groups of buildings; itconsisted in reconstructing with the aid of photographsand drawings.Despite alI these difficulties, the decadcs which haveelapsed since 1he Second World War have broughtsubstantial progress in two important fields. In thefirst place, there bas been revision of the international-Iy-accepted doctrine on the conservation and restora-rion of monuments, finally leading to the definitioncontained in the Venice Charter-adoptcd in 1964-of the principles and methods now applying to theprotection of monuments. Next, therc has been therevival of interest in conservation and revitalizationproblems on the international level, as is demonstratedby the numerous international conferences which havebeen held since an early date and of which the list isnowa long one. A conference held in 1956 in Erfurt,

out-and-out rejection of contemporary architecture,which was, in their opinion, the root cause. This wasalI the more easy in that the errors unquestionablyexisted. At the same time, the ide as deriving from19th-Century romanticism and the insistence, charac-teristic of our discipline from its cradle upwards, thatthe original style of the monument must be systematical-I y adopted in alI cases, were to continue to mark it fora long while. Lastly, progress in the understanding andacceptance of modem art was comparatively slow inevery field and not merely in connection with the pro-tection of monuments and ancient centres or even witharchitecture.The above reasons explain why modem architecturewas frequently blamed for the ill-effects due in realityto speculation, unilateral pursuit of technical progress,individualism and greed, and for the general dehuman-ization of towns, and so came to be generally con-demned.Yet it is surprising to find how early the modem ideaof the protection of monuments, half way between thetwo abovementioned extreme conceptions, did in factfind expression, and in words which retain their fullforce even today. Let us quote as a piece of historicalevidence the words of Georg Gottfried Dehio, who in1905, in his Denkmalschutz und Denkmalpflege imneunzchnten lahrhundert, wrote as follows:"Once it was seriously desired to protect monuments,ideas on the subject needed to be clear: this would notbe practicable without restriction on private ownership,on the rights of traffic and labour, and above aIl onmotives connected with personal requirements. Buil-dings cannot be isolated, they are not museum exhibits.A monument may also be indirectly destroyed, by theunsuitability of its surroundings. There can be noquestion, where new buildings are put up in an ancientset ting, of keeping t? what is commonly known as the'style', and which is in general no more than aninaccurate and artificial imitation of the past; it mustmerely be seen to that the volumes and the work as awhole are in keeping with the existent townscape, andthis is perfectly possible with the aid of modem forms."But this was far from being the general position at thetime and, as we shall see, things have scarcely changedsince. During the first half of the present century theconviction regarding style inherited from the previousone, coupled with a feeling of strong dislike for the newarchitecture, gave rise to two different trends. One ofthese was in the direction of continued refusaI to allowanything to be built in an ancient set ting which was notadapted to suit the style. of the whole, while the otherled to the creation of what might be called a "neutral"architecture which refrained from adopting ancientforms but copied the style of the surrounding buildingsin a simplified form.The pfoblem was to reappear in a different guise andon an unprecedented scale after the ravages caused bythe Second World War. The need to fiJI the empty

Fig. 3. -St. Mary's Abbey, West MaIling, Kent is an Anglican Community of Benedictine Nuns. The abbey was founded about1090. The abbey was pillaged in the ISth century. Robert Maguire and Keith Murray were the architects of the new church andcloister which were ndded to the Norman building.

and subsequent ones held in Dobris, Warsaw andBudapest had their successors in the ICOMOS sym-posiums held in 1966 at Levoca, in 1967 at Cacrsand in !968 in Tunis, and in the five symposiumsarranged by the Council for Cultural Cooperation ofthe Council of Europe between 1965 and 1968. Thevery nature of the two subjects has meant that thoseconcemed have found themse!ves logically obliged, inthe course of their practical work, to re-examine andre-define a whole series of que$tions absolutely vitalto the idea of the protection of monuments.It was in this way that some of the experts acceptedthe obvious and agreed that the "incorporation of con-temporary architecture into an ancient set ting" had toowide a range of aspects to be squeezed into categoriesdrawn up on a purely aesthetic basis. It is not merely aquestion of knowing wheiher new hou ses may be builtimmediately next to old ones, it is also, in a moregeneral sense, a question of the links between historicalmonuments and life, or even of the real relationshipbetweel) past and future. We need to know whethermonuments must be isolated from present-day life, orwhether, on the contrary, they must be broughtas close to it as possible, and how one can contrive to

solve the problems with which we are confronted bypresent-day life, man and society, not merely in con-nection with new buildings but also in connection withthe whole complex process of revitalizing ancient quar-ters and even with the rearrangement of the interiors ofindividual monuments and restoration work on them.The Bureau of ICOMOS has assigned to this sympo-sium of ours the task of attempting to find an answerto these fundamental questions, which are always arisingin the course of our everyday work. Its choice of thissubject was directly inspired by the following passagefrom the preamble to the Venice Charter:"It is essential that the principles. ..should be agreedand be laid down on an international basis, with eachcountry being responsible for applying the plan withinthe framework of it:, own culture and traditions."

2. PRESENT STATE OF PROGRESS ON THESUBJECT

As a preliminary ta this symposium and with the helpof the Paris Secretariat of ICOMOS, we sent out aquestionnaire to the National Committee of each of

our member countries, in which we asked for informa-tion on the theoretical position and on the practicalsolution adopted in a number of typical situations wherethe question of the relations between modern architec-ture and historical monuments arose in a particularlyacute form. I would like at this point to take theopportunity of once again expressing my sincere thanksto the 21 National Commit tees, and to the Chairmenof those Committees, who have sent us in such beauti-fully clear replies, thus providing us with an extremelyvaluable and interesting body of material on thedevelopment, in one country and another, of the prin-ciples governing the protection of monuments. ln ouropinion hese replies constitute an extremely preciousrecord which, if it could be illustrated by concreteexamples and had a bibliography appended, would weIldeserve publication in its own right. ln view of thelimited time at our disposaI, the summary which followssets out to be no more than a rapid picture of thegeneral state of things as revealed by the replies received.But we should observe, in this connection, that anygeneral survey must cover not only the position adoptedand the practices approved in each country , but alsothe conceptions--whether personal or otherwis~re-

cently defined at any one or other of the various inter-national meetings now becoming more and morcfrequent in the profession. We feel this last remark tobe alI the more justified in that, by the very nature ofthings, national and international trends are still farfrom being similar in alI spheres. While the replies thathave corne in give us a true picture of everyday practice,with aIl the difficultie.5 and contradictions involved, thepositions adopted on the international level point, onthe contrary, to a roughly unanimous attitude, andwould appear to give us the line which will be followedin the future.The results of our enquiry have been classified underthe main subject-headings used in the questionnaire.We have thus started by attempting to show the overallstate of opinion on the more general and broader ques-tions of principle, by which I mean the problem of theincorporation of monuments and ancient sets ofbuildings into contemporary life and of the introductionof modern architecture into ancient settings. We havethen gone on to the more concrete problems relatingto additions to ancient complexes of buildings, revital-ization, and inside alterations and restoration, as theyconfront the architect of our day.

I. General questions

Fig.4 Amsterdalr luilding at Singel 428 As we have already said, the reply we can make to thequestion which interests us, which is whether modernarchitecture may be introduced, ar;d, if so, how it canbe introduced, into an ancient set ting, depends primari-ly on the place historical monuments occupy in the lifeof man, the manner in which man wishes to fit theminto his dai I y surroundings, and our attitude towardsthe introduction of modern architecture and the role ofmodern architecture within the context of culturalprogress.The replies we have received to these questions showclearly that on one point opinion is unanimous: toensure the preservation of ancient monuments andgroups of buildings and their incorporation into con-temporary life, one must contrive to find ways ofrevitalizing them in such a manner that they have anactiv part to play in that life. ln the remarks made bycertain countries--Rumania and Hungary, for instan-ce-it is emphasized that such revitalization must al-ways leave unaffected the value of the building as amonument, in other words that its essential charactermust not be sacrificed for practical ends.ln the remark made by Great Britain we are remindedthat the use of monuments for new purposes in no wayrelieves us of the responsibility for their upkeep or forthe preservation of their historical and artistic value.On the subject of the preservation of monuments asmere museum exhibits, Rolland and Belgium raise thequestion of open-air museums, which may in certaincases represent the only possible means of protection.Already in 1967. the first ICOMOS symposium in

certain restrictions on the uses made of modern art and.architecture, since there should always be due allowancefor the beauties of what is left of the monuments them-selves, and harmonization with ihese. A remark fromEngland points out, further, that the introduction ofmodern art and aI.chitecture into an ancient complexof buildings must not be considered as an end in itself,and that, here again, the preliminary stipulation mustbe that whatever is still standing must be protected, theintroduction of m()(lern architecture being justified onlyin so far as life and progress make it inevitable for thereto be changes and developments in the architecturalset ting which bas formed itself in the course of history.The unanimity thus reflected in the replies to thequestionnaire is also corroborated by the work of theCacrs symposium. At this meeting Mr. Sorlin em-phasized the necessity of incorporating modern archi-tecture into ancient complexes of buildings, and at thesame time he too made a point of stressing certain prin-ciples which in bis opinion should govern such in-corporation. Re pointed to a generally-accepted princi-pIe which was that additions should be on the samescale as the buildings surrounding them and adopt thesame units of volume. A similar conception was putforward by Mr. Ostrowski, who added that the problemof fit ting new architectural projects into ancient siteswent beyond the mere question of the existence of newand old buildings side by side; allowance must be madefor the particular nature of the suri~ndings-, and infact the greatest of the creative modern architects-LeCorbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright and others-had neverceased to emphasize the fundamental importance ofthe relationship between a building and its surround-ings. ln the opinion of Mr. Querrien, "architecturalcreation, before it lJecomes composition, is the organi-zation of space to suit the needs of society". Taken inthis sense, architectural creation therefore signifies theprotection of historical monuments and of our sur-roundings in its higl1est form. The same question wasalso broached at the Leningrad symposium, whereMr. Zdravkovic declared that the modern curator wasnot, in principle, opposed to the new in an ancientset ting, provided it was subordinated to the old andalways in harmony with it.

Thus the replies to our questionnaire show that onthese fundamental questions the position of the special-ists in the protection of monuments is more or lessunanimous. From certain replies (those of Rolland,the GDR, Rumania and Czechoslovakia), it would lookas though, on the, question of the introduction ofmpdern architecture, the architects and the town-planners took a clearer and more categorical line th andid the other speciaJists.

Cacrs opted in favour of the revitalization of ancientquarters and their incorporation into the modern city.In his overall report at that meeting, Mr. Sorlin men-tioned as one of the chief dangers threatening the exis-tence of ancient centres the tendency of these to become"foreign bodies" inside towns, since their out-of-dateand dilapidated condition made them progressively lesssuited to modern life as lived by present-day man.Without systematic revitalization, signifying moderniza-tion in a manner which made due ~llowance for theirvalue as monuments, and adaptation to suit usefulpurposes, they would, he said, be irremediably destroy-ed by life as it went on. There could be no question oftreating them as "museum districts", serving exclusivelyas tourist attractions; they must be made an integralpart of the process of urban and economic develop-ment. Mr. Ostrowski adopted a similar position whenhe declared: "The problem of ancient quarters is notto be isolated from that of modern quarters. We shouldnot create too many 'protection areas', but succeed,instead, in giving our towns a present-day townscapeconsonant with our needs and aspirations."At the Council of Europe symposium in Avignon in1968, Mr. Querrien, Director of Architecture, stressedin his introductory report that the question was thatof the intimate ties which existed between man andthe environment he had created for himself and towhose reactions and influence he was necessarily sub-jected. The 1968 ICOMOS symposiul1} jn Tunis wasdevoted to the problems facing the Islartiic countries ofthe Mediterranean, which are basically different fromthe communities of Europe; but here again the chiefrapporteur, Mr. Fendri, declared himself in favour ofthe revitalization of the medina and its re-incorporationinto contemporary life, and this attitude was reflectedin the final recommendations. The 1969 symposiumof ICOMOS, held in Leningrad, examined the role ofmonuments in society, and here Mr. Ivanov made adetailed analysis of the whole influence of man'smaterial environment and of the everyday presence ofancient complexes of buildings on the aesthetic concep-tions of society and on social awareness. Last of alI,let us recall, as an extremely interesting conclusion, thatadopted by the second seminar on urban renovationheld in Budapest by the United Nations Economic Com-mission for Europe, at which the town-planningspecialists emphasized the importance of its ancientcentre for the town as a whole and the need for thiscentre to be as far as possible an integral part of thetown, and declared that any town-planning programmemust make allowance for these factors from the earlieststages.A no less unanimous attitude would appear to be shownregarding the introduction of modern art and architec-ture into an ancient centre, which nearly all countriesconsider to be a phenomenon justified by history itself.However froni the comments which follow the repliesthemselves it s clear that everyone feels there must be

II. Problems relatin~ to incorporation into ancientcomplexes of buildings

If opinion is unanimous on the need to fit monumentsinto present-day life instead of isolating them, and on

Fig. 5. -Brussels (Belgium). New building out of scale wi!h ancien! surroundings.

the fact that the preserice of modern architecture withina group of buildings of historical interest is to be con-sidered as a phenomenon which history itself justifies,it differs widely on the biggest of the practicalproblems, which is that of the type of architecture to beadopted for any new additions. From the results of ourenquiry we may safely say that there are few countrieswhere a single answer to the question is held to be theonly valid one. Generally it is admitted that there areseveral possible solutions, and that the choice must bemade to suit each particular case. Nevertheless, mostof the replies received reflect the trend now consideredto be the most acceptable, or the one most frequentlyfollowed.The majority of these replies were in favour of eitherneutral or modern architecture. Half of them did notcompletely rule out the possibility, in certain specialcases, of a restoration based on documentary evidence.The other half of the replies definitely reject such asolution, and some countries (Ita1y, for example) evenemphasize in their comments the inadmissibility of

su ch a practice in the context of the protection ofmonuments. A few countries mention adoption of thestyle of the neighbouring buildings as a method which,though not to be used everywhere, has been chosen incertain cases. Thus we see that the vast majority ofcountries favour the adoption, for the new buildings,of a style which is frankly modern or at least neutral,while a minority prefers either to reconstruct the originalbuildings from records, or else to resort to imitations oftheir style, though this latter system is generally reservedfor special cases.An absolutely clear position in this mat ter emerged atthe Cacrs symposium of ICOMOS, where thespeakers who examined the question were unanimousin admit ting that any copying of ancient styles was to beruled out and that new additions to ancient complexesof buildings must use the "Ianguage" of contemporaryarchitecture.Any other solution would, it was held, be false, for then~w buildings and the old ones alike. However, thespeakers also declared that in their opinion modern

14

alignment, height, proportions and colour, and, ratherless frequently, distribution of available space, shape ofroofs, and choice of materialso More rarely the numberand spacing of windows and doors are likewise includ-edo ln most cases it is unanimously agreed that thesecriteria are the ones which have a decisive influence onthe character of an ancient set of buildings and willtherefore en able a violent clash between the appearanceof the old and the new to be avoidedo Their adoptionis obviously not enough in itself to give the building thenecessary architectural and artistic standard, but nei-ther will it hamper the imagination and personal geniusof the architect who is to do the original worko

III. Revitalization problems

As we have already frequently remarked, the tasks in-volving modern architecture and the problems it mustsolve are not purely connected with new additions toancient buildings or groups of buildings. One of themost important problems is that of revitalization andmodernization, and these operations logically meanthe use of modern architecture. The question is, exact-I y how far, where alterations in the internaI structureof ancient buildings are required in order to ensuretheir survival without destroying those very qualitieswhich make them worth preserving, is it necessary andpermissible to make use of modern architecturaldevices?The opinion of the majority is that ancient buildings,when modernized, must retain their ground-plan, theirgeneral arrangement and their internai structure. lnthe additional remarks it is pointed out that the feasi-bility of such conservation will depend on the degree ofinterest attaching to the buildings concerned and ontheir state of preservation. A widespread view is thatthe above procedure is the only one possible, and it isin fact frequently considered necessary to removeinsalubrious sectors, introduce internaI court yards andsacrifice certain portions of the ancient building. Somereplies even envisage-though only in exception alcases-the complete removal of a dilapidated interior ,so that the renovation work leaves nothing intact exceptthe outside walls. But as pointed out by Finland andBelgium, in practice this system has given extremelyunsatisfactory and highly questionable results.This same question was among those examined at theCacrs symposium, where Mr. Sorlin observed thatrevitalization raised new questions of principle. lnsidesof buildings were of extremely unequal interest, andin order to preserve the unit y and homogeneous charac-ter of the whole one needed to determine exactly whatr~quired to be retained and how it could be retained.The essential thing to be preserved, in Mr. Sorlin'sopinion, was the building's external aspect, and this didilot necessarily in volve the heavy task of completerestoration. He observed that, where it was desired to

architecture must not be used unrestrictedly; "new ar-chitecture" did not mean complete freedom from anyconstraint whatever, and architecture which showedindifference to its surroundings and was in violentcontrast with them was not truly modern, since respectfor the existent set ting was one of the fundamentalduties of the architects of our day.The speakers also found themselves in agreement on thefact that it was impossible to lay down over-strictregulations to be followed when put ting up the newbuildings. As Mr. Alomar put it, "The problem of themodern building in the ancient town is simply a prob-lem of good architecture". GeneraIly speaking, volumeand scale were held to be the two factors consideredas decisive, though colour and materials might in somecircumstances be added to these; a further elementaffecting the general effect of the forms was the typicalroof shape. On the subject of the choice of materials,Mr. Ostrowski reminded the meeting that in certaincases contrasting materials could be desirable. Thusunfaced concrete buildings could perfectly weIl be fittedinto ancient centres, as had been shown, for examplc,by Le Corbusier, who had envisaged using this materialfor the proposed hospital in Venice.During this same symposium, Mr. Pimentel Gur-mundi, taking his examples from Peru, drew attentionto the dangers inherent in a mistaken kind of respectfor the past and in the imitation of tradition al forms.In the ancient quarters of Lima and Cuzco old buildingsof great value had in fact been puIled down so that theirsites could be used to accommodate big hotels in theneo-colonial style.The incorporation of modern architecture into themedinas of the Arab cities was presented by Mr. Fendriat the Tunis symposium as likewise possible and justi-fied. At the Avignon meeting, Mr. Sonnier developedthe idea that any imitation or copying of styles whateverwas to be ruled out, despite the fact that they wereoften dcmanded and strongly advocated by an iIl-in-formed public, including even people who held them-selves to be particularly knowledgeable. The newproblems must be solved by an architecture which wasalive, and there were two methods by which this couldbe done: the buildings could be neutral, or their archi-tecture could be the product of contemporary techno-logical progress, thus serving as a foil to its traditionalneighbours. This second alternative was doubtless themore difficult, but it represented the true solution.In most countries the construction of buildings inscheduled historic areas is controlled under architec-tural regulations which are legally binding; in the re-maining countries there are officiaI but not compulsoryregulations (or "parameters"). The need for suchguidelines was stressed by our President, Mr. Gazzola,at the Cacrs symposium. ln the vast majority ofcountries, the rules in force provide that, for any newwork, certain criteria derived from the existent build-ings must be retained; in most countries these include

basis, to find present-day solutions to the problem ofproviding accommodation", and, finalIy, as "the givingof a distinct character to all new additions-whether ar-chitectural features or furniture-by resolutely but un-pretentiously adopting present-day materials or forms".Where a monument is adapted to serve a new purpose,it may very weIl happen that the original building isinadequate or unsuited to some of the requirements,in which case further building work will be necessary.The question is whether this sort of revitalization is initself admissible, and, where it is inevitable, what sortof architecture can be devised for the addition al fea-tures. Some of the replies received categoricalIy rejectthe idea of adaptation to suit new purposes if thispresupposes new additions, and delare that historicalmonuments should be made to serve only such purposesas calI for none. Most countries, however, accept suchadditions as a compromise solution in cases where theycannot be avoided. As to the type of architecture to beadopted, opinions, as in the case of whole new buildings

provide new and airy internaI court yards, technicaldifficulties were usually such that the whole interior ofthe building had to be removed. Mr. Ostrowski re-marked that this was in any case the province ofpresent-day architecture, and that the architect incharge of the operation would need, over and abovehis technical qualifications, a highly-developed artisticsense. He felt that the question was particularly com-plex, since modemization meant the revelation ofhitherto hidden beauties, the removal of worthlessportions and also the addition of new features.At the second seminar on urban renovation, held inBudapest in 1970 by the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe, Professor Lemaire took thecase of the Grand Bguinage in Louvain as a concreteexample of how the problem could be solved. The mainprinciples goveming this ope ration were described byhim as "scrupulous preservation of alI parts which wereauthentic and valid, whether belonging to the faadesof the hou ses or their interiors, and an attempt, on this

Fig. 6. -Heverlee (Belgiurn} ruins of XIth Century Romanesque church, restored and adapted to modern religious needs (arch. R.MLemaire}.

modern furniture as a second alternative. This wasanother problem examined at the ICOMOS symposiumin Leningrad, where Mr. Zdravkovic indicated hisposition in the mat ter. ln his opinion, where the insideof a monument had been destroyed beyond hope ofrestoration, it was permissible to design a whole newinterior and new decoration in keeping with present-day requirements, and in this case alI interior ameni-ties and furniture should likewise be modern. It isinteresting to note that opinion on the adoption of con-temporary architectural "language" may vary within thesame country, according as we are dealing with theoutside aspect of a group of buildings or with theirinterior structure and amenities.

in ancient settings, are once again divided. The vastmajority are in favour of a modem or neutral style,while a minority propose, in this instance too, thoughagain only in special cases, the adoption of the originalstyle of the monument.We should revert here to the Cacrs symposium, whereMr. Ostrowski, while stressing the need to find newuses for monuments, specified that such uses shouldbe so chosen as to enable the necessary adaptation totake place without affecting their artistic merits. Riswords were: "Over-active use of buildings may involvea break-up of their fragile historic set ting. ..Revitaliza-tion is necessary, but 'over-revitalization' would bedangerous."An absolutely similar position was adopted at theLeningrad symposium by Mr. Zdravkovic, who de-clared that, while monuments must be made use of inthe manner required by our age, such uses shouldinvolve the minimum amount of alteration in theirinternaI structure.

Y. Restoration problems

IV. Prabiems reiating ta internai impravements

The restoration of historical monuments is a specialarea of modem architecture. It is understandable thathere there should be no question of confining oneselfto purely modem materials and structural methods,since a part of the work to be done necessarily requiresthe use of traditional materials and structures; the vitalquestion is whether, as a mat ter of principle, it can beadmissible, or even preferable, to use modem materialsfor restoration in certain cases. The principal uses forwhich such materials might be chosen are the re-placement of missing parts, the construction of linksbetween new and old and the building of structuralmembers, in cases where a missing feature is to bereplaced, a piece of reconstruction work is to be donein order to explain the function of the rest, or a memberwhich has collapsed is to be re-erected by anastylosis.Of alI th~ questions in our questionnaire, this is the onewhich elicited the least replies in favour of modemarchitectural techniques and materials, and even thosewho approve of them generally do so only withcertain qualifications (Italy and Hungary are the onlycountries definitely in favour of them). The othercountries advocate the use of traditional materials andbuilding methods, whether or not the forms adoptedcopy the traditional ones, or are simplified or quitedifferent.The position is similar with regard to structural or othermembers of monuments-doors, windows, pavings,ceilings, etc.,-which, though old, have no special valuein themselves and are so dilapidated as to be no longerfit for everyday use and to need replacing. Most of thereplies are in favour of making copies of the originals,while a minority would agree to their replacement bymodem equivalents, though only in special cases. Hereagain, only two countries-Italy and Hungary-arecategorically of the opposite opinion.This brings us, however, to more detailed aspects of therestoration of monuments, and we feel it is preferablenot to go into them here at any greater length, especiallyas the relevant principles have already been laid down inthe Venice Charter .

A problem which is being more and more frequentlymet with in connection with monuments in general isthat of internaI improvements and decoration, whetheras a part of restoration work following war-damage, oras a part of an operation to revitalize the building oradapt it to suit a new purpose. This problem may besolved in a large number of different ways, for the situa-tion where the interior has been part I y or whollydestroyed and requires restoration will not be the sameas that where the building has preserved its interiorarchitecture and decoration and now requires an up-to-date interior suited to the requirements of our age. Theposition is particularly tricky when the alterationsenvisaged are in a building whose interior is of greatarchitectural beauty and much of whose original furni-ture has been preserved. This last problem arisesmainly in our day in the case of Catholic churcheswhich need to be adapted to suit the new liturgy .On the course to be adopted where the interior hasactually been destroyed, opinions are divided, somebeing in favour of a new interior in a modern style andothers believing in reconstruction with the aid ofdocumentary evidence. It should be remarked thateven those who favour this latter solution consider itappropria te only in special cases, and only where suf-ficient records describing the original appearance of theplace are available. Failing such records, they arenearly always in favour of a modern interior; only onecountry voted in favouI: of a fake interior imitating thestyle of the building.However, when it cornes to the furniture itself, half ofthe replies received are in favour of furniture chosento suit the style of the period, though they accept

Fig. 7. Fig.8.

3. CONCLUSION

When the Bureau of lCOMOS and my own NationalCommit tee did me thehonour of asking me to draw upthis report, they requested me to include a survey of theinternational picture with regard to the subject whichconcerns us here, followed by a general study of thedoctrinal and philosophical aspects of the problemsinvolved. 1 feel, however, that as an architect 1 do notpossess the necessary level of qualification in the strictlyphilosophical sphere, and 1 shall therefore confine my-self to taking a further look, as it were through theprism of a more abstract reasoning, at the motivationswhich may serve to influence our views and may alsoprovide us with guidance in everyday practice. Natural-Iy, the arguments I shall advance arec intended to reflectmore than my own personal position; they represent anattempt to draw conclusions from the internationaltrends strongly visible in the field and to point to thedirection in which we are progressing or shouldprogress. It naturally follows from the theoreticalnature of this reasoning that it was not our intention, in

putting forward the ideas that follow, to propose solu-tions directly exploitable in practice.As we sa id at the beginning, the question of the linksbetween modern architecture and ihe preservation ofmonuments or of the historic background has a farwider significance than people are generally preparedto admit. These same links also represent the connec-tion between historical monuments and life in general,or, in a still wider sense, the true relationship betweenpast and future; hence a satisfactory or unsatisfactorysolution to the problem will be a reflection of our rightor wrong relationship with the past and our true or falseintcrpretation of progress. The great feature of our agejs the universality of human values irrespective of timeor place. ln the last century, man's interests were stillconfined within narrow limits; for Viollet-le-Duc andhis age, the past was the Middle Ages and "art" meantGothic art. Whereas present-day man is equally sensitive

Fig. 7, 8, 9, 10. -VerOM, Roman Wall broughl 10 lighl alU!incorporaled in lower storeys of recent building (an:h.P. Gazzola).

to the works of aIl ages and of aIl peoples-anEgyptian temple or the wooden church on the Islandof Kizhi, an Aztec head or a statue by Henry Moore,Palestrina's music or a picture by Picasso. It is funda-mentally characteristic of our time that it is discoveringthe full extent of the value of the past seen as a singlewhole. We find it obvious that, since time is a conti-nuous and unique process, quite impossible to divideinto sections or to arrest in its course, whatever existsin time must necessarily be linked to what preceded it.It is impossible to conceive of a present or a futurewithout a past, and since past and present are indis-solubly linked, the past can no more isolate itself fromthe present than the present can reject the past fromwithin its frontiers.ln reality, each generation starts its life in the tradi-tional settings the past has left to it, and, however muchit strives to fashion these settings in its own image, itwill never succeed, even by the end of its life, incompletely modemizing them. Sites, therefore, are inthe main architectural settings inherited from the past,which, whether we like it or not, we must accept asexistent factors and develop in our tum (It is for thisreason that urban reconstruction is tending more andmore to claim the town-planners' chief attention).Hence any human settlement necessarily means coexist-ence between past and future"and this coexistence,which will vary according to date and location, willinvariably reflect, within a site, the latter's personalityas geographically, socially and historically deterrnined.The most outstanding features of this personality will beembodied in the historical monuments of the place,which are thus an integral part of that structure in spacewhich reaches from the past towards the future, andas such must be preserved and survive together with it.If our starting point is this idea, we will be led to admitthat the only true and reasonable attitude towards theprotection of monuments or groups of buildings consistsin seeking the means of revitalizing them so that theybecome active elements in present-day life. A secondidea also emerges from the first. If one of the essentialcharacteristics of a live community is recognized to bethe continuous coexistence of past and present, modemart and architecture within an ancient complex ofbuildings must necessarily be held to represent a phe-nomenon justified by history itself. New architecturemust necessarily make its appearance in each age inorder to develop the existent surroundings within whichlife is lived, so that it is equally necessary for it toappear in "historic" settings likewise. Our age is al-ready quite rightly demanding that the works of Le Cor-busier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright andOtheTS should be scheduled as monuments to be pro-tected. Only yesterday, these works signified for us thefirst appearance of modem architecture on the scene,and yet today they are already a part of the trOOitionalset ting. So that to question the right of modem archi-tecture to make its appearance in ancient surroundings

would appear to be no more logical than to ask oneselfwhether trees are entitled to bud in the spring and tolose their leaves in autumn. It is the job of the gardener-the man who creates and who orders things--to seethat the trees do not grow where and when they pleaseas though in a jungle; exactly where they are to growis intrinsically a question for man, their superior, whogives deliberate form to the surroundings in which helives.It is the same with architecture as with gardening. If, inthe forest of miscellaneous buildings inherited from pastages, man wishes to save from destruction thoseprecious single or multiple growths which give bis sur-roundings their intimate beauty, he must exercise criti-cal and considered judgment and so order things that,while anything valueless is uprooted, new elements maybe introduced in such a way as not to jeopardize thechances of survival of whatever remains and so thatold and new are blended into harmonious unit y. If somuch harmony is exuded by our ancient sites where thework of successive centuries is to be seen at superim-posed levels, it is because their image is the reflectionof man's capacity to shape bis own environment, andbecause it expresses an inner order, that harmonywhich exists between man and bis surroundings--anidea brilliantly developed by Professor Lemaire at theBath symposium. 0tI.r sites of today do not have aharmonious appearance, for the life that goes on withinthem is itself lacking in harmony. And if the new build-ings which are gradually changing the face of the his-toric towns of the world arouse our repugnance, it is notthat they are modem but that they are lacking inhumanity. The apparent contradiction between old andnew, beauty and utility, derives from the fact that inour century the mastery of man over his surroundingsappears to be shaken. The problem of gigantic housingestates is not alone in providing proof of this. A seriesof historic declarations recording the same fact is to befound in the recommendations and conclusions adoptedby the second seminar on urban renovation of theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe, inBudapest, in which it is observed that, while the nationshave been fighting for an increase in their economicpotential and the development of their technology, theyhave often lost sight of the need to create a balancedenvironment which society would find acceptable.The origins of the problem we are dealing with aretherefore to be found at a far deeF level. They are tobe sought for in the present crisis affecting the whole ofhum an existence, and the key to their solution must liein those hopes which en able us to go on living. Wemust therefore fight with every means in our power toachieve a balance between the economic and technicalexpansion of our age and the moral, spiritual andcultural development of man. Of decisive. importanceamong these means are the preservation of man's cul-tural heritage;-of which monuments are an importantpart-and its incorporation into life. The protection of

monuments must be viewed, not as something whichconcems the past but as something which belongs tothe future, and the ancient centres which fulfil a funda-mental human need must be made an integral part ofman's environment.Since each culture must be built on values which areauthentic, the authenticity of its historic set ting mustbe treated as a fundamental requirement. We musttherefore concede that modem architecture may worthi-Iy contribute to the formation of that historic set ting,provided it genuinely at tains the level required of it.We must appeal to the sense of responsibility of theworld's architects and cali on them to oppose any build-ing project intended to serve ends which would jeo-pardize anything of historical or artistic worth andhence imperil the harmony of man's environment, orwhose implementation would be a betrayal of thehumanist mission of contemporary architecture. Theremust at the same time be avoidance of any imitation ordistortion which might impair the true historical valueof things and affect the development of a valid concep-tion of history and of the artistic taste of society.In our view, if a monument is totally destroyed, therecan be no question of rebuilding it frorn scratch, andthis conviction can only be strengthened by the ex-perience of the sorely-tried populations of Europeduring this last quarter of a century .The loss represent-ed by the destruction of a part of the cultural heritageis itself a part of historical reality, just asis the desire-commendable in itself-to remedy thC terrible damagesuffered by the monuments of European civilisation byrebuilding thern in the form of replicas derived fromrecords. If the same is not to occur again in the future,the time has now corne to draw the logical conclusions.The apparent resunection of vanished treasures mustcertainly not lead anyone to suppose that war andviolence are incapable of inflicting on human culture adamage so great that the next generation cannot repairit, since with the constant progress of technology monu-ments may now rise up again as though by magic. Wedo not believe that the value of copies as symbols isreally sufficient justification for them. Humanity isstill under the shadow of the nuclear catastrophe, andthe symbols it needs are those which will enable it tosee the barbarous destruction of man and of humanvalues as an inemediable crime. ln place of thosetreasures which have been swept away, architects andprotectors of monuments must offer nothing else thanthe art and architecture of their own age.When we conceive of modern architecture as a factorin the creation of man's. environment, we must takethese words, this expression, in its highest sense, toinclude the creation of an equilibrium between past,present and future, through a unified conception ofwhat a town should be, and the creation and protectionof the ciesthetic unit y of the environment, which mustnecessarily involve respect for the harmony achieved bythe successive creations of the past.

We have been attempting to sketch the general theoreti-cal framework within which the protection of historicalmonuments and groups of buildings would appear to befeasible, bath now and in the future. ln daily practice,the solution of the problem involves a further series ofconsiderations, only the most important of which winbe mentionOO here. On the subject of the harmony wewould like to see in our towns and villages, we wish tostress once again that the primary condition of suchharmony must be a building programme which rests onvalid foundations both economically and from thetown-planner's point of view. Such a programme mustmake due allowance for the increase in population andin urban development taking place in our day, whichis profoundly modifying the size and scale of built-upareas. There is thus a break in scale between old andnew sites and districts, which primarily endangers thetownscape as a whole, but which may aIso imperil theinternaI aspect of the town where building programmesare determined not by architecturaI considerations orby the interests of town-planning but by land-speculation or minority interests.ln this connection there is another important point weshould call to mind, which is that a group of monumentsmay aIso completely lose its value if its immOOiate sur-roundings are made to serve an ill-chosen purpose.Architectural harmony can result only from harmonyof content; so that if a townscape is disfigurOO throughthe unsatisfactory location of a buildiRgie. fault mustbe blamed not on to the modernity of the architecturebut on to the wrongness of the decision regarding itslocation. If we avoid mistakes such as these and cor-rectly assess the contents of the task to be accomplishedand the scale on which the building is to be done,modern architectur(~ will readily be able to adapt itselfto the general shape of its surroundings, without havingto forego its own nature, precisely because its tecbno-logical prowess gives it almost unlimited possibilities ofexploiting the materials available.The revitalization of ancient buildings likewise presup-poses the introduction of contemporary architecture,so that the contact between new and old is not confinedto the mere juxtaposition of buildings as they appearexternany in our towns and villages; it goes so far asto affect the inner structure and the everyday existenceof our monuments. Present-day man likes rooms to beof varied shapes and sizes, to suit bis own particulartaste, and from this point of view the internaI structureof a monument off ers a large number of possibilities,so that it is one of the supreme tasks of the architect totake advantage of tllem and to create interiors suited topresent-day life, while retaining the structural meritsof the buildings.ln the case both of individual monuments and of com-plexes of buildings, we accept the view that we havebefore us something of more than purely aesthetic value-

.As living testimonies to the social, economic and cul-tural life of the ages that built them, both are the ex-

pression of the aspirations and achievements whichtypified the earlier development of humanity and assuch give us a sen se of historical continuity. As archi-tectural works, they enlighten us as to the fundamentalinner relationships of architecture and thus take ussome way towards a knowledge of its laws.Protection will not have much meaning if we do notpreserve the structural unit y of the monuments protect-ed. Thus, in the case both of single monuments and ofgroups, modernization must never mean revitalizationat the cost of the total abolition of the ground-plan, thegeneral arrangement and the internai structure. Wherethe new use for the building involves the sacrifice of itsinterior or the addition of extra premises, its historicaland aesthetic value will inevitably suffer; moreover,such a solution is almost always adopted from lack ofany other choice and it restricts the liberty of themodern architect himself. Thus one of the essentialprinciples of revitalization work is that the uses foundfor monuments must be in keeping with their size andwith their structural features.From what we have been saying regarding the co-existence of old and new it will logically follow that theprinciples which are valid for the outside aspect ofmonuments will be valid also for their interior fittingsand furnishings.Here again, the principal objective must be the preser-vation of what actually exists. Monuments whose in-terior architecture, fittings and furniture have remainedintact must be given uses which enable aIl these to beleft as they are. A vital aspect of this problem is the"revivification" of Catholic churches, by which weme an their adaptation to suit the new liturgy. Thisparticular question is to be dealt with in more detail bymore competent speakers than myself, and I do notwish to go more deeply into it here; I would merely liketo express my conviction that the great spiritual renewalat present in progress within the Church cannot runcounter to the conservation and survival of the inesti-mable artistic treasures which it possesses today, andwhich cultured humanity as a whole considers to bepart of its common heritage. There are numerousexampIes which prove that modern art is capable notmerely of providing for the upkeep and use of centuries-old surroundings, but also of solving the problem oftheir harmonious further development.

Last of alI, we must say a few words on the relationswhich exist between the restoration of monuments andconteillporary architecture. Historical monuments, aswe have seen, can fulfil the important role which de-volves on theill only if they have ful1y retained theirauthenticity. Thus the aiill of restoration work is notto "correct" their history a posteriori by reilloving thetraces of any changes they have undergone, whichwould be an impossible task and would inevitably leadto falsification of their nature. Where it is desired toreplace a part which is missing, fill a gap or reconstructfor explanatory purposes, or display work of earlicrperiods which has recently been unearthed, the addi-tions must always be quite undisguised and serve thesole purpose of more clearly revealing anything ofhistorical or artistic value, furthering the understandingof relationships of time or place and facilitating theunderstanding of the architecture. AlI of these aiillsare in keeping with the needs of our age, just as aremodernization and revitalization, and such work mu;-;ttherefore reflect that age with the saille degree ofsincerity; siillilarly, it must reillain recognizablc forpresent-day man and for the man of toillorrow. Wehave already referred to the advantages which providethe present-day architect-restorer with a quite un-precedented arsenal of means and possibilities enablinghi ill to solve the many probleills with which he is thusconfronted.Architecture, in the hands of man, is an instrumentwhich enables hi ill to shape the world, nature and hisenvironillent, and also to express hiillself. It is aninstrument alillost as old as the huillan race itself, forit has been used for thousands of years to create thosetraditional settings which our society of today has in-herited. If man loses control of this instrument it canrise up against hi ill and destroy the treasures createdand handed down by our ancestors. But it is also theonly instrument which perillits man to provide for theconservation of these treasures and their consciousincorporation into the process of living, so that, oncefitted into those surroundings which history is constant-Jy altering, they may continue to live on with theill andto enrich them froill generation to generation.

Miklos HORLER

L ' ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORAINE DANS LES ENSEMBLES

ET MONUMENTS ANCIENS

En vertu de la tche que le Bureau de l'ICOMOS et leComit National Hongrois m'ont fait l'honneur de meconfier, -la rdaction du rapport gnral de notrecolloque -, je devais faire un tour d'horizon internatio-

na( sur l'introduction de l' architecture contemporainedans les ensembles anciens, puis en dgager un aperuthorique et philosophique. Mais je crois qu'une analysedes aspects philosophiques de cette question -enten-

22

rsulte, alors, En effet, si l'on reconnat que lacoexistence continue du pass et du prsent est l'unedes caractristiqut~s essentielles des agglomrations vi-vantes, l'introduction de l'architecture et de l'art mo-derne dans un ensemble historique doit tre con.\'idrecomme un phnomne justifi par l'histoire elle-mme,Une architecture nouvelle apparat ncessairement, chaque poque, pour amnager le cadre de vie et elleapparat toujours dans un milieu historique ~. Notrepoque a tendu, juste titre, la protection dont bn-ficient les monuments classs des lEuvres de Le Corbu-sier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright etd'autre.s architectes modernes, Hier encore ces lEuvresmarquaient pour nous l'entre en scne de l'architecturenouvelle et voici qu'aujourd'hui elles font dj partiede notre cadre traditiOnnel, Aussi, discuter le droitd'introduire l'architecture moderne dans un ensembleancien ne me semble pas plus logique que de se deman-der si les arbres ont le droit de se couvrir de bourgeonsau printemps et de perdre leurs feuilles en automne.Par contre, c'est au jardinier - l'homme, le planifi-cateur -qu'il appartient d'intervenir pour que lesarbres ne poussent pas n'importe o, l et comme ilsle veulent, mais conformment aux dcisions suprieu-res de l'homme qui faonne sciemment son cadre devie. Il n'en va pa.!' autrement de l'architecture, o l'in-tervention critique, pondre et ordonnatrice de l'hom-me est toujours ncessaire si, dans la fort des btimentsde toute sorte hrits du pass, on veut protger de ladestruction des arbres ~ et des groupes d'arbres ~prcieux, qui assurent l'intimit et la beaut de l'envi-ronnement, abattre, d'autre part, les arbres san,\' valeuret aussi planter des arbres nouveaux, de telle faonqu'ils ne diminuent pas les chances de vie des arbresdj plants et que l'ancien et le nouveau se fondenten une unit harmonieuse.Si l'image de nos sites historique.\', labore au longdes sicles, montre tant d'harmonie, c'est qu'elle refltela facult de l'homme de faonner son milieu, qu'elleexprime l'ordre int.~rieur, l'accord de l' homme et de sonmilieu, ide que le Profe,sseur Lemaire avait si brillam-ment dveloppe lors de la Confrontation de Bath.L'aspect des ensembles de notre poque n'e,st pa.\" har-monieux car la vie que l'on y mne manque elle-mmed'harmonie. Si les ,:-onstruction.\' nouvelles qui modifientprogressivement le visage de nos ville,s hi.\'toriques. travers le monde, nous in.\'pirent de l'aversion, ce n'e.stpas parce qu'elles sont modernes mais parce qu'ellesmanquent d' humanit, L'apparente contradiction entrel'ancien et le nouvt~au, la beaut et l'utilit, vient de ceque la matrise de l'homme sur son environnement pa-rat s'tre dgrade dans notre sicle. Le problme desensembles anciens n'est pas le seul en donner lapreuve, Une srie de documents historiques attestent lemme fait, dont les recommandations et les conclusionsadopte.s par le 2" Cycle d'tudes sur la rnovation Ur-baine de la Commission Economique pour l'Europe desNations Unies, tenu Budapest, et qui constatent que,tandis que les nations luttaient pour l'accroissement desbiens conomiques et pour le dveloppement de la tech-nique, elles ont souvent perdu de vue la ncessit d'or-,fJaniser un environnement quilibr et acceptable pourla ,socit,

lius au sens strict du mot -dpa.l.serait ma comptence,car je n'ai pas la prparation personnelle que supposela pratique de la philosophie. Aussi me suis-je permisde limiter mon propos. Sans sortir du cadre de notreprofession, je tenterai de dgager, travers le prismed'un raisonnement plus abstrait, les motifs susceptiblesde modifier nos vues et, aussi, de nous servir de supportdans la pratique quotidienne. Ces conclusions vou-draient tre, bien sur, plus que le reflet de ma positionpersonnelle; elles constituent une tentative pour tracerla rsultante des tendances qui s'affirment, dans cedomaine, dans les diffrents pays et pour indiquer ladirection dans laquelle nous progres.l'ons, ou devrionsprogresser. Etant donn le caractre thorique de nosraisonnements, nous nous somme.1' bien gards de d-boucher sur des recommandations pratiques, car nousne prtendons pas offrir, par ces rflexions gnrales,des solutions directement utilisables dans la pratique.Comme je l'ai dit au dbut de mon expos, la questiondes liens qui existent entre l'architecture moderne et laconservation des monuments et du cadre historique aune signification beaucoup plus large qu'on ne veutl'admettre en gnral. Ces liens sont aussi ceux qui exis-tent entre la vie et les tmoins de l'histoire et, sur unplan encore plus vaste, les rapports valables tablisentre le pass et l'avenir. Il en rsulte donc qu'une solu-tion bonne ou mauvaise reflte les bons ou mauvaisrapport.1' entretenus avec le pass, une interprtationjuste ou dforme de t'volution. Notre conviction fon-liamentale est que le pass n'a pas de valeur en lui-mme, mai.1' seulement en fonction et au service del'avenir. Le temp.1' est un phnomne continu et unique,qui ne .l'aurait tre fractionn en tranches, ni arrtdans son cours. Tout ce qui existe dans le temps setrouve ncessairement li ce qui le prcde. Un pr-sent ou un avenir sans pass ne sauraient se concevoir.PaJ.s et pr.l'ent tant solidaires l'un de l'autre, le pas-s ne peut pas davantage s'isoler du prsent que leprsent ne peut exclure le pass d'entre .l'e.1' murs. Cha-que gnration commence donc sa vie dans des cadre.1'qui lui viennent du pass et, si grands soient les effortsqu'elle consacre les faonner son image, elle ne serapoint capable de les rnover entirement, durant sonbref temps d'existence. Il en rsulte donc que les .I'itesconstituent presque toujours de.1' cadres architecturauxhrits du pass, qu'il nous faut bon gr mal gr accep-ter comme des donnes existantes et que nous devronsdvelopper notre tour. Voil pourquoi la rnovationurbaine se place, de plus en plus, au premier plan del'intrt des urbanistes. L'agglomration urbaine attestedonc, nce.l'sairement, la coexistence continue dll pas.l'et de l'avenir. Cette coexistence, qui varie dan.1' letemps et l'espace, reflte toujours pour un .I'ite donnsa per.l'onnalit gographique, historique et sociale. Lestraits les plus marquan!s de cette personnalit ,l'ont ma-trialiss par les monuments historiques, qui .l'ont doncpartie intgrante d'une structure spatiale tendant dupass vers l'avenir et qui doivent, ce titre, tre conser-vs et survivre avec elle.Partant de cette ide, on est amen admettre que laseule possibilit valable et ralisable d'assurer la protec-tion de.1' monuments et des ensembles anciens est detrouver les moyens de les ranimer pour en faire deslment.l'actifs de la vie moderne, Une ,I'econde ide en

quilibre entre le pass, le prsent et l'avenir, grce des conceptions d'urbanisme homognes, ainsi qu' lacration et la sauvegarde de l'unit esthtique de l'en-vironnement dans le respect de l'harmonie des apportsdes diffrentes poques.Dans ce qui prcde, j'ai voulu esquisser les cadresthoriques gnraux dans lesquels la protection des mo-numents et des sites semble pouvoir tre mise en reuvre,aujourd'hui et dans l'avenir. Mais dans l'exercice quo-tidien de nos professions, la solution de ce problmencessite encore une srie de rflexions, dont je nementionnerai ici que les plus importantes. Il faut sou-ligner que la condition premire de l'harmonie de nosvilles rside dans une conception valable des program-mes de construction du point de vue de l'urbanisme etde l'conomie. Il faut rappeler aussi, ce propos, unautre fait important; un ensemble monumental peut tredtruit si l'on choisit mal les fonctions de son environ-nement. L'harmonie architecturale ne peut rsulter quede l'harmonie du contenu intrieur. Aussi, quand l'ima-ge d'une ville est enlaidie par des erreurs dues la mau-vaise implantation d'un btiment, ces dfauts ne doiventpas tre imputs l'architecture moderne, mais ladcision errone prise quant sa situation. Si ces er-reurs sont vites et si le contenu et l'chelle des travaux raliser ,\"ont acceptables, l'architecte contemporaiFrpourra facilement s'adapter aux caractristiques mor-phologiques de l'environnement , sans avoir se renier ,grce la technologie actuelle, qui lui offre des po.\"si-bilits presque illimites dans la mise en reuvre desmatriaux.La ranimation des monuments suppose, elle aussi, leconcours dE~ l'architecture contemporaine; les rapport.entre l'ancien et le nouveau ne se limitent pas seulement la juxtaposition de constructions d'poques diffrentesdans nos villes, ils s'exercent aussi dans la structure in-terne et la vie quotidienne des monuments. De no.jours, l'homme souhaite avoir un intrieur comportantdes espaces diversifis et adaptables son got person-nel. Dans ce cas, l'intrieur des constructions ancien-nes offre de trs nombreuses possibilits; en profiter etamnager des intrieurs qui conviennent la vie actuel-le, tout en conservant les structures authentiques desmonuments, constitue une tche fondamentale de l'ar-chitecte. Nous admettons le principe que les monu-ments et les ensembles historiques reprsentent plus queleur seul intrt esthtique. Vivants tmoignages de lavie sociale, conomique et culturelle des poques rvo-lues, ils expriment les aspirations et les ralisations destades antrieurs de l'humanit et ils nous font prendreconscience de la continuit historique. Crations archi-tecturales, ces monuments nous renseignent sur les rap-ports intrieurs fondamentaux de l'architecture et con-tribuent une meilleure connaissance de ses lois. Sinous ne con"ervons pas les monuments avec leur struc-ture intrieure authentique, la conservation des monu-ments n'a plus gure de sens. Qu'il s'agisse de monu-ments ou d'ensembles historiques, modernisation nedevra jamai.l' signifier ranimation entranant la sup-pression totale du plan d'origine, des structures et del'ordonnance intrieures. Si une affectation nouvelle nepeut tre donne qu'au prix du sacrifice des amnage-ments intrieurs ou par l'adjonction de constructionsnouvelles, l'intrt historique et esthtique du monu-

Les origines du problme qui nous occupe se situentdonc un niveau bien plus profond. Il faut les chercherdans l'actuelle crise de l'existence et la clef de la solu-tion rside bien dans les espoirs qui nous font vivre.Nous devons donc lutter par tous les moyens pour queles immenses progrs techniques et conomiques de no-tre poque s'quilibrent avec le dveloppement moral,culturel et spirituel de l'homme. Parmi ces moyens, lasauvegarde du patrimoine culturel de l'humanit (de sesmonuments en particulier) joue un rle primordial. Ilfaut admettre que la protection des monuments n'est pastourne vers le pass mais vers l'avenir et reconnatreque les ensembles historiques, qui rpondent un be-soin culturel fondamental de l'homme, sont partie int-grante de l'environnement humain.Chaque culture doit se construire sur des valeurs vraies;l'authenticit du cadre historique doit donc tre consi-dre comme un critre fondamental. L'architecturemoderne peut contribuer valablement l' laborationd'un cadre historique, pour autant qu'elle parvienne s'lever la hauteur de sa tche. Il faut faire appel ausens des responsabilits des architectes du monde entier ,les inviter s'opposer tout projet de construction quimenaerait, par ses objectifs, l'intrt historique et, parl, l'harmonie de l'environnement de l'homme, ou dontla ralisation trahirait la mission humaniste de l'archi-tecture moderne. Il faut aussi condamner tout pasticheou toute falsification qui, d'un autre ct, pourrait com-promettre d'authentiques valeurs historiques et troublerl'volution de la conception de l'histoire, les facults dejugement et le got de la socit. Notre conception desmonuments historiques et de leur sauvegarde nousconduit estimer que lorsqu'une lEuvre a t complte-ment dtruite, elle ne saurait tre ressuscite du nant;toute tentative en ce sens nous parat inadmissible, m-me si elle constitue une prouesse technique. Si unepoque, ou une socit, ont gaspill, dtruit un lmentdu patrimoine dont elles avaient hrit, ce fait mmeconstitue une donne historique, dont la postrit devratirer la leon,"L'intention, -respectable en elle-mme -, de rem-dier aux destructions crue/les subies par l' Europe enressuscitant les monuments dtruits par des rpliques,excutes d'aprs des documents, a eu pour effet, entreautres, d'empcher une juste apprciation des monu-ments authentiques que nous a lgus l'histoire. Ellerecle aussi un autre danger: la rsurrection apparentedes monuments dtruits conduit penser, finalement,qu'il n'y a pas de si grands dgts commis au dtrimentde la culture de l'humanit lors de violences ou de guer-res qui ne puissent tre ensuite rpars, les monumentsdtruits tant ressuscits comme par magie, grce unetechnique toujours plus habile. On peut arguer de lavaleur de symbole des monuments ainsi ressuscits,mais nous rpondons que ce n'est pas l le genre desymboles dont I'hu1rlanit, qui n'est pas encore libredu spectre d'une catastrophe nuclaire, a besoin. Ellea besoin de symboles qui dnoncent comme un crimeirrparable la barbare destruction de l'homme et de sescrations. A la place des lEuvres ananties, on ne doitrien offrir d'autre que l'art et l'architecture de notrepoque. L'architecture moderne doit tre considrecomme un des crateurs du milieu humain, pris en sonsens le plus lev. Elle participe l'instauration d'un

que, au mme titre que la restauration et la ranimation,et, comme elles, doit r/~flter notre poque. Toutes cesinterventions contemporaines doivent pouvoir tre lisi-bles par l'homme, aujourd'hui et demain. Pour mener bien ces tches, l'architecture moderne offre au res-taurateur, grce aux techniques et aux matriaux nou-veaux, un arsenal de moyens varis et des possibilitssans prcdent.L'architecture est un instrument entre les mains del'homme, un instrument qui lui permet de faonner lemonde, la nature et l'environnement et qui lui offrel'occasion de s'exprimer. Cet instrument est aussi vieuxque l'humanit, qui s'en est servi au cours des mill-naires pour laborer son cadre de vie, dont a hritnotre civilisation contemporaine. Si l'homme perd lecontrle de cet instrument, celui-ci peut se retournercontre lui et dtruire les (Euvres que nos aeux ontcres et nous ont t u~gues. Mais c'est aussi l'uniqueinstrument qui permette l'homme d'assurer la conser-vation de ces crations et leur intgration conscientedans le processus de la vie pour que, intgres dans unmilieu que modifie sans cesse l'histoire, el/es continuent vivre avec lui et l' enrichir de gnration en gnra-tion.

ment en souffre toujours. En outre, semblable solutionest presque toujours un pis-aller et une contrainte pourl'architecture moderne elle-mme. Donc, le principeessentiel d'une bonne politique de ranimation est dedonner aux monuments des fonctions qui sont compa-tibles avec leurs dimensions et leur structure intrieure.En bonne logique, il rsulte de ce que nous avons ditsur la coexistence de l'ancien et du nouveau que lesprincipes valables pour la restauration de l'extrieur desmonuments le sont aussi pour leur amnagement int-rieur. Ici encore, l'objectif essentiel de l'architecte doittre de sauvegarder tous les lments anciens conser-vs. Le.1' monuments dont l'architecture intrieure, ladcoration et le mobilier sont rests en place devronttre affects des usages qui permettent de conserverintacts tous ces lments de valeur. Le problme de la ranimation]> des glises catholiques, c'est--dire leuradaptation la nouvelle liturgie, se trouve au centre denotre dbat. Sans vouloir approfondir cette questionque des rapporteurs plus comptents vont traiter endtail, je voudrais simplement exprimer ici ma convic-tion que la grande rnovation spirituelle qui s'accom-plit en ce moment au sein de l'Eglise ne peut aller l'encontre de la sauvegarde et de la conservation desceuvres artistiques inestimables que l'Eglise elle-mmeavait fait natre, au long de deux millnaires, et qui fontaujourd'hui partie du patrimoine culturel de l'humanit.De nombreux exemples nous montrent que l'art moder-ne peut contribuer la conservation et l'utilisationde ces lieux sculaires et rsoudre aussi le problme deLeur harmonieuse adaptation.Je voudrais, enfin, dire quelques mots sur les rapportsqui existent entre la restauration des monuments et l'ar-chitecture contemporaine. Les monuments historiques,nous l'avons vu, ne peuvent remplir le rle importantqui leur est confr que s'ils ont conserv toute leurauthenticit. Les travaux de restauration ne doivent pasavoir pour objet de corriger a posteriori l'histoire d'unmonument et de gommer les traces des transformationsqu'il avait subies, tentative impossible et qui conduitfatalement la falsification. Par contre, complter ouremplacer des parties manquantes, des fins didacti-ques, prsenter des vestiges d'poques antrieures d-couverts au cours des traVaLtX, etc. sont des interven-tions qui doivent rester lisibles; leur but doit seulementtre de mieux mettre en vidence l'histoire et la beautdu monument, de faciliter la comprhension des rap-ports de temps et d'espace et l'interprtation de l'ar-chitecture. Tout cela rpond un besoin de notre po-

Fig. 1. -Londres, St-Paul's Choir School, Projet d'un groupetl'architectes associs qui a gagn le concours restreint en 1962.Le btiment a t conu pour s'intgrer l'ab.5ide de la cath-drale St-Paul et la vigueur sculpturale d" campanile, (l!uvres deSir Christopher Wren.Fig. 2. -Rowning College: nouveau rfectoire par Howell,Killick, Partridge & Amis. Le nouveau btiment du collge.\.e marie bien al'ec les difices no-classiques construits en1875 par Wilkin.Fig. 3. -L'Abbaye Sainte-Marie, W.e.5t Mailing, Kent, est unecommunaut allglicane de rligieuses blldictille.l'. L'abbaye at fonde vers 1090. Elle a t pille au XV11P sicle. RobertMaguire et Keith Murray taient les architectes de la nouvelleglise et du clotre qui furent annexs au btimellt Ilormand.Fig. 4. -Amsterdam, btiment au Sillge1428.Fig. 5. -Bruxelles (Belli'ique). Constructioll hors d'chelleayant remplac l'ancien tissu urbaill.Fig. 6. -Heverlee (Belgique). Ruille d'glise romalle du XI'sicle sauvegarde et adapte aux besoills religieux actuels.Fig. 7, 8, 9, 10. -Vrone, mur d'enceinte romaill mis jouret iIItgr dall.5 la .5ubstntclur,~ d'ull btiment rcent.

SOME QUESTIONS AND AN A TTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM

Question: In what way have contemporary patternsbeen used in the course of time for the restoration ofmonuments or the rehabilitation of architectural en-sembles, and what should be our attitude in thisrespectr

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

II. The task of the architect in charge of a restorationproject is therefore particularly complex. What he iscalled on to do in connection with an edifice (ensemble)constituting a relic of the past consists in:a) preserving it from decadence and destruction;b) healing it of obvious defacements;c) making it utilizable for a specific purpose;d) giving his contemporaries a clearer conception of

what it represents as a historic object.Bach of these tasks involves problems demanding solu-tions depending rather more on the adoption of a wise"give and take" policy than on the obedient implemen-tation of a particular philosophical doctrine. This isalso true for ali problems where a balance has to bestruck between the four above-mentioned objectives.

I. In most cases, restoration and rehabilitation worknecessarily go hand in hand with various forms ofcompromise which are part of the architect's approachto the project, but of which later generations do notknow.

Fig. I. -Amsterdam, Beulingstraat 27, before restoration.

b) Before restoration.Fig. 3, a, b, c. -Amsterdam, Singe] 140-142.a) Project from "Architectura moderna'. by Hendrick deKeyser, sculptor and architect of the City of Amsterdam, Ed.1631.

The main difference stems from the scope and com-plexity of the problems where ensembles are concerned,even if, from the point of view of artistic theory, theapproach ought to bc similar in ali cases. Only inrelatively recent times has there been a policy of pro-tection of ensembles in a legal sense. The introductoryremarks made here are valid at least equally for groupsof buildings and for individual edifices.

III. Is the establishment of the limit of what can beaccepted as a compromise based on theory only or isit also affected by practical considerations?The primary aim is t give the object from the past aplace in present-day life as weIl as a role in the future.It is certain that alI "objects from the past" do nothave an equally important function. Admittedly thereis inequality in the extent to which the object has afunction as a historic artifact in a living society. Doesnot this constitute an argument justifying inequality intreatment when under restoration (rehabilitation), agreater or lesser degree of maintenance of its authenti-city?

v. Lack of means can be a favourable factor for theuntarnished survival of a monument in its original con-dition. Too great an urge on the part of architects andcontractors to undertake fully exhaustive restorationwork is dangerous for a monument.

IV. Essentially, the problem posed by an enscmble isof the same nature as that posed by an individu al edifice.The possible difference being that respect for the en-semble as a macro-monument originated later thanrespect for the individual monument. The period of"candid approach" has therefore lasted longer in theformer than in the latter case.

The problems we deal with in this paper refer to"monuments of historical and artistic value" .Historyand artistic appeal appear to be notions that are neitherconstant nor objectively measurable, but variable con-

c) After restoration with reconstruction according to Hendrickde Keyser's original plans.

process.One primary point therefore is: how does (did) thecommunity of a certain period "see" a monument or anensemble?Romantically, as a tale from the past which must bemade intelligible for people of our time, a story retoldin order to be better understood? Is emphasis put to agreater extent on the historical authenticity of style andancient craftsmanship? Should the edifice bear witnessto a certain cultural evolution regarding housing orprofessional life? Is value derived from rarity parti-cularly important? Must the object be considered andtreated as a museum piece, as an architectural artifactand any alteration be seen as historical falsification?Various answers are possible. Often the solution willdepend on a number of arguments. ln the course oftime, widely differing views, based on a variety of needsand attitudes, have prevailed in succession.Some people were in favour of monuments that lookedlike ruins, others liked them fully reconstructed. Forsuch reconstruction work, diverse starting points wereused: illusionist or historico-idealist, or scientific, docu-mentary, archaeological, or analytical.If we want to give the 19th century a fair deal, we mustadmit that the so-

restoring the building to its past, the closer it relatesto himself and his own period.Can the underlying motive: "telling a story from thepast" be sufficient to legitimize the rebuilding in itsoriginal style of something which has ceased to exist fordozens or hundreds of years, or which has been de-stroyed by some calamity but which we want to seerestored to its original aspect because that is how wehave known it, or for emotional or patriotic motives,or for other reasons? In former centuries such motiveshave frequently determined in a more or less stringentmanner the building or re-building of a monument.When an edifice or an ensemble of a certain significancehas been lost, the primary, intuitive reaction will oftenbe: we want it to be rebuilt as it originally was. But onsecond thoughts the reaction will be: it must be builtagain, but better than it was. What is understood by"better" great I y depends on the attitude of the publicor of those who pay for the restoration work. Itcould mean "bigger and finer" if the status element ispredominant. It could mean "more efficient" if utiliz-ation is a prime consideration. "More up-to-date", ifthere is an urge to express oneself in a contemporarymanner. It can also be " closer to historical reality"if the concem for our heritage--a tendency which, forthe last hundred years or 50 has been among the mostlegitimate contemporary trends--is the one thatprevails.The emphasis on historical reality can go hand in handwith the wish to undo obvious defacements. Everyrestorer feels the need to display the object he treatsmore distinctly, in its typical, original set of values.It remains difficult to define the demarcation line be-tween undoing an evident defacement and the unwar-ranted removal of something that has resulted from alegitimate historical growth process. Under the guiseof "restoration to an original style", very often build-ings or ensembles have been stripped of interestingstylistic additions of later date.Now that historical (architectural) knowledge hasbecome common to so many specialists, the need toshow off that knowledge h~ grown almost spon-taneously among those undertaking restorations. Thissometimes leads to an estrangement between therestorer and the public.Through t