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.
