[excerpt] … The challenge of new construction in historic settings is surely one of the most difficult for proponents of historic preservation. Often these projects prove highly divisive, pitting long-time allies against one another—for example, neighborhood activists and historic preservationists against architects and housing affordability advocates. Nor are such controversial projects exceptional, since historic settings usually include large areas of city centers, which are already struggling to balance many other competing and contentious issues. 

Unfortunately, existing guidelines don’t help the parties to “get to yes.” For example, Article 9 of the 1964 Venice Charter states that new work in historic districts “must bear a contemporary stamp.” Many architects and review boards interpret this passage as mandating one particular style “of our time”—minimalist modernism. The results do not go well with local residents. 

A case in point is in Stockholm, where proposals were recently advanced for a new Nobel Museum building (top photo, and photos below). Citizens there protested strongly that the proposals were out of place in the beautiful historic site, out of scale, and downright ugly. In the end, the Swedish Land and Environment Court sided with the citizens and rejected the winning proposal, finding that it “would affect the readability of Stockholm’s historical development as a port, shipping and trading city.” 

The irony is that the Venice Charter doesn’t actually impose a modernist style, or any other.