Faux-Historicism
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:38 pmSo I've resisted long enough, thought I'd through this hot-button topic out to get people's opinions on the phenomenon known as faux-historicism.
First of all, just off the top of my head I can think of 4 types of what might be called faux-historicism:
1) Replicas - Fort Calgary would be an example of this, as well as several buildings in Heritage Park, and of course, St Mary's School. This is a (as close as possible) replica of a actual building that existed before, and preferably on the actual site that it existed.. sometimes when buildings burn down, they're rebuilt as per the original.. think of this as though the rebuilding was delayed 50 yrs...although I'm thinking of this type as more rebuilding something foolishly knocked down decades ago, rather than a good reason to knock down buildings in order to build replicas...
2) Similar styles and materials - this form would be basically as though an architect from 1912 timetravelled to 2005 and continued with their business of designing edwardian buildings, generally these would be the same quality (facade anyway) as turn of the century buildings, and would be indistinguishable from actual historic buildings, other than the fact the facade would likely look fresher due to it's newness. Examples might be some of the most expensive "arts and crafts" style houses in the city being built, the ATB building on Stephen Avenue, etc. These are of the same quality as #1, but don't replicate actual buildings
3) Similar styles, different materials - Basically imagine someone using exposed steel beams, and modern glass, to create a gothic cathedral.. styles are borrowed, but it's very obviously modern.
4) Stripmall Heritage - Think red stucco and beige stucco to mimic red brick with sandstone trim, false 2nd stories, etc etc.
I'd welcome any comments on these, whether they're a good idea, a horrible idea, or an ok idea in small doses.. or additional 'classifications' that I've missed.
First of all, just off the top of my head I can think of 4 types of what might be called faux-historicism:
1) Replicas - Fort Calgary would be an example of this, as well as several buildings in Heritage Park, and of course, St Mary's School. This is a (as close as possible) replica of a actual building that existed before, and preferably on the actual site that it existed.. sometimes when buildings burn down, they're rebuilt as per the original.. think of this as though the rebuilding was delayed 50 yrs...although I'm thinking of this type as more rebuilding something foolishly knocked down decades ago, rather than a good reason to knock down buildings in order to build replicas...
2) Similar styles and materials - this form would be basically as though an architect from 1912 timetravelled to 2005 and continued with their business of designing edwardian buildings, generally these would be the same quality (facade anyway) as turn of the century buildings, and would be indistinguishable from actual historic buildings, other than the fact the facade would likely look fresher due to it's newness. Examples might be some of the most expensive "arts and crafts" style houses in the city being built, the ATB building on Stephen Avenue, etc. These are of the same quality as #1, but don't replicate actual buildings
3) Similar styles, different materials - Basically imagine someone using exposed steel beams, and modern glass, to create a gothic cathedral.. styles are borrowed, but it's very obviously modern.
4) Stripmall Heritage - Think red stucco and beige stucco to mimic red brick with sandstone trim, false 2nd stories, etc etc.
I'd welcome any comments on these, whether they're a good idea, a horrible idea, or an ok idea in small doses.. or additional 'classifications' that I've missed.