from The New York Times
The End of 1960's Architecture
go to article

from Pixel Points
What's (No Longer) New
go to weblog post

A couple of (unintended) rejoinder to the earlier announcement by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (Singapore) that more recent architectural structures will now be under consideration for conservation.

In the New York Times article, the difficult and often thankless task of deciding which building to preserved is clearly laid out. Two points that are worth reiterating. One, is that the approach to preserving buildings differ significantly from that of preserving portable artefacts. This is due to the obvious fact that buildings cannot be stored and must always remain functional even when earmarked for preservation. This leads to the second point, which is that buildings that are well-maintained and in good condition would stand a better chance of being considered for preservation, even over-riding considerations for the architectural significance of the building itself.

Another significant factor in the selection of buildings to be preserved is mentioned in the weblog post:

"The successful preservation of an aging building usually depends upon the building attracting some sort of constituency, some sizable cohort of citizens who'd miss the place if it were gone and who are willing to lobby for its survival."

Instead of some high ideals of architectural principle as a selection criteria.

Mention is made of 2 organisations closely affiliated with architectural preservation - Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement (DoCoMoMo), which has a more international outlook with country and regional chapters; The Recent Past Preservation Network with a primary focus on the American context.

Browsing the DoCoMoMo web-site, there is an article on Singapore and the trend of building styles, very much dictated by public building works then (go to article - PDF format).