In almost everything created we address the issue of the relationship between old and new, existing condition and new proposal. In an architect’s work this relationship is created between a new building and older existing ones. This relationship exists however when a new building is erected in virgin surroundings. It is there when a building is transformed or a new extension is added. In Greece this relationship is often a matter of discussion, criticism and legislation. Apart of the historic reality and our relationship with it there is always a sentimental burden that has to be carried when familiar surroundings change with unknown or uncertain results. Few times one can sense an optimistic expectation. Most of the times scorn is the prevailing aptitude.

If we ignore, for the moment, the reasons or the excuses for this disharmony between architects and public we may agree to the following

– Contemporary architecture has generally failed in convincing that good and meaningful architecture can still be produced.

– Almost everything old is considered better than its contemporary counterpart

– According to the majority of opinions the weaknesses of contemporary architecture can be addressed with the implementation of rules and standards concerning the morphology in new designs.

Today after the exacerbation in constructions in most parts of the country few are satisfied with the outcome. In plenty of the new buildings that were constructed, although they were vaguely reminiscent of something, they could not be compared to the good examples of our traditional architecture. What went wrong? Was the legislative background insufficient or not properly implemented? I think the answer lies elsewhere. When from the lessons of the past one keeps only the external form these are deprived of their meaning. Even worse. They are alienated from their basic reason of existence. The fulfillment of a human need in the most efficient and meaningful way for their time. How many times have we not admired the old craftsmen and their ingenuity to find solutions when space was insufficient or the available means inadequate? The best examples of our traditional architecture can be found in places where conditions were really harsh. The ever changing conditions of our everyday life reflect on our needs. Nothing can be considered as belonging to its time if it is not the product of continuous change. Can our choices regarding space remain constant? Or can they change and adapt while their external expression remains unchanged?

Everything new transforms the existing conditions. If we choose to copy what already exists we will deprive the contemporary of its potential to belong to its time, while we will strip the old of its uniqueness. There are no easy solutions here. Drawing from the unique characteristics of each individual case we can perceive each intervention as a new balance between what already exists and that which added or transformed. A relationship between the old and the new where each proposal cooperates with the existing aiming at a result that will enhance both old and new. This can be achieved only through a deeper understanding of what already exists, its causes, its virtues, its flaws, its interpretation. It is a subjective route the result of which cannot be ensured through simple objective rules.