Historical architecture can create a sense of place, belonging and culture — at least, that’s what Carleton University architecture professor Federica Goffi believes.
Goffi’s book, Architecture in Conversion and the Work of Carlos Scarpa explores this concept in depth. Goffi builds on the work of Carlos Scarpa, an Italian designer and architect, which embraces the need for architectural altercations that open the door for new perspectives on historical buildings.
The Charlatan sat down with Goffi to discuss her new book and the tensions associated with preserving historical sites while also transforming them.
The Charlatan (TC): Tell me about your book and what inspired you to write it.
Federica Goffi (FG): Adaptability has been a hidden project in architecture since the modern period. Out of the interest of bringing out the concept of transhistorical architecture, I came across conversion.
TC: What is conversion within architecture?
FG: The idea of conversion comes from the Latin word “vertere,” which means to turn or flip an object. It’s the ability to see something from every possible perspective and potentially change our viewpoint on something.
If a building remains, it becomes a museum of itself versus a transformed building. Sometimes, it’s because there is a new use or necessity that comes into place, and it becomes an opportunity to reinterpret.
That’s where conversion comes into play.
TC: Why is conversion in architecture important?
FG: If we don’t allow these plural viewpoints, we might only read from one perspective. It’s almost like a form of micro-aggression towards other viewpoints.
When we don’t allow a critical reading of that past, it might seem as if we are legitimizing or defending just one side of history.
TC: When is there tension between constructing publicly efficient buildings and capturing a place’s historical and cultural conflict?
FG: The tension comes especially when we have historical sites. Sometimes we try to recall or narrate histories through architecture.
The take on history is that we have to preserve it, but sometimes preservation does not allow for new interpretations.
In the attitude we have towards conservation of history, the artifact itself is treated as a material object to be preserved in the best conditions possible. But this sometimes hides storytelling.
If you’re able to cut into a wall or flip an object, you reveal a hidden side of history.
TC: Why is approaching architecture through conversion more inclusive?
FG: It allows for new interpretations. Oftentimes, heritage statements can be limited.
They specify a period of time when the building is significant, but don’t speak about the site with pre-dating histories.
For example, in the colonial parts of history, a building that is recognized as heritage does not allow other time periods to speak. This is less plural as a perspective.
TC: What is there to consider between preserving historical sites and wanting to reveal hidden stories?
FG: It’s a struggle. There has to be some kind of negotiation with history in the sense of understanding what and how we can modify it.
Of course, it has to be done in a meaningful way. I’m not one for erasing the past. I do think that it’s important to have history, but also be able to negotiate and understand it better.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Featured image by Simon McKeown/the Charlatan
This article, and all of the Charlatan’s work, is brought to you by an independent student newspaper dedicated to informing, uplifting and entertaining the Carleton University community. We are a levy-funded organization which plays a role in the broader, vibrant student culture on campus. By reading this article, you are supporting our efforts.
