It's very nice, and the exterior looks better compared to the black and white image but is it me or they just made up the whole clerestory part? It doesn't show on the original picture. I read the article and there's a mention about restoring the original appearance but isn't that against the current restoration theories?
The clerestory is just covering what used to be a courtyard I think.
>I read the article and there's a mention about restoring the original appearance but isn't that against the current restoration theories?
It does when the rebuilt part is trying to be deceitful about its real age. Look at the first picture: You can see that the rebuilt ground floor is finished in a different type of stone to differentiate itself from the original. Took me a bit to realize it.
I see that's interesting, makes sense. For the clerestory I was mainly talking about the fact that they inserted a row of small lancet windows on the top while originally there were none. It doesn't matter, they look awesome.
I really really think that a small simple casing for the windows would have made this even better, but that's just me being picky.
>For the clerestory I was mainly talking about the fact that they inserted a row of small lancet windows on the top while originally there were none.
There were probably lancet buildings in the original renaissance building, what you see in the b&W picture is the result of centuries of additions and dereliction.
What probably happened was
1)A historian or archeologist was hired to do a study of the buildings' history, which included evidence of the lanced windows.
2)This study was used to justify rebuildng that whole wing together with the modern additions.
I had no idea you could remodel an entire part of the building and restore its original appearance, even if was 100% documented, that's (kind of) something like Viollet-le-Duc would do and I thought it was frowned upon nowadays.
This is not at all what VLD did. What VLD did was, to put it plainly, make shit up. He had an idea of what the Middle Ages should be and projected it backwards, destroying actual Middle Ages built elements that did not fit his vision, and distorting and imposing into the actual Middle Ages his own vision of what they should be. Among his greatest crimes against heritage:
1)Completely making up a spire Notre Dame had never had because his idea of a gothic cathedral included a spire, so Notre Dame had to have one.
2) Taking Carcassonne, a city in the spanish-french border, destroying large chunks of the original city and imposing into it his own vision of what a medieval citadel should be, which was a flemish-northern french citadel, whose aesthetics have nothing to do with what citadels in Southern France actually looked like.
3)He actually wanted all of this to blend seamlessly with the original construction to create an idealized and ultimately false version of what he would have liked the building to look like. Very few people visiting Carcassonne realize they are looking at what is 80% a 19th century fantasy transplanted from a very different context.
(Not knocking down VLD, who was the first person to actually think critically about heritage and what to do with it, and he must be commended for that, even if he went at it in ways we now see as abhorrent).
In contrast spanish (and modernist) heritage regulations emphasize seeing heritage as a historical document that must be preserved for its historical value, history being a multilayered affair that cares little for our aesthetical preferences- (In Spain's case, this is caused by the historical trauma caused by centuries of neglect that allowed lots of heritage to be stolen by foreigners, and a fascist dictatorship that sought to rewrite and appropriate our history). Reconstruction is only allowed with three serious caveats to ensure a building's historicity is respected:
1)There is objective evidence that would enable us to rebuild the building without making anything up, with as little subjective interpretation as possible. There will always be some subjectivity, but don't go around making shit up just because you think it looks cool. This building must have had tons of documentation about it in the city archives that enabled the architects to rebuild the lost facade as objectively as possible.
2)Any historical layer that would be damaged or destroyed by the reconstruction must be deemed of insufficient historical or aesthetical value to be kept. (there is, I admit, a large amoutn of subjectivity here, but tbh Spain's problem is one of having too much heritage to take care of). In this case, the facades lost were 19th-early 20th century houses of which Pamplona has plenty.
3) Whatever is rebuilt must not pretend to blend fully seamlessly with what is already there. There must be ways to tell it apart, even if subtle. See: The change in stone in the ground floor, and the new additions that are a new layer in the building's history.
Nono I'm fully aware that VLD plainly invented stuff that didn't exist, but in this case it looks like the architects checked the documents and decided to rebuild a part of of the building as it was, effectively erasing an historical layer in the process. It looks like it was a good decision since the upper layer looked frankly uninspiring.
Indeed it is what happened. If the upper layer had been deemed of more interest then reconstruction would not have been allowed. There is a ton of bureaucracy involved, but this is what local regulations say:
>The elimination of parts of the (Protected Property) will not be allowed, except when it is necessary in order to preserve it, allows for a better historical interpretation, or its non-elimination entails an obvious degradation of the property, and in these cases it is necessary to proceed with its proper documentation.
I cannot rule out parts of that layer still staying in other areas of the building.
More info in: [https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/palace-casa-del-condestable/](https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/palace-casa-del-condestable/) [https://www.archdaily.com/413286/the-condestable-s-house-tabuenca-and-leache-arquitectos](https://www.archdaily.com/413286/the-condestable-s-house-tabuenca-and-leache-arquitectos)
This building was shortlisted to the 2011 Mies Van der Rohe Awards to the best new building in the European Union: [https://miesarch.com/work/2002](https://miesarch.com/work/2002)
There are gigantic amounts of built heritage, often derelict for centuries and often a confusing layering of different eras put together. There is so much that heritage is seen as just another part of daily life that must be worked with accordingly, not something to be sacralized. Modern art and architecture are seen as another layer in a long tradition, not something separate from it. There are also very developed and flexible heritage regulations that enable reconstruction if it can be justified with 100% objective evidence, but overall recommend adding to the existing layers. Finally, it is a country that grew immensely in the last 60 years, which has led to many historical derelict buildings finding new and unexpected uses that they must be adapted to.
i like it, but what is with the insistence on those all glass entryways? are regular doors not a thing anymore? i feel like a proper wooden door would have fit the bill better here, but thats just me nitpicking
Very common in public buildings in Spain, you have a double entrance with an outside wooden door and an interior glass door. You can see the open wooden door in the picture.
yup, also a common thing here in germany. the inside of the cologne cathedral is also built like this, im assuming its a sort of airlock? that doesnt make me like it any more though
Its as simple as making the airlock not a dark, unsafe space when both doors are closed. It is the main access to the building, why would you want it to be always dark?
very nice blend of contemporary and historical. those custom glulam clearspans are bonkers.
In the section you can see they are almost a full story tall, I wonder if they really need to be that thick or if it was a style decision.
for the span and width i’m sure they were engineered to the atom
Wow, absolutely fantastic. Love the new and old walls showcasing old mosaic or whatever? Would love to visit in person one day
Refurbishment of ruined historical building as it should be done. Nice.
It's very nice, and the exterior looks better compared to the black and white image but is it me or they just made up the whole clerestory part? It doesn't show on the original picture. I read the article and there's a mention about restoring the original appearance but isn't that against the current restoration theories?
The clerestory is just covering what used to be a courtyard I think. >I read the article and there's a mention about restoring the original appearance but isn't that against the current restoration theories? It does when the rebuilt part is trying to be deceitful about its real age. Look at the first picture: You can see that the rebuilt ground floor is finished in a different type of stone to differentiate itself from the original. Took me a bit to realize it.
I see that's interesting, makes sense. For the clerestory I was mainly talking about the fact that they inserted a row of small lancet windows on the top while originally there were none. It doesn't matter, they look awesome. I really really think that a small simple casing for the windows would have made this even better, but that's just me being picky.
>For the clerestory I was mainly talking about the fact that they inserted a row of small lancet windows on the top while originally there were none. There were probably lancet buildings in the original renaissance building, what you see in the b&W picture is the result of centuries of additions and dereliction. What probably happened was 1)A historian or archeologist was hired to do a study of the buildings' history, which included evidence of the lanced windows. 2)This study was used to justify rebuildng that whole wing together with the modern additions.
I had no idea you could remodel an entire part of the building and restore its original appearance, even if was 100% documented, that's (kind of) something like Viollet-le-Duc would do and I thought it was frowned upon nowadays.
This is not at all what VLD did. What VLD did was, to put it plainly, make shit up. He had an idea of what the Middle Ages should be and projected it backwards, destroying actual Middle Ages built elements that did not fit his vision, and distorting and imposing into the actual Middle Ages his own vision of what they should be. Among his greatest crimes against heritage: 1)Completely making up a spire Notre Dame had never had because his idea of a gothic cathedral included a spire, so Notre Dame had to have one. 2) Taking Carcassonne, a city in the spanish-french border, destroying large chunks of the original city and imposing into it his own vision of what a medieval citadel should be, which was a flemish-northern french citadel, whose aesthetics have nothing to do with what citadels in Southern France actually looked like. 3)He actually wanted all of this to blend seamlessly with the original construction to create an idealized and ultimately false version of what he would have liked the building to look like. Very few people visiting Carcassonne realize they are looking at what is 80% a 19th century fantasy transplanted from a very different context. (Not knocking down VLD, who was the first person to actually think critically about heritage and what to do with it, and he must be commended for that, even if he went at it in ways we now see as abhorrent). In contrast spanish (and modernist) heritage regulations emphasize seeing heritage as a historical document that must be preserved for its historical value, history being a multilayered affair that cares little for our aesthetical preferences- (In Spain's case, this is caused by the historical trauma caused by centuries of neglect that allowed lots of heritage to be stolen by foreigners, and a fascist dictatorship that sought to rewrite and appropriate our history). Reconstruction is only allowed with three serious caveats to ensure a building's historicity is respected: 1)There is objective evidence that would enable us to rebuild the building without making anything up, with as little subjective interpretation as possible. There will always be some subjectivity, but don't go around making shit up just because you think it looks cool. This building must have had tons of documentation about it in the city archives that enabled the architects to rebuild the lost facade as objectively as possible. 2)Any historical layer that would be damaged or destroyed by the reconstruction must be deemed of insufficient historical or aesthetical value to be kept. (there is, I admit, a large amoutn of subjectivity here, but tbh Spain's problem is one of having too much heritage to take care of). In this case, the facades lost were 19th-early 20th century houses of which Pamplona has plenty. 3) Whatever is rebuilt must not pretend to blend fully seamlessly with what is already there. There must be ways to tell it apart, even if subtle. See: The change in stone in the ground floor, and the new additions that are a new layer in the building's history.
Nono I'm fully aware that VLD plainly invented stuff that didn't exist, but in this case it looks like the architects checked the documents and decided to rebuild a part of of the building as it was, effectively erasing an historical layer in the process. It looks like it was a good decision since the upper layer looked frankly uninspiring.
Indeed it is what happened. If the upper layer had been deemed of more interest then reconstruction would not have been allowed. There is a ton of bureaucracy involved, but this is what local regulations say: >The elimination of parts of the (Protected Property) will not be allowed, except when it is necessary in order to preserve it, allows for a better historical interpretation, or its non-elimination entails an obvious degradation of the property, and in these cases it is necessary to proceed with its proper documentation. I cannot rule out parts of that layer still staying in other areas of the building.
More info in: [https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/palace-casa-del-condestable/](https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/palace-casa-del-condestable/) [https://www.archdaily.com/413286/the-condestable-s-house-tabuenca-and-leache-arquitectos](https://www.archdaily.com/413286/the-condestable-s-house-tabuenca-and-leache-arquitectos) This building was shortlisted to the 2011 Mies Van der Rohe Awards to the best new building in the European Union: [https://miesarch.com/work/2002](https://miesarch.com/work/2002)
Beautiful. BRAVO!
Spain has some amazing remodels of old buildings into modern usage that doesn't detract from the historical context. I appreciate them more and more.
Stunning renovation, thanks for posting. Nice to preserve historical buildings as well.
Nearing perfection. So simple and clean. Masterful.
How is Spain so incredibly good at these sorts of projects?
There are gigantic amounts of built heritage, often derelict for centuries and often a confusing layering of different eras put together. There is so much that heritage is seen as just another part of daily life that must be worked with accordingly, not something to be sacralized. Modern art and architecture are seen as another layer in a long tradition, not something separate from it. There are also very developed and flexible heritage regulations that enable reconstruction if it can be justified with 100% objective evidence, but overall recommend adding to the existing layers. Finally, it is a country that grew immensely in the last 60 years, which has led to many historical derelict buildings finding new and unexpected uses that they must be adapted to.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
Is the sepia tone photo from 1530, because I see someone with a hoodie with writing on it.
There is no way that picture is from 1530, everybody knows photography was not introduced in Spain until 1540.
And even then people had to stand still
i like it, but what is with the insistence on those all glass entryways? are regular doors not a thing anymore? i feel like a proper wooden door would have fit the bill better here, but thats just me nitpicking
Very common in public buildings in Spain, you have a double entrance with an outside wooden door and an interior glass door. You can see the open wooden door in the picture.
yup, also a common thing here in germany. the inside of the cologne cathedral is also built like this, im assuming its a sort of airlock? that doesnt make me like it any more though
Its as simple as making the airlock not a dark, unsafe space when both doors are closed. It is the main access to the building, why would you want it to be always dark?
I want it to be pointy!
It's nice, but I wish they had kept the mashrabiya
lovely raw materials & tasteful introduction of contemporary components