Between 1945 and 1980, roughly much was built globally as had been constructed throughout all prior history. Compounding this unprecedented magnitude of construction, the rise of modern architecture through the course of the twentieth century fostered many ways of building that fundamentally changed both the nature and the cyclic frequency of material and system renewal that we have come to anticipate in working with ‘traditional’means of construction. At the same time, new formal and material paradigms led in many cases – particularly in the 1960s and 1970s – to the construction of large housing, commercial and civic works that – in addition to posing new technical conservation challenges – were often underappreciated by a large portion of the using public. Recognition of these issues within the design and preservation communities has been building for over a quarter of a century, and we are now at a pivotal point in addressing how to continue to sharpen and formulate strategies to reinvigorate the various typologies and ‘isms’ that characterize the structures and component systems of mid-late twentiethcentury heritage. Two particularly wide reaching questions demand our attention. The first is addressing programmatic and economic obsolescence: many modern buildings were tightly designed to a very specific set of criteria that may no longer have relevant Use Value (I will use Riegl’s classification of values throughout the essay) or meet regulatory standards. The second is addressing the persistent negative perception of these resources by both users of the property and the public (Figure 1). While fashion has embraced the best of these buildings and public resistance – particularly among younger constituencies – may also be softening, resolving these issues might nonetheless necessitate a degree of change that falls outside accepted norms (as developed through documents such as the Athens, Venice and Burra Charters, and the Nara Document on Authenticity). Addressing modernism begins with a fundamental question: are there conceptual and physical differences in modern architecture that consequently change the philosophy toward its treatment? Two key characteristics that distinguish a lot of modern properties are the impermanence of many modern materials and systems, and the fact that many buildings were planned or financed to enable or even encourage a service life of only 20–30 years. In different ways these both reflect the inherent dynamism in modernism, and the rapidly accelerating pace of change that came about with the emergence of the modern world. A new conservation paradigm began to emerge in the 1990s that acknowledges the notion of modernism’s ephemerality and consequently foregrounds sustaining the idea of the building or site, even if many of the materials themselves – some experimental

中文翻译：

---

特刊简介

在 1945 年至 1980 年之间，全球建造的大部分建筑与之前所有历史上的建筑一样。20 世纪期间现代建筑的兴起与这种前所未有的建筑规模相结合，催生了许多建筑方式，从根本上改变了材料和系统更新的性质和循环频率，这是我们在使用“传统建筑”时所期待的。 '施工手段。与此同时，新的形式和材料范式在许多情况下——特别是在 1960 年代和 1970 年代——导致了大型住房、商业和市政工程的建设——除了带来新的技术保护挑战之外——经常被大型机构低估。部分使用公众。在设计和保护社区内对这些问题的认识已经建立了四分之一个多世纪，我们现在正处于解决如何继续加强和制定策略以重振各种类型和“主义”的关键点。二十世纪中后期遗产的结构和组成系统。有两个影响特别广泛的问题需要我们注意。第一个是解决程序性和经济性过时：许多现代建筑严格按照一套非常具体的标准设计，这些标准可能不再具有相关的使用价值（我将在整篇文章中使用 Riegl 的价值分类）或符合监管标准。第二个是解决财产用户和公众对这些资源的持续负面看法（图 1）。虽然时尚已经接受了这些建筑中最好的建筑，而公众的抵制——尤其是在年轻选区中——也可能正在减弱，但解决这些问题可能仍然需要一定程度的改变，这超出了公认的规范（如雅典、威尼斯和Burra 宪章和关于真实性的奈良文件）。解决现代主义始于一个基本问题：现代建筑中是否存在概念和物理差异，从而改变了其处理方式的哲学？区分许多现代物业的两个关键特征是许多现代材料和系统的无常性，以及许多建筑物的规划或资助以实现甚至鼓励只有 20-30 年的使用寿命。这些都以不同的方式反映了现代主义内在的活力，以及随着现代世界的出现而迅速加快的变化步伐。1990 年代开始出现一种新的保护范式，它承认现代主义的短暂性概念，因此前景维持了建筑或场地的概念，即使许多材料本身——一些实验性的