On April 19, 2021, in the context of International Monuments and Sites Day, Héritage Montréal invited the public to a round table entitled "Complex pasts : Diverse futures" on invisible heritage(review here). Under the guidance of Dinu Bumbaru, Frantz Voltaire, Bernard Vallée and I had an open exchange on the heritage we don't know how to see, or don't want to see.
I had been invited to speak about certain modern architectural achievements that were described as modest. I therefore presented the Saint-Simon-Apôtre school park in Ahuntsic and the Ville Saint-Michel civic centre, which allowed me to discuss modern concepts at the birth of urban development. First, the park-school, which, under the leadership of the founding parish priest of Saint-Simon Apôtre, once provided residents with a park with accessible standardized sports equipment. Secondly, the star-shaped urban development of a neighbourhood in Ville Saint-Michel where the streets converge towards a civic centre that includes the town hall, the library, the Joseph-François Perrault high school, and the park of the same name. Although not flamboyant, these examples were innovative in their time and, if they intrigue some curious passers-by today, they are neither particularly remarkable nor noticed. They are nevertheless witnesses to the evolution of our city.
With the topic launched, why not take the opportunity to question the notion of modesty that often characterises modern heritage, and then encourage the discovery of this architecture? The starting point for understanding and even appreciating this heritage is what we see and what we know. The literature on the subject is generous and accessible, but I would like to remind you of a few keys to understanding this much less modest production than it seems. It is enough to be interested in it to appreciate it, but the first reflex seems to be that of taking a position: to like this architecture or not; to find it beautiful or not. The ancient or modern heritage is less dependent on these subjective opinions than on the objective facts that actually give it its value, starting with the ideas, forms and materials.
The heritage we don't want to see
Modern architecture is often perceived as ordinary and uninteresting. The rationality of many projects, the repetition of models and the large number of buildings that have shaped the development of our cities, those that have taken up and sometimes watered down elements of the modern language, no doubt give rise to this negative perception. But is the work as a whole modest? Certainly not in its nature! In this seemingly homogeneous body of work, there are many remarkable achievements that I would even describe as flamboyant and sophisticated.
The very essence of modern architectural language is innovation. First of all, innovation in form, which is created to adapt to a use, to a function. The one that pushes its limits thanks to the structural and plastic potential of new materials and construction techniques. In responding to contemporary issues, the nature of modern architecture is necessarily to break with tradition. At the time, it was oriented towards change and it is the materialization of this posture that it shows today.
Isn't modern heritage rather unrecognised or ignored? The answer is definitely yes. Ignorance, or even indifference, are the main threats to the preservation of modern architecture. Current events regularly demonstrate this violently, whether it is the disappearance of theSept-Iles city hall, theSaint-Louis-de-France church in Quebec City, the abandonment of the Domaine-de-l'Estérel shopping centre or the disfigurement of theSaint-Gérard Majella church in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.
The heritage we don't know how to see
Modern architecture reflects a context of profound political, social and economic change on an international scale. Modernity in Quebec began timidly at the end of the 19th century. The architecture of that period certainly did not yet have the aesthetic that would characterize it in the 1960s, the period of its rise. However, inspired by the already mature context of Western Europe and the United States, it materialised new ideas of planning and architecture as far as material and technical resources allowed. In the twentieth century, in the midst of the modernisation of cities, building production took off with the economic revival of the thirty glorious years, until the mid-1970s.
In historical terms, this production is a material witness to an essential period in our collective history, to social ideas, to openness to the world, to mobility and to the experimental spirit that animated this era in an effervescent and rational manner.
In line with the zeitgeist, which is notably that of industrialisation, the pace has accelerated with the new ways of designing and building: ever faster building sites, ever newer architectural concepts, larger building scales and more production. Think of the great urban renewal projects, the churches of the liturgical revival, the democratisation of schools, the development and growth of the suburbs, etc. The latter reminds us of a philosophy which is far removed from the current context of urban development and to which we sometimes wish to turn our backs today.
In spite of a blatant lack of knowledge, modern heritage remains for me a fascinating field of observation, precisely because of its own contradictions. The appearance of the corpus evokes a variegated lexical field: modest and rich at the same time, simple or expressive achievements, a variety of rational or exuberant forms, a simple and sophisticated character. Modern architecture is certainly interesting thanks to this multiplicity of styles, typologies and construction methods that marked the 20th century. Today, this production is stigmatised by the context in which it was born: that of industrialisation and that of major demolition and urban renovation operations. Now that these built witnesses are present, how can we learn from them for the future?
The ideas
The most remarkable modern achievements tell us about the ideas, symbols, uses and aesthetics of an era. For example, the planning principles of the school park and the civic centre that I mentioned in the introduction are collective in nature and their impact is more urban than architectural. The school-park agreement was part of the development of the new parishes from the end of the 1940s onwards, with the aim of democratising the facilities for these living environments.
From an architectural point of view, modern society has rethought the built typologies and adapted them to the uses, and then to the functions, which were also evolving. This period also led to a reflection on uses, which resulted in a new formal language, new representations and new models. The main building at the origin of the development of the parish of Saint-Simon-Apôtre was its church, which in 1956 was one of the first innovative examples of the use of reinforced concrete. Its structure and its curved veil roof made it possible to create a completely open and abundantly lit space where the faithful gathered and converged towards the celebrant.
Modern sacred architecture is a good example of this development. There is no better way to discover modern architecture! The formal development of the churches took place in a context of both liturgical and architectural renewal. The call for change was so strong that it led to a fundamental questioning of the place of the Church in a new society and consequently the form of the building that was to house it. This typology, because of its symbolic significance and expressive potential, led to a profusion of buildings with flamboyant forms, breaking with the formal tradition. At the time, although governed by precise constraints related to the liturgical programme and often modest budgets, modern religious architecture was a highly stimulating commission for architects and artists because of its experimental character.
Among other renewed typologies, we can also think of city halls such as the one in Laval, schools such as the Marie-Favery primary school, as well as residential models such as the bungalow.
MARIE FAVERY PRIMARY SCHOOLS (1966), VILLERAY, PGL, VIEW OF THE FAÇADE. SOURCE: MARIE-DINA SALVIONE, 2015
AHUNTSIC BUNGALOW (DATE UNKNOWN). SOURCE: MARIE-DINA SALVIONE, 2020
The shape
The introduction of so-called modern materials was decisive in this formal quest. Reinforced concrete was the material of choice for architectural modernity and large-scale construction. Its great versatility and technical potential made it the material of choice for many modern buildings.
Steel structures have also given buildings a universal value that sometimes left the envelope materials to be desired. In this context, the surface qualities of the cladding became decisive and gave the buildings their specificity. Profiles that run vertically and horizontally evoked lightness, speed and height in the image of skyscrapers such as Place Ville Marie or the CIBC Tower. On the buildings where it was used, steel embodied the standardisation and technological, even modular architecture of the time, as in Buckminster Fuller's geodesic structures. On a smaller scale, it made the crazy dream of temporary architecture, of buildings that could be dismantled and moved, come true. Finally, beyond the structural elements, the eye must linger on the assemblies that have sometimes been skilfully staged, such as the glued laminated wood beams on the façade of the Josée Faucher sports centre in Laval.
Finally, glass was part of a major moment in the history of modern architecture: the opening of the building to light. The structural possibilities of other materials certainly had something to do with it, but the accessibility of transparent or translucent industrialised glass surfaces was unavoidable, as it was largely responsible for the new relationship between modern architecture and natural light, with effects of lightness, openness, transparency or translucency.
The formal quest of modern architecture cannot be dissociated from the expressive search for these materials. The use of concrete, steel and glass, sometimes combined with glued laminated wood, brick and stone, proved to be a widespread solution to express the desired material truth. Collaboration between artists and architects has also contributed to the enrichment of certain projects.
Spotting remarkable modern heritage buildings certainly requires a trained eye, but this discovery is not just for architects and other building experts. The curious, perceptive and interested observer will quickly discover that many buildings stand out from the crowd, and then simply walk around them and look up rather than down.
After many years of research and awareness-raising by modern architecture experts, this heritage is now recognised by heritage organisations and many municipalities and cities have included it in their inventories. But the game is far from won. A large portion of the province's modern heritage remains unknown, ignored and therefore threatened with extinction.
In the context of the reorganisation of the Cultural Heritage Act, the time limit for heritage inventories has been set at 1940, which poses an additional obstacle to the safeguarding of modern heritage. Indeed, although it is possible to recognise and give a protected status to a modern building, this is not necessarily encouraged and especially not compulsory. However, in the 2000s, the MCCQ showed unequivocal leadership in the recognition of modern heritage . In 2005, the theme of modern heritage was officially included in the directory of Quebec cultural property. Churches built after 1945 were already included in the inventory of Quebec's places of worship in 2003. They were not targeted in the first phase of the heritage hierarchy, which allowed them to be characterized and evaluated in the same way as older churches, but were quickly targeted afterwards. However, it was not until 2016 that modern places of worship of value A or B (unavoidable or exceptional) were eligible for renovation funding from the Conseil du patrimoine religieux du Québec.
The MCCQ's decision to set the time limit for inventories at 1940 gives the impression that modern heritage is not worth including in the national built history. Municipalities that value their modern heritage are obviously welcome to include it in their inventory, but they are under no obligation to do so. How can we ensure that this modern heritage, witness to a pivotal era in Quebec's identity and history, will be protected, celebrated and passed on to future generations if we do not give it the necessary interest and care?
- Commission des biens culturels du Québec. "La gestion par les valeurs: exploration d'un modèle", 2004. Commission des biens culturels du Québec. "How to name heritage when the past is no longer ancient? A Discussion Paper on Modern Heritage", 2005.
