Preserving the Twentieth Century by Catherine Croft The material evidence of twentieth-century architecture is all around us. As well as the buildings themselves we have access to photographs, film, detailed contracts and correspondence. In many cases we may be working on buildings whose original architect is still living and may (or may not) want to be involved in the design of additions or alterations. Whilst some preservationists argue that the "idea" behind modern movement buildings is more important than the material reality of the surviving structure, a material culture based approach helps us evaluate the physical evidence of the recent past. The paper will examine the extent to which architect's own recollections can be accurate and unbiased, and the degree to which hindsight and retrospective analysis influences what is frequently seen as the ultimate objective source. Can the building contradict or tell us more than its creator? Examples will include Headmaster's House at Dartington (William Lescaze), and Keeling House (Denys Lasdun, 1955-9) The former is now a small museum and the latter has been converted from social to luxury private housing. Headmaster's House: This has recently been restored by John Winter Associates. John Winter is a British architect whose own work is much admired (the house he built for himself in Highgate Cemetery is currently being considered for listing as a historic building). Later in his career he has specialised in the pragmatic repair of twentieth century private houses, and believes in working closely with current owners to suit their needs, as well as understanding the original form of the building. The Dartington Estate had kept a detailed archive of the construction process for the Headmaster's house, but on site supervision had been hampered by distance, with the architect issuing many instructions from the US by telegram. John Winter has "improved" on the original detailing to produce a building which he feels provides better solutions more in keeping with Lescaze's objectives. However, by eliminating exposed down pipes and intensifying the colour palate of the building he has also destroyed evidence of the frustrations faced by early modernists in Britain and the gap between dream and reality. Keeling House: This is an early work of British National Theatre architect Denys Lasdun. The recent works by Munckenbeck + Marshall have been controversial in that for many historians the socialist agenda of the post war period is inextricably linked to any appreciation of aesthetic form: many would rather see public housing demolished than converted for private use. At Keeling House the marketing of the building has sought to reposition the building as glamorous and exclusive, and initial plans included a high metal fence segregating the 16 storey tower from the remains of the estate which remains in local authority ownership. The distinguished original architect has expressed his support for the scheme, including backing for a rooftop penthouse conversion. This case forces historians to confront the extent to which a British appreciation of Modernism has had a political agenda, as well as to question how much sway Lasdun should have over a building now 40 years old and listed at grade II*. I will conclude with an analysis of the issues to be confronted when examining different types of material culture evidence as an architectural historian. These will include recognition of the extent to which post war architecture in particular has been influenced by social policy and central government decision making, as well as politically-derived funding regimes. Similar complex "health warnings" need to be applied to written and verbal evidence, but by considering the whole range of sources in conjunction, a more integrated understanding can be reached which can inform intelligent preservation.  Back to conference agenda