ABSTRACT Much of the built environment has been constructed in the last hundred years, particularly in the decades following 1945. These buildings and sites are considered an integral part of our collective heritage, yielding a ‘recent heritage’ that must be considered for preservation. Modernism, followed by New Formalism, Brutalism and Post Modernism, are ‘styles’ that all in one form or another challenge our concept of permanence. Today, architects and designers live longer than their buildings, and, essentially, we are arguing for the preservation of our own buildings. Whereas William Morris and John Ruskin began to formulate a preservation theory at a time when buildings were centuries old, walls were load bearing and 18-inches thick, now they are of our own generation with walls that have been reduced to studs and a layer of sheetrock, a single concrete block or a layer of EIFS (exterior insulation finish system). There is no margin for error and, in that context, the concept of material authenticity – the desire to retain as much as possible the original material as the primary record of the past – would seem to be a contradiction. Preserving modernism has brought into focus the dichotomy between longevity and innovation. With the arrival of Post Modern architecture and particularly its early and whimsical expressions, the design and construction of these buildings seems to have become even more fragile and more temporal. This calls for more intervention, more replacement and reconstruction, creating an economic burden and a philosophical conundrum. While we are still deciding what is important and what to save, the buildings under consideration are rapidly deteriorating and have often become financially obsolete. For these phenomena, we need to develop a broader array of philosophical tenets and material strategies. By looking at some current and past examples of modernism and post modernism, we can begin to explore an approach. This may involve a partial or complete reconstruction or rebuilding, a concept anathema to established theories. Examples range, for instance, from Carlo Scarpa’s restoration and renovation of Castelvecchio in Verona, Italy to Charles Moore’s Piazza d’Italia in New Orleans; such instances may offer some insights into the levels of intervention to be anticipated and to its implications. After all, this dilemma is not entirely new, but must be addressed in the context of our generation, as others did before us.

中文翻译：

---

保护、设计和现代建筑：未来的挑战

摘要 大部分建筑环境是在过去百年建造的，特别是 1945 年之后的几十年。这些建筑和遗址被认为是我们集体遗产的组成部分，产生了必须考虑保护的“近代遗产”。现代主义，其次是新形式主义、粗野主义和后现代主义，都是以一种或另一种形式挑战我们永恒概念的“风格”。今天，建筑师和设计师的寿命比他们的建筑长，从本质上讲，我们主张保护我们自己的建筑。威廉·莫里斯和约翰·拉斯金在建筑物已有数百年历史、墙壁承重且 18 英寸厚的时候开始制定保护理论，而现在它们是我们这一代人，墙壁已经减少到螺柱和一层石膏板，单个混凝土块或一层 EIFS（外保温饰面系统）。没有犯错的余地，在这种情况下，材料真实性的概念——希望尽可能多地保留原始材料作为过去的主要记录——似乎是矛盾的。保留现代主义使长寿与创新之间的二分法成为焦点。随着后现代建筑的到来，尤其是其早期异想天开的表现形式，这些建筑的设计和建造似乎变得更加脆弱和具有时代性。这需要更多的干预、更多的替换和重建，从而造成经济负担和哲学难题。虽然我们仍在决定什么是重要的，什么是要保存的，所考虑的建筑物正在迅速恶化，并且在财务上经常变得陈旧。对于这些现象，我们需要制定更广泛的哲学原则和物质策略。通过查看现代主义和后现代主义的一些当前和过去的例子，我们可以开始探索一种方法。这可能涉及部分或完全的重建或重建，这是对既定理论的诅咒。例如，卡洛·斯卡帕 (Carlo Scarpa) 在意大利维罗纳 (Verona) 对卡斯特维奇奥 (Castelvecchio) 的修复和翻新，到查尔斯·摩尔 (Charles Moore) 在新奥尔良 (New Orleans) 的意大利广场 (Piazza d'Italia)；这种情况可能会为预期的干预水平及其影响提供一些见解。毕竟，这种困境并不是全新的，而是必须在我们这一代人的背景下解决，就像我们之前的其他人所做的那样。