Young Offenders? The Case For The Cultural Value Of Recent Architectural Heritage

Architectural theorist Sylvia Lavin identifies the 50-year milestone as “the benchmark that historians use to claim that things have passed from the present into history”.[1] Buildings younger than this – such as those constructed between 1975 and 2000, the focus of this symposium – find themselves in a paradoxical position. Not yet old enough to be appreciated for their historical value but too old to be considered fit for purpose by contemporary standards, they tend to be undervalued, making them vulnerable to unsympathetic renovations or even demolition. Buildings from this period do not benefit from the critical distance and objectivity often granted by the passing of time, and similarly cannot depend on nostalgia or collective memory to recognise their cultural value as built heritage. In this context, expanding the scope of what is considered ‘heritage’ represents a key strategy in countering the lack of awareness and recognition of the architectural and historical significance of young buildings. While bridging the gap between policy, research, and practice is no doubt necessary to achieve this objective, it is equally critical to make the case for recent architecture in the court of public opinion. Societies’ appreciation of architectural styles and individual buildings is not static but fluctuates over time, dependent on changing value regimes.[2] In a European context framed by ongoing and intersecting climate, resource and biodiversity crises, the pressing ecological, economic and material arguments for preserving and reusing recent buildings are obvious and incontrovertible. However, for the reasons already outlined, it is often more difficult to convince people when it comes to these buildings’ immaterial values, whether historical, social, cultural or aesthetic. This presents a serious impediment to wider recognition of the value and potential of young heritage, since aesthetic arguments in particular have proven extremely effective in influencing the opinions of the general public. For example, many populist social media accounts are adept at manipulating people by presenting simplistic criticisms of recent architecture based purely on images (Figure), reducing an inherently spatial and experiential discipline to a one-dimensional question of taste.[3] This paper argues that it is impossible to convince architects and non-architects alike of the value of young heritage by depending solely on technical and scientific arguments. Instead, it posits that in order to preserve the material qualities of these recent buildings it is necessary to also emphasise their immaterial qualities, those that resist quantitative valuation or measurement such as emotion, memory, and meaning.[4] Finally, it highlights how strategies of adaptive reuse and experimental preservation enable architectural practitioners to identify and engage with these qualities, so that they can assist in fulfilling the potential of recent built heritage to remain relevant and adapt to contemporary needs. 1. Sylvia Lavin, “Sylvia Lavin, Princeton and Mark Kingwell, Toronto,” The John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto, November 8, 2018, audio-recording 1:55:23, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSj7BCUGwAI. 2. Susan Holder and Rosemary Willink, “Value on Display: Curating Robin Hood Gardens,” in Valuing Architecture, eds. Ashley Paine, Susan Holder and John Macarthur (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2020), 101. 3. For example, see The Cultural Tutor on Twitter (https://twitter.com/culturaltutor), or La Table Ronde de l’Architecture on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/latablerondearchitecture/). 4. Daniel M. Abramson, “Values of Obsolescence,” in Valuing Architecture, eds. Ashley Paine, Susan Holder and John Macarthur (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2020), 37.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.