Here is a picture of Montreal’s McGill metro station after the Réno-Métro renovation program of 1999. Like many people I’ve asked, I was very happy when they repainted this station. It was previously done in an orange and yellow colour scheme which I found very ugly and loud.
However, I recently went on an architecture tour led by a woman from SoDoCoMo (the Society for the Documentation Conservation of Modernism), who gave me an interesting alternative point of view.
Her claim is that Montreal’s metro system is a very important example of modernist architecture. This is true; the International style, for example, influenced many characteristic details (light fixtures, name plates, etc.) that I love and that few would dream of changing. However, she also said that the colours that McGill was painted in before were characteristic of the style at the time the station was inaugurated (1966), and that the repainting was undertaken without regard for the historical value the colour scheme represented.
Which do you think should be given greater priority: the historic or aesthetic value of a piece of architecture, especially a very busy urban space? (McGill is the busiest metro station in the network.) Does it change anything that we are discussing modernist architecture rather than some other style?
I don’t know…I suppose it would depend on how unique it was. How many of the other stations exhibit the original color scheme? Is McGill the only one built in that particular modernist style? How important is the color to the architecture?
I think it probably boils down to people not really appreciating the historical value of what is new. How many ancient buildings were destroyed or altered simply because the people wanted something else?
People are very fond of preserving ancient treasures and artifacts in this day and age, so we should probably take pains to preserve what we have for future generations.
This is a hard one. We had a similar situation here (NY) with a modernist apartment complex. The exterior is going to have those colors – this is yellow, orange, turquoise and brick red – pretty much permanently, because the facade is tiled, and to change the colors, you would have to strip it. The lobby interiors were originally done in these same colors, and have recently been redecorated more conventionally. The residents were split over this, most were worried that they would eventually go blind and supported the redecorating, while a few people were determined to preserve the original look.
I think the key factor in deciding to go with the majority opinion was the fact that the building is in use as a residence – it’s not a museum, and in many ways, it’s a “living” space. I think this is in keeping with many famous buildings – if you stripped the Vatican apartments* down to their original state, you’d be getting rid of a lot of the things that make it so historically interesting. Various stylistic changes are introduced in different periods, and this keeps a building dynamic, and enables it to reflect the changing needs and lifestyles of the people it serves.
This concept seems particularly well-suited to a metro station. I would agree that if possible, some areas in the metro system be kept true to the original, but not necessarily all of them. If I were in charge of the metro system (not to ursurp your dream or anything, Matt ) I would try to find some ways of documenting the changes so that people would be aware of how the stations evolved to their present state. This would also be helpful if future generations ever got a yen to go back to the fugly original. I suspect these preferences happen in cycles.
*not that I think this apartment building is in any way as significant as the Vatican
One thing preservationists sometimes forget is that old does not automatically equal valuable. Plenty of crap was produced in the past, after all.
Preserving something merely because it is “typical” of an era is especially dubious when it comes to architecture and public spaces. The architecture of East Berlin was “typical of the Eastern Bloc.” That doesn’t mean every drab, poorly designed concrete apartment building needs to be preserved for history’s sake.
Another station with a similar (i.e. garish, IMHO) colour scheme was also redecorated (Sherbrooke), with similar results. She also complained about this one.
A third one (Guy-Concordia) was also redone, and there was much bitching about that, largely because a) they didn’t get rid of all the awful styling it had before and b) they did it in white. A metro station in white! As well put carpet in a hospital. :mad:
There are some other stations (Rosemont, Square-Victoria, Beaubien) that exhibit characteristic 60’s colour schemes in a less unpleasant fashion. These three stations’ colours, BTW, were left alone in the renovation program.
) I would try to find some ways of documenting the changes so that people would be aware of how the stations evolved to their present state. This would also be helpful if future generations ever got a yen to go back to the fugly original. I suspect these preferences happen in cycles.