In
this review of old vs. new, I’m taking side of new. From my point of view, new
is better. From the earliest of civilization human beings have always been
attracted to new things. We spend our lifetime searching for new things, better
things, stronger or faster things. Be it a better idea, a better life or even a
better building. That is why everyday new innovations take place. It is the
oldest rule in history; new is always better.
In
terms of buildings, there has been a much debated topic on the issue of, to
preserve or to demolish. As usual there is always two parties on the scenario
and both parties have strong points on their part. But the real question is who
gets to decide which building stays and which one does not? According to my
reader, Jonathan Walters Every architectural
era seems to go through trial-by-demolition before it is accepted as an
important evolution of the species. In
my opinion, there is no harm in demolishing. As long as we are talking about a
place that is abandoned and easily targeted as a place of unsocial phenomena.
What significance does a “heritage place” hold if it is no longer able to
serving the purpose it was meant to and by the turn of time have become a place
of spider’s territory only? And as designers why should we waste a potential
space just because it held a different meaning in a different era? Now I am not
saying that we should simply tear down every other old building that comes in
the way in order to create something better. What I am trying to state here is,
maybe some particular buildings which are no longer useful can be demolished
and be turned into a better space by still keeping the ambiance of the previous
one.
Demolishing
is not the only solution of course. From quite a long time “adaptive reuse” has
been the talk of time. By renovating a place we can keep the heritage alive and
also turn an abandoned place into a useful one. In the article I chose, the
writer Jonathan Walters talks about a particular building ‘Prentice Women’s
Hospital’ that is being considered for adaptive reuse. Meaning the usability of
the space inside should be changed keeping the façade and structure same and
turning the place into a research facility. But the study on the place shows
that renovation will not really be much helpful in the case of this particular
building because it does not offer adequate efficiency. But again that is just
the opinion of the other party. A lot of historic buildings are actually being
saved by adapting reuse where the purpose of both preserving and creating
something new is being taken care of.
Although
some might argue that skyscrapers are disadvantage to the landscape or new
buildings are soul less and are simply taking away nature from us. In my point
of view it does not have to be like that. We have the proper knowledge and
technology to dominate nature in our creation. As a designer, we should have
the proper skill to design sustainable buildings. And there are quite a lot of
examples of ‘Green Buildings.’ Hotel Park Royal in Singapore is one of the
significant examples of sustainable architecture. The design of the hotel shows
that even as our cities grow taller and denser, we can retain our green spaces by
adapting sustainability practices to high-rise developments. From lush greenery
in every 1 meter.sq area to energy saving, adequate use of solar power, water
conversation; this hotel has managed to satisfy every category of green
building. So, as I said earlier skyscrapers do not necessarily take away
nature. It is our responsibility to create something that can be blend with
nature. If we put all our energy to preserve the old buildings only, what is
the use of us as designers?
History
was once the present. If people back then did not have the courage to build
something new, it would not become history one day. Old has to make space for
new. It is the circle of life. So, we should always be willing to explore the
unseen and create new things. But at the same time take lessons from the old
and make the world a better place.
