In the same manner, it is important not to miss the transition from
architectural conservation to urban rehabilitation; the justification for Rosa
Macedo and myself to write an article entitled “Evolution of paradigms in the 20th
century and the necessary overcoming of existing dilemmas”. It is thus our duty
to reinforce our purpose of: “addressing this significant physical
creation [the city] … in view of the need for rehabilitation that nowadays
cities bestow. In contemporary times, cities demonstrate a great formal
heterogeneity and mixture of temporalities. We often distinguish the presence
of nuclei with specific characteristics, essential to value and,
simultaneously, to adapt to contemporary performances, to contexts different
from those that were at the base of its origin. Of specific importance
are the areas designated as
Historical Centres, clusters formed in other times (medieval, Renaissance or
Baroque), which survive in cities and often isolated from the new urban
organism that extends to the peripheries. It is interesting to highlight [the existence of] a sequence of different
moments and attitudes regarding the endeavoured intervention and historic centres.
Apprehensions about intervention in
these areas have, to a great extent, proclaimed themselves in the 20th century.
Given the timeliness of the question of rehabitation, and after more than a
century of debate, it seems that the initial dilemma persists, and will persist
for some time to come. If
for some there is a desecration of historic centres, for others the panorama of
architectural conservation has expanded without reversion to that of urban
rehabilitation”.[i]
[i] FURTADO, Gonçalo e
MACEDO, Rosa, Da Conservação Arquitectónica à Reabilitação Urbana: Evolução de
paradigmas no século XX e a necessária superação de dilemas iniciais. In: AAVV,
Arq./a, Lisboa, 2010, p.
No comments:
Post a Comment