Good Modernist Restoration Practice
It has been a struggle the world over to conserve and restore modernist monuments, with varying success in different countries. Part of the problem is simply that people do not perceive modernist buildings as an important part of their heritage. However, several key restoration projects and the inclusion of modernist buildings in the World Heritage List have helped raise public awareness of their significance. The successful examples of good restoration are full of useful information for restoration projects being prepared for modernist buildings in Russia.
Some of the most relevant restoration projects are in Germany. The experience of restoring the Bauhaus buildings in Dessau is key to identifying the way forward for Russia’s Avant-garde buildings, for many of the same materials were employed here.
The Bauhaus Building in Dessau was planned by architect Walter Gropius as a ‘manifesto’ of the Bauhaus idea. It was the first institute of modern design and a focal point for the international avant garde. It was not open for long but its influence is still felt. It was opened in 1919 and was closed by the Nazis in 1933. Parts of the building were destroyed in 1945 and reconstructed in 1976. In 1996 the building and the Masters’ Houses were listed as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In the same year a general renovation was carried out.
Before beginning restoration, a detailed investigation of the history of the building was undertaken, as well as a thorough analysis of their present condition. There is little original documentation of the building so analysis of the surviving building was the main source of information. The restoration concept was discussed by all parties: the experts, the public authorities and the owner. The project team for the main Bauhaus building consisted of two architects: one local office from the Dessau area with good knowledge of the buildings, and a Swiss office with experience in the restoration of modernist buildings. This collaboration proved to be highly effective.
For guidance, the architects and project managers referred to the Venice Charter of 1964 which stipulates that “the intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.” This is the school of restoration that sees buildings as a palimpsest or “testimonial of history.” Work dating to 1976 was often left in place in the belief that recent additions were permissible as long as they did not dominate the overall impression. Monika Markgraf, chief architect of the restoration, writes: “Interventions in the original material substancy of the building are only permitted where absolutely necessary, since every intervention leads to further losses of substance.”1 Therefore, many of the windows recreated in 1976, even though they were simpler in form than the originals, were left. They were in good technical condition and when looked at closely were clearly constructed differently.
Hinnerk Scheper, who developed the colour concept for Narkomfin, also developed the scheme for the Bauhaus Building. In order not to damage the original paintwork, in most areas it was covered with a thin layer of plaster, close in materiality and structure to the original lime wash. Beneath this the original plaster and paint are secured and protected. Colours corresponding to the original have been painted on top of this plaster.
The huge amount of material created by this thorough analysis of the Bauhaus Building and the Masters’ Houses has been gathered together in an archive. This will help develop a basis for the classification and evaluation of modernist architecture.
The two most celebrated restorations of modernist architecture in Britain are the Isokon building in London (Wells Coates 1933-34) and the De La Warr Pavillion in Bexhill-on-Sea (Eric Mendelsohn and Serge Chermayeff 1935).
In the UK, the Isokon building is a helpful comparison for Narkomfin. It too is an experimental housing block with communal areas; it also deploys experimental materials (concrete for the structure and plywood for the fittings). Isokon was a design firm established in 1931 in London by Jack and Molly Pritchard. The Isokon building, otherwise known as Lawn Road Flats was to contain minimum sized apartments for single dwellers called Isotypes, to be fitted out with Isokon furniture made from plywood. It is considered to be one of the most rigorous modern housing projects in Britain with its emphasis on simplicity, progress and cleanliness. Like Narkomfin, the Isokon Building has a rooftop penthouse. Members of the international movement like Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer and Lazslo Moholy-Nagy all lived in the Isokon building in the years before the war.
The building is an architectural monument but was neglected for many years after the war. The Pritchards were unable to carry out the necessary repair work on the building and sold it in 1969. In 2000 the local council announced a competition for the restoration of the building. The Isokon Trust was created and began restoration in 2003 when the building was in poor condition. It was decided to preserve the function of the building as an apartment block. In order to get the apartments into a habitable state it was necessary to rehabilitate the concrete fabric of the building, replace the asphalt waterproof coverings and the insulation materials. The interiors have been restored and contain a mixture of original and replicated fittings. The surfaces have been cleaned and repaired. The metal-framed windows have been replaced with copies, while a new heating system has been created. The exterior was re-rendered and repainted its original colour - a very pale pink.
The De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill-on-Sea was the vision of the town’s socialist mayor, Earl De La Warr – he wanted a public building on the sea embodying the ideals of the modernist movement. It was to be the first large scale welded steel-framed building in the UK and it was the first public building in Britain designed and built on International Style principles. Mendelsohn’s magnificent elliptical staircase seamlessly rose through the building. Chermayeff’s interiors were beautifully finished with in beechwood cork, white lino and cream terrazzo. It was lit by Bauhaus globe lamps.
By 1940 seaside modernism was in decline and the climate began to erode this elegant building. The metal finishes on the pavilion began to rust and the paintwork flake. Like many modernist buildings the pavilion demanded perfect weather conditions and regular maintenance to survive – neither of these were forthcoming. Due to economic pressures early on in the project, Mendelsohn had abandoned the rust-resistant bronze windows. The steel that was chosen instead rusted in the salty sea air.
Additions were made to the building in the sixties and in 1989 the De La Warr Pavilion Charitable Trust was set up to protect the building’s future. The building is owned by the local authority that leases it to the Trust. The exterior render was crumbling due to water infiltration, and the lack of expansion joints; the steel structure of the building was badly corroded and many original elements had been lost including most of the windows.
A project was created by John McAslan and partners and the local conservation officer in close collaboration with the Twentieth Century Society. English Heritage also provided crucial support. It was decided that the building would retain its function but that it would have to become a regional, rather than local arts centre. This meant that new spaces were needed- most of the additions made since its construction were to create more administrative space. Mark Cannata, head of the Historic Buildings Unit at John McAslan and partners, writes: “the pavilion’s continuing use as a public building involved considerations beyond the requirements for its conservation.”1 This meant that the survival of the building depended on building additional structures and adapting the interior. In the end the idea of a few detached pavilions at surface level that complemented, rather than mimicked, the main pavilion won the support of the necessary authorities.
Repairs were carried out to much of the existing building fabric including the building’s steel structure, the original render, some of the remaining glazing and the original internal finishes and fixtures. A new gallery was formed on the ground floor by changing the layout; the original sun parlour was reinstated as was the roof terrace. The windows facing the ocean were replaced (in keeping with the original design) and the proportions and ceiling heights of key rooms have been restored to their original state, undoing the compromising 1960s modifications.
Finally, on Russian soil, there is an exemplary international restoration project with many useful lessons for other modernist buildings in the country. The Viipuri Library (Alvar Aalto 1927-1935) in Vyborg has been carefully restored over the last 16 years initiated by the Finnish Committee for the Restoration of Viipuri Library using Finnish expertise with Russian Federal Approval. Management guidelines for World Heritage Sites have been taken into account during the restoration. The aim is to regain the architectural values of the building while adapting to the present needs of the library.
The Viipuri Library is one of Aalto’s most important buildings – here he first used flat roofs penetrated with skylights and extensively experimented with steel for columns, windows and door frames. It is originally a Finnish building but is on territory that was ceded to the Soviet Union in 1944. The building was abandoned and open to the elements from this date until 1955 when it was rebuilt to house the municipal library. Due to a lack of original documentation and other limitations, the building work done at this time by Soviet restorers and architects compromised the architectural value of the building (the proportions and materials differed from the original) and much of it has been undone in the recent restoration work. Some changes, like the Soviet lobby arrangement, have been left.
The present restoration of the library was started in 1991 as a joint project between Russian and Finish restoration committees. An international appeal was launched for the repair of the library in 1992 which involved ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, UIA, several architecture schools and specialists. Restoration work began in 1994 and in 1995 the library was awarded monument status.
The conservation ethic shows maximum dedication to authenticity, well illustrated by the way the steel entrance doors were conserved: even though they were in poor condition and little used, the original fabric was conserved as far as possible and only parts of the frame were renewed. The brass and wood handles had disappeared: they were reconstructed using original drawings, old photographs and a comparison with other door handles by Aalto at the Paimio Sanitorium.
The drawn out restoration process caused by problems with financing meant there was time for experimentation. For example, in 1998 a prototype of the undulating wooden ceiling of the lecture hall was installed to celebrate Aalto’s centenary. This prototype was part of a research project into the original structure of the ceiling and was made by the carpentry department at the Heinola Institute of Handicrafts and Applied Arts. However, over the next two years it became clear that the flush joints of the prototype were not able to sustain the varying humidity of the library. In autumn 2000 the original models of the ceiling were found and now there is a plan to reconstruct the ceiling on these models which use tongue and groove joints.
All the above are pioneering restoration projects. All of them show: a dedication to authenticity and international charters on restoration and conservation; an awareness that intervention into the original fabric causes losses further loss of that fabric; an awareness that the restoration project must meet the needs of the building in the contemporary environment, and the importance of creating a strong working group made up of architects, historians, planners, engineers, archivists and conservation groups. Although every new restoration project comes with its own set of challenges, if these guidelines are followed, and the successes of other projects studied, it is likely that the building will gain rather than lose, from restoration.
Clementine Cecil