AVS. Arkitektúr verktækni skipulag - 01.06.2003, Blaðsíða 21

Nikulás Úlfar Másson, Architect, Reykjavík Planning Department
Continuity in
Building
It is important for every nation to preserve that part of the cultural
heritage contained in old buildings. Abroad, it is considered natural to
respect the past and this goal has been accepted in the development
and redevelopment of built-up areas decades ago. Official bodies both
in Scandinavia and Britain have been recently confirming this attitude in
cultural- and architectural policies.
In lceland, there has not been a great disagreemént over this issue,
although one occasionally hears the point of view that the present
should, in each period, have a free hand in changing the built environ-
ment and put its mark on it, unhindered. Part of this argument has
been that our building heritage is not as important as that of nations we
tend to compare ourselves to, looking abroad through a veil of inferiori-
ty.
Compared to the building traditions of other countries, the period of
educated designers in lcelandic building is short. This is obvious in the
older districts of Reykjavík, where the building heritage has a more
common-folk look than is the case in other capitals. These areas were
also built without any proper planning. This is the uniqueness of the his-
toric part of Reykjavík in an international connection and this quality has
an undisputed value for preservation.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, the first plans for Reykjavík were
being contemplated. The disorder of that time should not be the foun-
dation for a future city and the goal was borrowed from large cities
abroad, such as the courtyard buildings of Copenhagen. The conclu-
sion being that in the old districts there have been built large concrete
houses, which often are not in keeping with the existing buildings. In
addition, the value of older buildings as part of the common cultural
heritage of the nation was not appreciated and buildings often removed
in a haphazard way to make room for new buildings.
Attitudes towards the future development of the older districts of
Reykjavík have differed from the time when the discussion about the
preservation of built areas became common in the seventies. Opinions
have varied from total demolition to demands for extensive preserva-
tion. The pendulum has swung backwards and forward through time,
often depending on private interests and fashion.
The establishment of the Building Preservation Committee in 1994 was
therefore timely. Its role was first and foremost to make proposals that
could result in changes in the Development Plan for Reykjavík in such a
way that it would be possible, in detailed planning, to formulate policies
which were in keeping with the
cultural goals of building preser-
vation. In this way, policies for
building preservation would
encourage enlightened
redevelopment of the older dis-
tricts. Understanding of the con-
struction and peculiarities of
existing buildings, before new
buildings are designed, is the
best way to create something
that strengthens the environment.
To respect the continuity of build-
ing should not result in copying
the old, but rather to have a
dynamic attitude and a positive
mind towards the environment,
which in turn produces good
architecture. Bad development in
the older districts is too common.
Buildings can be modern but
none the less designed with
understanding and respect
toward history and their environ-
ment.
The conclusions of the Building
Preservation Committee were put
forward in a theme pamphlet with
the Development Plan of
Reykjavík, 1996-2016, „Húsvernd
í Reykjavík," These proposals fur-
ther developed in that part of the
Development Policy for the
Central City, which deals with
preservation and development
and forms the foundation for the
detail planning of the Centre
of Reykjavík. With this and a
proper understanding, respect
and transparent administration,
desirable changes in the built
environment can be achieved
without destroying the aspects
worthy of preservation. In this
way, owners and builders are
encouraged to view traditional
buildings as the foundation
for dynamic opportunities rather
than as a disadvantage.
It is seldom the purpose of
preservation/conservation of
19