Revisiting the work of Raymond Lemaire 5/7/13 What do we remember, what will we remember in the future about Raymond Lemaire (1921-1997), a PhD in art history, a researcher and practitioner of restoration of monumental and historical sites? That he was a pioneer and a major figure in the postmodernist movement as regards urban renewal, or that he was "frighteningly addicted to the past"? Will Lemaire be thought of as a new Viollet-le-Duc, or as an "impostor" of the worst sort, incapable to boot of managing a financially credible project? In an article (1) that is a prelude to her doctoral dissertation, Claudine Houbart rejects preconceived notions about this "charismatic and controversial" man. An architect and art historian, she is the first to explore in depth the rich archives of Raymond Lemaire - "a gold mine", in her view. She put Lemaire's archive in order, and then examined it in detail. The portrait of Lemaire and his work that results is full of nuances and contrasts. "During my studies," Claudine Houbart tells us, "I had a massively positive impression of the work of Raymond Lemaire. For example, I was fascinated by the impressive renovation of the Grand Béguinage of Louvain, which he directed alone after 1963; but there was also his role as a pioneer, the next year, in the production of the Venice Charter (1964) and his constant efforts to "re-animate" the ancient city." When she began her research in 2004, Houbart understood that she could not be satisfied with keeping Lemaire on a pedestal. Certainly, the man had an original and exceptional career, even outside universities where he was a brilliant teacher of art history (at both the KUL and the UCL). He was not an architect, nor a trained engineer, but his life was devoted to architecture, to restoration and urbanism, in Belgium and - 1 -
internationally. Claudine Houbart was obliged to study the "visions" of Lemaire, as well as the controversies to which those visions gave rise. A tireless worker Lemaire was co-author of the Venice Charter and co-founder of ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, which gave a new orientation to the movement for restoration of ancient cities during the 1960s. Lemaire also played an important role as a representative of Unesco, as regards the study and conservation of cultural heritage around the world: the temple of Borobudur (Indonesia), the Acropolis in Athens, the temple of Bassae (Greece), conservation of painted churches (Romania), restoration of the temple of Zeus in Jerash and at the Petra site (Jordan), and these are just some examples. To get an impression of Lemaire's breadth of work just in Belgium, we could cite these examples: about thirty churches and chapels, the chateaux of Heverlee, Ecaussinnes, Boitsfort, Feluy, the Ferme du Douaire in Ottignies and the Ferme Rose in Uccle In addition to the renovation of the Grand Béguinage of Louvain (Flanders), which made Lemaire famous, we should also mention projects that involved the rue des Brasseurs (Namur), the Sainte-Anne and Saint-Géry neighbourhoods and the block containing the Museum of Modern Art (Brussels). And we should not forget the downtown projects in Courtrai and Mouscron, the Parijse Hallen in Bruges, etc. Lemaire did not reject new construction, like the mechanical engineering classrooms and laboratories at Heverlee, the metro station of Kraainem, the church of Herne (to take some notable examples). And to top everything off, need we recall that it was Raymond Lemaire who imagined the new city of Louvain-la-Neuve, "escaping the dangers of the gigantism of Corbusier, of Chandigar or Brasilia, in order to preserve the essential part of a tradition" (Michel Woitrin, in the Biographie Nationale). "I quickly realized," says Houbart, "that I could not take in the entire oeuvre of Lemaire, with its many parts. So I limited myself to that which concerns urban renovation, which was of all the things he loved, the very closest to his heart. And so I left aside, in my doctorate, the entire matter of the conception of Louvain-la-Neuve." A gold mine All during his active life, Raymond Lemaire gave proof of uncommon energy in instruction, research and in action in the field. However, he left a few published texts and an anthology of writings published by the CRMSF (Commission royale des Monuments, sites et fouilles; Royal Commission on Monuments, Sites and Excavations); he produced no major theoretical work. People like to say about him that he was trying - with good reason - to liberate himself from theories in order to get closer to the new needs of contemporary society. "On the other hand", Houbart continued, "he left us voluminous personal archives - which are now maintained at the KUL. These are precise, dated notes containing the various opinions he wished to give on concrete problems that were put before an art history professor, which is what he was, or before an expert in urban renovation, the person who conceived of a new city... These first-hand documents are a fabulous source. A real gold mine that had never been studied, until I came along." Houbart thus undertook the study of this "rich vein", exploring it in detail. For her, this was the only way to do justice to the work of Raymond Lemaire. But she would also be showing that despite contradictions and failures, "He still clearly had things to say to us today." Especially inasmuch as the theme of the restoration of ancient city centres remains an unresolved problem. - 2 -
"Even if [Lemaire] didn't always get praised in the press", says Houbart, it is undeniable that he was a multidisciplinary person, that he wanted to show respect for the past, but also to listen to those who were closest to heritage sites, to understand their intentions, to generate ideas through dialogue, with intelligence, humility and sensitivity." Ideas such as "on a human scale", "visual sequences", "ways of being" and "de-globalization" were close to his heart. In exploring Lemaire's archives, Claudine Houbart also took the measure of his ability to transcend "old conflicts between art historians and architects... He had a synthetic vision of things. And the in-depth study of the methodology he put in place for the study of the city blocks that were to be restored is particularly instructive." Don't sacrifice the ancient city to modernism! In the few theoretical texts he did write, Lemaire did not hesitate to affirm that modernism had encountered its limits in the area of urban renovation. This was obvious, in his view, in the flagrant lack of human culture that was shown in some projects. "One must re-found the ancient city, in order to preserve it and improve the well-being of the people who live there", he wrote. "Raymond Lemaire had in this regard a scene designer's view of things, at times "aestheticizing" things - even though he tried not to do that", says Houbart. "A term he often used, and which I have tried to elucidate, concerned the "way of being" of the ancient city. He wanted to see us preserve as much as possible of the human scale, the equilibrium, the harmony." It is certainly the case that he did not always succeed in that. Claudine Houbart explains the reasons for this with reference to certain case studies that are particularly revealing. Contrary to what had been planned for the renovation of the Grand-Béguinage à Louvain, where Lemaire had had carte blanche, other examples show that he was in fact "frustrated in his design". Such was the case with the renovation of the Rue des Brasseurs, in Namur, where he was in charge of the preliminary study. Interestingly the same thing happened with the Sainte-Anne block, which adjoined the Place du Grand Sablon in Brussels. Houbart went into detail regarding that project. "Up until the end of the 1950s", Houbart said, "the centre of the capital, already marked by the large cleanup projects of the 19th century, became the object of a modernizing frenzy which transformed old neighbourhoods into permanent construction sites, without one responsible voice being raised against the promoters and public agencies responsible for a disaster, in which much valuable heritage was lost." The term "Brusselization" entered the language of architecture professionals. Wikipedia even defines it as "a term used by urbanists to refer to the urban upheavals of a city given over to promoters to the detriment of the character of the daily life of the inhabitants, which is then described as the necessary "modernization" of the city." You don't say. In the late 1960s, people's attitudes changed, thankfully. The trauma caused by cases of destruction such as that of the Maison du Peuple by Victor Horta, in 1965, set off a strong counter-reaction, thanks especially to the creation of two organizations for the defence of cities which were very different as regards their arguments and their methods, but which aimed at the same objective, that of saving the tradition-laden areas of the city. One was "Quartier des Arts" (Raymond Lemaire was their principal expert), begun in 1967, followed by the "Workshop for research and urban action" (ARAU), begun in 1969. - 3 -
Beginning at this period, Raymond Lemaire would start to contribute to the movement that questioned the methods of urban renewal or renovation that were adopted by the "Services techniques" of the City of Brussels with regard to the oldest neighbourhoods of the historic centre. As the expert analyst for the "Quartier des Arts" association, he was given responsibility for several studies aimed at the adoption of "special plans for design and construction" (known as PPA) for the city blocks of great historical interest such as the Sainte-Anne block, which from 1970 on would be the first urban renovation project directed by Lemaire in Brussels. Îlot Sainte-Anne: failure! "This important example allows us to look at the work of Raymond Lemaire in a critical and nuanced way," said Houbart. "The renovation of this îlot came at a key moment in the recent history of Brussels urbanism, but its renovation project only ended up, after more than 15 years of negotiations, with a very partial realization that was quite different from the initial objectives, which included setting a high value on existing buildings, and contemporary reinterpretation on the other hand. Lemaire was in fact confronted with divergent interests - 4 -
on the part of many actors both public and private, hampered by administrative tools that were poorly adapted to such a project, and subject to the unwavering negative judgment of his detractors. In her detailed study, Houbart casts light on the complex and clumsy (in this case) mechanisms of the decision making process. She shows how Lemaire envisioned the implementation of his doctrinal principles for the project, although in fact the partial realization that was the final result did not reflect them in any way. The failure of the Sainte-Anne urban renovation project was unfortunately not an isolated case. Among ten or so PPA or urban renovation projects given to Raymond Lemaire to manage by the City of Brussels, only one would be completely (or nearly completely) finished: the îlot Saint-Géry, conceived from 1977 to 1981. But even this project was criticized before being completed because of its adoption of a principle of archaeological reconstitution, and the loss of authenticity of buildings which, because of their dilapidated condition and age were remodelled almost entirely. This would also be the case with the renovation project of the city blocks called "the Museum of Modern Art block", a project which was able to preserve less than half the buildings because of their poor state of preservation, over the course of 20 years of negotiations. Houbart notes, "This project was more like a cold reconstruction than a restoration. In many other cases, the projects that Lemaire was asked to manage were just forgotten, left in boxes, victims of changing political preferences." An oeuvre with much to teach us Lemaire was roundly criticized for his handling of these projects, which were thought by some to be excessive and without proper foundation. He would disappear from the Brussels scene, and devote more time to communicating his experiences, and on his role as an expert at the international level. Even today, what he accomplished in this context is judged harshly by the heritage community and by urbanists. "Still it seems to me, says Houbart, "that a detailed study of his projects, their chronology and the roles played by other actors allows us to mitigate this judgment to a considerable extent. He was not exempt from contradictions and violations of the doctrinal principles he himself worked out, but the work of Raymond Lemaire appears to me to be criticized mostly for the inevitable gap between the design and the reality that now exists, something that happens to every pioneer. He came too late, and worked on buildings that were very dilapidated, so much so that the only choice was between extensive remodelling and demolition; he came too early, in the sense that adequate administrative tools that might have effectively helped his cause were not in place." Many urban renovation projects directed by Lemaire failed, but it is unjust to place all the responsibility on him. In the wake of this bitter observation, Houbart drives the nail in deeper: "In Brussels, as in Wallonia, heritage preservation and the adaptation of old neighbourhoods to the norms of modern habitations are still today distinct problems, worked on without any synergy." Claudine Houbart has reconsidered the immense work of Raymond Lemaire from top to bottom, including the precision and exhaustive nature of his methodology, his equal openness to history and to creation, and the cross-cutting nature of his skills, and has done justice to him, even as she gives the professionals of urban renovation something to think about. "His work is rich and can teach us a lot, today and for the future." We are grateful to this Liège researcher for having discovered in the archives of the City of Brussels a series of urban renovation projects that seem almost like science fiction, all signed by Raymond Lemaire; and even a comic artist like François Schuiten would have been proud to acknowledge them. - 5 -
(1) Raymond Lemaire et les débuts de la rénovation urbaine à Bruxelles, Montréal, Revue d'histoire urbaine, 2012. - 6 -