2009 Terrazzo and Mosaic Floor in Interwar Buildings in Athens: Conservation issues

T E R R A Z Z O A N D M O S A I C F L O O R S

I N I N T E R W A R B U I L D I N G S I N A T H E N S :

Exam. number: Y2265156

MA in CONSERVATION STUDIES

February 2009

The University of YorkDepartment of Archaeology

C o n s e r v a t i o n I s s u e s

To my parents

who have taught me that knowledge is power

but also how to dance over difficulties

…τα πιο ωραία λαϊκά σε σπίτια µε µωσαϊκά τα είχαµε χορέψει…

(..our best folk songs were danced on terrazzo floored houses …) Nikolakopoulou, L.

TERRAZZO AND MOSAIC FLOORS IN INTERWAR BUILDINGS IN ATHENS: Conservation Issues

The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 i

5. Discussion

Abstract

Abstract

L. M. T.

MA in Conservation Studies, Department of Archaeology, the University of York

Dissertation Title: Terrazzo and Mosaic floors in Interwar Buildings in Athens:

Conservation Issues

The present research explores the use of terrazzo and mosaic floors in the

Interwar buildings of Greece, particularly in its capital Athens. The main objective

is to demonstrate that floors are a highly important element of architectural

expression and therefore worth preserving. The paper’s aim is to highlight how

these ancient techniques, while remaining unaltered in time, were also used in a

modern architectural context. The architectural and social context related to

these floor finishes will be examined in order to understand their use and

subsequently how location and use affected their preservation status. Finally,

going through an analysis of how classic conservation principles should be

modified, some proposals for their theoretical and practical conservation issues

will be formulated.

Number of pages: xxi + 91

Number of illustrations: 79 in the chapters and 252 in the case study cards

Number of case studies cards: 58 (45 in chapter 3 and 13 in the appendix)

Appendices: 2 (13 cards)

This dissertation contains secondary resources: bibliographic, unpublished and

web, and primary resources: archives, interviews.

February 2009

Table of Contents

List of Images


i The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Table of contents Table of Contents

Abstract

Table of Contents‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐i

List of Figures‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐v

Preface‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ix

Acknowledgments‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐x

Introduction‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐xi

Literature review‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐xvi

Chapter 1

1.1 Pavements‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1

1.2 From Battuto to Terrazzo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2

1.2.1 Contemporary Terrazzo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐4

1.3 From Battuto to Mosaics‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐6

1.3.1 Pebble Mosaics‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐7

1.3.2 Tesserae Mosaics‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐8

Mosaic‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9

1.3.3 Modern Mosaic techniques‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐10

1.4 Terrazzo and Mosaic similarities ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐12

1.5 Mosaic and terrazzo differences ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐12

1.6. Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐13


ii The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Table of contents

Chapter 2

2. Interwar social impact and Architecture in Athens‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐14

2.1 Interwar new social conditions in Greece‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐14

2.1.1 Emigration‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐15

2.1.2 Economy‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐15

2.1.3 Social balances‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17

2.2 Urbanization of Athens‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17

2.2.1 State measures‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐18

2.2.2 Modified Center and new suburbs‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐19

2.2.3 Legislation for horizontal property‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐21

2.3 Architectural typologies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐22

2.3.1 Neo‐academism‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐24

2.3.2 Popular style‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐25

2.3.3 Modernist‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐26

2.3.4 Modern Movement‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐27

2.4 Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐28

Chapter 3

3. Case Studies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐30

3.1 Methodology‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐30

3.1.1 Building Data‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐30

3.1.2 Floor Data‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐31

3.2 Case studies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐32


iii The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Table of contents

3.2.1 Neo‐academic buildings‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐32

3.2 Case studies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐33

3.2.2 Popular style buildings ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐33

3.2 Case studies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐34

3.2.3 Modernist buildings‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐34

3.2 Case studies‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐35

3.2.3 Modern Movement Buildings‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐35

3.3 Type of Architecture and choice of floor finish ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐36

3.3.1 Simple Terrazzo‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐37

3.3.2 Terrazzo with decorative patterns‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐38

3.3.3 Mosaic‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐40

3.4 Choice of floor finish and preservation status‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐42

3.4.1 Simple terrazzo‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐42

3.4.2 Terrazzo with decorative patterns‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐43

3.4.3 Mosaic‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐44

3.5 Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐46

Chapter 4

4. Contemporary Conservation approach to Recent Architecture ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐48

4.1 Historical overview of Architectural Conservation in Europe ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐48

4.2 Conservation of the recent architectural past‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐50

4.2.1 Authenticity in conserving our Recent Architectural Past‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐53

4.2.2 Minimum intervention in conserving our Recent Architectural Past‐‐54


iv The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Table of contents

4.3 Conservation approach on the Architectural Heritage in Greece‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐55

4.3.1 Conservation of the recent architectural past in Greece‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐57

4.5 Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 58

Chapter 5

5. Discussion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐60

5.1 Interwar architecture’s conservation issues‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐60

5.2. Economics and conservation: a proposal‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐62

5.3 Public awareness‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐64

5.4 Guidelines for restoration problems‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐65

5.4.1 Deposits – Cleaning‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐67

5.4.2 Cracks ‐ Mortar Filling‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐68

5.4.3 Lacunae – Integration‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐69

5.4.4 Erosion ‐ Consolidation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐71

5.4.5 Extremely decayed floors‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐72

5.4.6 Documentation of the interventions ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐72

5.5 Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐73

Chapter 6

6. Conclusion‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐74

Appendix

Appendix 1 (case studies)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐75

Appendix 2 (elliniki etairia research)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐76


v The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Table of contents

Resources

Primary Resources‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐77

Archives‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐77

Interviews‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐77

Secondary resources‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐78

Bibliograpic‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐77

Unpublished‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐88

Web resources‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐90


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 vi

5. Discussion

List of images

List of figures

I. Introduction

I.1 Google Earth

Chapter 1

1.1 Assimakopoulou‐Atzaka, P (2003): page 13

1.2 Author

1.3 Fiorentini‐Roncuzzi, I and Fiorentini, E (2001): page 106

1.4 Author

1.5 De Chiara, J Panero, J and Martin, Z (2001), page 826

1.6 Author

1.7 Fiori, C, Tolis, N and Canestrino, C (2003), page 145

1.8 Bertelli, C (1988), page 17

1.9 Author

1.10 Tosi, M (2004b): page 128

1.11 Getty Conservation Institute (2003):‘Illustrated Glossary: Mosaics In Situ

Project.’

1.12 Lavagne, H (1987), no page, image 15

1.13‐16 Author

Chapter 2

2.1 Veremis, T (2008), page 184

2.2 http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/14/gr/1923_1940/civilization/choros/02.html, Photo archives E.L.I.A. © Hellenic Literature and Historical archive Ελληνικό

2.3 Arseni, K (2004), page 168

2.4 Arseni, K (2004), page 169

2.5 Arseni, K (2004), page 264


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 vii

5. Discussion

List of images

2.6 http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/14/gr/1923_1940/civilization/choros/02.html

, Photo archives, Ν 1732 Nelly's, © Benaki Museum

2.7 Arseni, K (2004), page 80

2.8 Koumanoudis, I (2001), page 25

2.9 Koumanoudis, I (2001), page 47

2.10 Chatzifotiou, Z (2003), page 69, ©archive of Geortgantas family

2.11 Archives of Bank of Greece ©

2.12 Vatopoulos, N (2002),page 97

2.13 ‐2.17 Author

Chapter 3

Case studies

Case studies figures numbered as c.s. 1 to 252 are photos made by the author

except for:

c.s. 3‐c.s. 4 http://www.eie.gr/archaeologia/Gr/arxeio_more.aspx?id=250

c.s. 13 Kotsaki, A (2005), page 143 fig 82

c.s. 23 http://www.eie.gr/archaeologia/gr/arxeio_more.aspx?id=214

c.s. 34‐ c.s. 35 Karakostas personal family archive

c.s 44 http://www.eie.gr/archaeologia/gr/arxeio_more.aspx?id=184

c.s. 45‐50 Bank of Greece Archives

c.s. 59‐60 Fessa‐Emmanouil, E and Marmaras, V (2005) page 22

c.s. 70‐ c.s.71 Byzantine and Christian Museum archives

c.s 82‐ c.s. 83 Byzantine and Christian Museum archives

c.s. 84 Neo‐Hellenic Archives of Architecture, Benaki Museum ©

c.s. 102 Malliaris family personal archive

c.s. 113 Fessa Emmanouil , E and Maramaras, V (2005,) page 203

c.s. 136 http://www.eie.gr/archaeologia/gr/arxeio_more.aspx?id=165


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 viii

5. Discussion

List of images

c.s. 143. Courtesy of Flenga‐Kouremenou Marina: photographer Nikolaidou Louiza

c.s. 144 Vatopoulos (2002), page 117

c.s. 177 Fessa Emmanouil , Eand Maramaras, V (2005,) page 189

c.s. 179‐ c.s 180 Fessa Emmanouil , Eand Maramaras, V (2005,) page 189

c.s. 190 courtesy of Tzartzanis Nikos

c.s. 201 http://www.agsavvas‐hosp.gr/site/main/details.php?type=1&catID=52&lang=el

3.1 ‐3.7 Author

3.8 Elliniki Etairia unpublished research

3.9 – 3.17 Author

3.18‐3.22 Bank of Greece archives (unpublished)

3.23‐ 3.26 Author

Chapter 4

4.1 Frerigang, C Kremier J (2003), page 349 from: p.202 of ‘Dictionaire raisonne de l’architecture francaise du XI au XVI siecle’ IV volume

4.2 Ruhl, C (2003), page 466 from: tab.4, ‘The Seven lamps of Architecture’, IV ed.

4.3 Arseni, k (2004) page 89

4.4 Author

Chapter 5

5.1 http://areopagitou17.blogspot.com/

5.2‐5.3

http://www.monumenta.org/article.php?IssueID=4&perm=1&ArticleID=316&CategoryID=23&lang=gr

5.4 – 5.12 Author

Preface

Aknowledgments


ix The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Preface

Preface

My first contact with the historical profile of contemporary Athens was in 1999,

reading an article by Nikos Vatopoulos (1999) entitled ‘Multi‐storey buildings are

becoming classical’. I was then completing my undergraduate studies in

Restoration of Antiquities and was at first shocked by the writer’s positions. He

claimed that some of these multi‐storey concrete buildings have a strong

historical value portraying, an interesting architectural history that did not stop

either in 1930 or in 1960, not even nowadays, reflecting the city’s contemporary

history. It arose many questions in my mind and awakened my interest for

conservation of recent architecture, leading me to study Conservation of

Historical Buildings at the University of York.

Therefore I looked for a subject for my research that would fulfill my desire to go

deep into studying issues related to recent architectural conservation and the

architectural evolution of my city as well. Once I realized the strict relationship of

terrazzo and mosaics to their ancient predecessors, the subject became clear to

me. I wanted to study how, in one of the considered birth places of artificially

made floors, the technique was still in use in more recent constructions. The

Interwar years, being an extremely interesting time range for Greece and the

architecture of Athens, gave me the opportunity to limit my research interest to

a specific period of twenty years. In short, contrasting classical conservation

knowledge and onsite experience on ancient floors to the different needs of

conserving a floor in a recent building, gave me fertile ground for research. The

results of this research, for me, introduce a subject worth considering and also

studied further in the future.


x The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Acknow

ledgments Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all those who helped me during this research without whom the completion of this paper would have been impossible: Dr Peter Gouldsborough, who having directed two years of what I would like to call ‘the York experience’ rather than the MA, was an extraordinary supervisor for me. His very clarifying guidelines on how to set up any kind of research and his accurate supervision observations made me, to the very last moment, think, reflect and develop my initial questions and observations; The staff of the consulted archives of: the Neo‐Hellenic Architecture Archive of the Benaki Museum with special mention to their very kind secretary; the Bank of Greece; the Byzantine and Christian Museum and the archeologist Nikos Konstantios; the Ellliniki Etairia‐ SAK (Council for Conservation of Architectural Heritage) and the architect Katerina Chatzikonstantinou; the officers of the ‘Armed Forces Officers Club’ ; the owners that warmly allowed me into their houses to study and made photographs also giving me some of their time for an interview: Margo Chatzinikoli, Nikos Georgiadis, dr Athanasios Kardaras, Marina Flenga‐Kouremenou, the Karakostas Family, Eleni and Panagiotis Malliaris, Ina Meleggoglou, Admiral Moralis , Stathis Perdikis, Nikos Tartzanis Marina and George Zombanakis; the architects Efi Kalliga, Christos Deligiannis and Ioanni Koumanoudis for their personal comments on my subject; my friends and colleagues: Antonis Bekiaris, Maria Krini and Michalis Bardanis, who always had their eyes open to find and propose buildings that could be of interest for this research. all my family and friends who stood by me, reminding me that there is a life also after the interwar, helping me keep the balance between study and real life. and above all, my fantastic, extra patient proofreader, who survived through my Italian point of view about the English language.

IntroductionI


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xi

I. Introduction

I. Introduction

The present research aims at analyzing and understanding the use of terrazzo

and mosaic floors of Interwar buildings in the Greek capital, Athens, and issues

on their conservation.

Mosaics and Terrazzo are ancient arts used in different architectural contexts

since they offer both excellent mechanical characteristics and possibilities for

artistic creativity.

Floors, as underlined in a recent study by Bucci, Farioli, and Guarieri, (2006, 85)

are one of the major witnesses of the culture of habitation through the centuries,

but have often been undervalued or even destroyed. The main objective of this

study is therefore to underline the importance of this ancient artistic form in a

modern context and why it is as valuable as to be worth preserving.

Trying to collect as many relevant data for a subject, to which unfortunately not

enough attention has yet been given, the following main questions will be dealt

with. First, the relation between terrazzo and mosaic will be examined through a

historic overview of the evolution and fabrication of these artifacts. Then, an

analysis of the social changes of Interwar and the new architectural profile of the

city, as well as questions on the relation between social classes and choice of

architecture will be presented. Once the social significance of these changes is

clarified case studies of the various architectural styles will be examined, in

search for a relation between social class and choice of floors and also how the

various techniques and uses have influenced their preservation status.

Subsequently and before proposing any solutions, the different applications of

conservation theories when it comes to conservation of recent architecture will

be investigated. In conclusion, after integrating the observations of the issues,

some proposals will be presented on why these floors should be conserved and

how, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view.


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xii

I. Introduction

I.i Limitations of the research

Before dealing with the research, a short presentation of the geographical and

chronological limits of the subject will be briefly presented.

I.i.i Geographical span: Greece, Athens

Already from the times of Plinius, as reported by Bertelli (1988, 10), there are

studies that relate to the birth of artificial pavements in the Hellenic area. I

therefore found it extremely interesting to analyze the use of this art and craft in

this same area yet in the modern context of contemporary Greece.

As the subject has enormous possibilities of analysis I decided to concentrate my

research on the capital of Greece, Athens, because contemporary Athens

accurately represents, socially, artistically and financially, what is happening in

the country as a whole.

The capital of Greece is situated in the southeastern part of the mainland of the

Hellenic peninsula (fig. I.1). There is a deep relationship between Athens and its

monumental and historical profile. This is a natural consequence for a city where,

as Pantelidou‐Gkofa (1997, 23) explains, continuous forms of habitation are

present from ca 4000‐4500 a.C. until today.

Figure I.1: Location of

Athens Source: Google

Earth


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xiii

I. Introduction

What people tend to undervalue is that there is a starting point for the modern

new capital. After the establishment of the new free state of Greece in 1830, the

city of Athens became its capital in 1833. Even though in those years according to

travelers’ reviews reported by Iliopoulos (2000, 69), Biris (1996,9) and Travlos

(1967, 9) , the city looked very damaged and miserable; it was selected, ecause of

its long and glorious past (Koutsoukos 1984, 13) underlines, due to the long

glorious history of the place.

Pantelodimou (1997, 136) notes, that from that day on a continuous development

of the city with new buildings was taking place for almost a century.

Koumantaropoulou and Michailidis (1994) state that this development was

related principally to the State and the Kingdom, depending at the same time on

sponsorships of expatriated Greeks and, on a smaller scale, on private initiatives.

The flow of constant development was interrupted at the beginning of the

twentieth century. The First World War and the Balkan wars related thereto,

exhausted Greece morally and financially. The end of the war is closely related to

the first population explosion in Athens, as Johns (2007, 88), Tsounis (2004, 14)

and Clogg (2002, 125) describe. Yet, and in spite of the unstable political situation,

after the initial shock, the Interwar period, represents for Athens a fertile ground

of redevelopment visibly manifested through architectural creations. Only

recently has this period been evaluated as a milestone in contemporary Greek

Architecture.

I.ii Time span: Interwar

Tapini (2007, 1) defines that historians specify Interwar as the time period

between 1918‐1939, beginning with the peace treaties at the conclusion of the

Great War –later called World War I – and ending with the outbreak of World War

ΙΙ in September 1939.

Greece, as the rest of Europe at that time, was characterized by fluidity and

instability. To understand the political and social situation in Greece and its


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xiv

I. Introduction

effects on Architecture we need to run through a short overview of the general

conditions of the Interwar period worldwide.

I.ii.i Inter‐war worldwide

The Interwar period presents great interest for study in different sectors, as it is

the starting point for a social, economic and artistic transformation that

characterized the century to follow.

To begin with, as Fisher (1957, 1221) explains, the greatest future of that period is

that all previous political balances ceased to exist. The Great War was fought

between the most “civilized” countries in Europe; the Austro‐Hungarian Empire,

Kaiser’s Germany, the Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia; by its end the empires

collapsed and therefore Europe had to be redefined.

Markezinis (1968, 262) underlines that during the new redefinition of Europe,

America comes on the scene as a key factor in international politics. This

accelerated general social reforms at the same time incising global economy.

Therefore, when the rapid growth of America’s economy violently collapsed ‐ the

1929 Wall Street “Great Crash”–more than twenty million people worldwide

were condemned to deep unemployment. That created new political instabilities

and a wide mistrust towards political systems and social values.

On the other hand and on the opposite side of the globe, Russia’s 1917 Bolshevik

revolution was proposing a different solution to capitalism. The revolution,

followed by the growth of Stalinism was, as per Kosmidis (1997, 254), another

shock and a threat to the political and social equilibrium throughout Europe.

For all this uncertainty Overy (1999, 76) explains that, even though in 1920 most

European countries followed some kind of democracy, they gradually became

dictatorships. Interwar, as per Keynes (1974, 360) was the period of history

conducted by ideologies and not by human everyday needs.


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xv

I. Introduction

I.ii.ii Interwar in Greece

Following the international political situation Greece faces an extremely unstable

period. Kassimatis (1992, 439) excellently defines the Interwar years for Greece

as the most tragic and anomalous times which bear their mark on the modern

state’s balances until today.

Numerous significant political changes occurred in less than 20 years. Kyriakidis

(2001, 205) synthesizes this instability; the abolishment of monarchy, the return

to democracy and vice versa, as well as the establishment of two dictatorships;

all these shape the Greek political situation of the Interwar.

The most incisive result of a series of erroneous political decisions for Greece was

definitely the Asia Minor catastrophe in 1922. From then on and all through the

Interwar years what characterizes all the Greek social and economical

transformations in the country are related to the huge problem of sudden

overpopulation.

The most interesting fact of this period is that, as Rigos (1992, 405) describes, at

a time of tremendous economical problems, ideological disorientation, and full

social redefinition, ideologist of the time faced it as an opportunity for the rebirth

of the country. The starting point was Athens, the capital that would be

transformed into a Metropolis. There, through continuous battle between the

old and conservative and the new and modern, innovative and interesting

experimentations occurred in all the arts, but especially in Architecture.

Having introduced the main subject of this paper and located it in time and

space, we will now proceed to a brief analysis of what literature has been already

published. This literature review will be a preamble to the topic before the

systematic presentation of the results of this study in the relative chapters.

Literature ReviewII


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xvi

II. Literature review


The main scope of this research is to understand and evaluate terrazzo and

mosaic floors. In the modern approach towards Interwar buildings these floors,

even though related with a long history and tradition, are often not considered

worth preserving.

To comprehend my subject the first step of my research was to find bibliography

resources. Before presenting my point of view on the subject of the research the

main sources will be reviewed, commented on and related separately each to the

central subject of the responding chapter.

II.i Mosaics and Terrazzo

Guarino’s (2004) observation on the vague and confusing use of the term mosaic

is the core of the first chapter, where the birth and evolution of these arts and

crafts are analyzed historically and technically.

To begin with, the definition for artificial floor finishes is given as presented by Orsini

(2004a) and Marini (2003). There are too few specific studies or references to the birth

of constructed pavements. The only valuable source for the specific area of my study,

the Hellenic area, was published by Orlandos (1989).

Moving from the general definition of pavements to the study of terrazzo and

mosaics several publications are available, from which the most significant will

now be presented, subdivided into three main categories.

First are the historical studies that analyze the history of the birth and evolution

of this art. There are complete books dedicated to the subject of mosaics but it is

quite interesting that different studies have different approaches, not so much

as regards the evolution but as to the time and place of their birth.

For example the analysis of the history and evolution of this art by Lavagne

(1988), leaves open the question of where and how many times this art has been

reinvented in the Mediterranean area in the antiquity. Bertelli (1988) is of the


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xvii


same opinion, yet he does mention the ancient source of Plinius, who attributes

the invention of mosaic to the Greeks. The opinion of these two scholars is

contradicted by Asimakopoulou‐Atzaka (2003), Chatzidakis (2003), Dunabin

(1999) and Ling (1998), who place the birth of this art definitely in the ancient

Greek world. The texts of Lavagne and Bertelli have been very helpful as they

extend the overview till the present days; however, the positions on the origin

query in the other publications have been considered more accurate as they are

derived from specific archeological studies on ancient mosaics.

The introductory texts of exhibition catalogues on the birth and evolution of the

art have been very useful for cross‐referencing of the consulted books. Bucci,

Farioli, Guarieri, (2006); Raimondi (2004); and Paris (1999) for instance analyze in

their articles the social meanings related to the differing choices from the variety

of artificial pavement types. Finally, Orsini (2004b) wrote an excellent article

linking the historical review to the evolution of the techniques of this art.

The more thorough analyses of specifications and differences between the

various techniques always begin by referring to the ancient sources. The ancient

recipes reported by Vitruvius, apart from the translation by Morgan, (1960), have

remained mainly unaltered in time and are the starting point for the studies of

Marini (2003), Fiorentini‐Roncuzzi, Fiorentini (2001), Galli, (1989) Kolefas, (1983).

The latter are extended studies on techniques, technology and evolution of the

art, and more or less report similar fabrication methodologies.

Having comprehended the historical and technical evolution of the art the study

has finally been focused on the literature relating to the so called contemporary

techniques. Going back to Lavagne’s text (1988) there is a good introduction on

modern mosaic and terrazzo techniques and particularly on the transformation

of the art during the industrial revolution ‐ a theme further analyzed in the article

by Bosia (2002). Extended descriptions of the technique of modern mosaics

fabrication were found in the two publications by Tosi (2004a, 2004b), who also

reports observations by De Luca (1989). Finally, the most accurate recipe and

description on terrazzo was published by Marini (2003) in the volume on the


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xviii


Mosaics of Aquileia, where she explains the evolution of the different flooring

techniques in the area of Friuli.

Focusing on my subject I must underline the fact that all historical and technical

studies classify terrazzo and mosaic in the category of mosaics. However,

terrazzo ‐ batutto in antiquity – whenever compared to mosaic has always been

undervalued and regarded as poor craftsmanship and not an art. As a result

terrazzo is usually not given any attention and there is a gap of missing accurate

information in mosaic literature about it, both as a historical study and as a

report on conservation and repair matters.

II.ii Interwar social impact and architecture in Athens

Chapter two is dedicated to studying the socio‐economic background of Greece

during the Interwar years and its effect on architecture.

To trace an outline of the formation of the new social fabric in the Interwar city

of Athens, its new economy and the new social balances brought about by the

sudden overpopulation, different historical texts have been consulted. Wide

differences were noted in the observations of Greek and foreign scholars. Texts

of Greek writers in general, like Kyriakidis (2001) and Vournas (1997), give more

detailed data on the period but unfortunately their points of view bear strong

traces of their personal political views. However, another Greek scholar, Veremis

(2008) gave an impartial study of the period under observation. The data was

further cross checked with very useful and more objective sources, i.e. the

studies of foreigners like John (2007), Clogg (2002) and Kaplan (2002).

All the texts emphasized that the greatest effect of these fast changes in the

social texture of the built environment was the expansion of the city of Athens,

which finally acquired an urban profile. First Tournikiotis (1991) and Galani (1997)

note the important state measures, very detailed data on which are reported in

the unpublished thesis of Kosmaki (1991). State and privates constructed all over

the region of Attica, as reported by Kairofillas (1988), Giacumacatos (1999) and

Kaukala (1999). But it is only Biris (2003) who makes an important note on the


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xix


illegality of many of those constructions. Finally a very important source of

information regarding this urban evolution were two special publications on the

birth and evolution of the multi‐storey building: one by Marmaras (1991) with

legal and technical specifications and another by Constantopoulos (1999) who

focused on its social projections.

As a result of these new socio‐economic factors different architectural typologies

were developed. The approach to recent architecture is mutable in time. It is

therefore characteristic that the first publication on that period, written in 1966

by Biris(1996), is very critical and speaks of a devaluation of architecture.

Nowadays the approach has changed and has become favourable, with more

studies and texts dealing with the architecture of that time. Even so, writers do

not seem to agree on what the prevalent typologies are. Vatopoulos (2002,

2000) speaks of eclecticism and neoclassicism, art nouveau and art deco, and

modern movement but does not mention anything about popular architecture.

On the contrary, Cholevas (1998, 1994) who based his study on the architects of

that time, dedicates a large part of his study to Popular style. Through this study,

concentrating on architects inventing or using different styles, I perceived the

experimentation character of the time, a combination of many different

influences. Biris’ (2003) research, even though focused on neoclassicism, a style

that disappeared in the Interwar, is a valuable clarification of what is modernist

and its distinction from the modern movement. Finally, the most detailed

publications on the modern movement are those by Tournikiotis (2000) and

Giacumacatos (2004). However these two do not agree on the diffusion of the

modern movement; Tournikiotis maintains that it was also very much used by

the state whereas Giacumacatos that it had flourished more in the private sector.

Having looked at the various points of view, the article of Giacumacatos (1999)

and the publications by Fessa‐Emmanouil and Marmara (2005) and Kolonas

(2006) were selected for the creation of a basis for the classification in the

present study. This selection was based on the fact that these three summarized

the information of the rest of the publications in a logical manner.


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xx


II.iii Case studies and Conservation

The third chapter is entirely concentrated on the collection of data. This

procedure started with the photographs the photographs in the publications by

Fessa‐Emmanouil and Marmara (2005), Vatopoulos (2002) and Fillippids (2001)

which served as guides in the search for example buildings that might have floors

interesting for this study.

II.iv Contemporary Conservation approach to Modern Architecture

Once the various cases and their particular traits were sorted out and before

discussing any solutions a chapter on the transformation of earlier philosophical

issues and practical approaches was deemed necessary. Conservation of recent

architecture is quite a modern issue but it is the offspring of two centuries’

debates among conservation scientists and practitioners.

The history of conservation has been written through the ideas and distinctive

personalities of different scholars, each of them influencing the formation of the

philosophical background of the science. Valuable and detailed observations

about them were found in dedicated monographs (Curuni 2005, 1996; Esposito

2005; La Regina 2005; Napoleone 2005c; Carbonara 1996; de Martino G.1996; de

Martino R. 1996; Di Biase 1996; Marmotti‐ Politi 1996; Pretelli 1996; Vassalo 1996).

Ceschi in 1970, followed on the same grounds by Sette (2001), presented a

combined analysis of personalities and movements which was quite elucidating.

Furthermore History by Jokilehto (2005) linked a more universal approach to the

previous data introducing at the same time the non Eurocentric theories and also

issued related to the conservation of more recent constructions. A more detailed

treatise on the contemporary approach to conservation is found in the Theory by

Munoz‐ Vinas (2005) with a critical and also realistic approach, yet confronting

theorists and maximum conservation axioms like authenticity and minimum

intervention.

Focusing on the main subject of the chapter, that is, which of the so called ‘classical

conservation’ principles is also applicable to the conservation of our recent architectural


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 xxi


past, important data were traced in many articles of the DOCOMOMO conference

proceedings (1989, 1997, 1998, 2006). With the passage of time the interest in modern

architecture brought about the assembling of case studies in specific volumes like

‘Conservation of Modern Architecture’' (2007) presenting different interesting views by

the various writers. Finally, last year a volume by Prudon (2008) was published in the

United States, which I consider an excellent study both on philosophical and practical

issues as well as on their interrelationship.

All the above mentioned texts coincide in concluding that classical approach is not

applicable to recent architecture’s conservation. The only exception is the text by the

Italian Bardeschi (2004), where he strongly criticizes the mutated approach and

divulged reconstruction in modern buildings. For me though, his point is incorrect and

very distant from the real problems a conservation specialist has to deal with in cases of

recent architecture and therefore his point was not included in the chapter.

Lastly, studies on the conservation of the recent architectural past in Greece, the

geographical area of the study, were consulted. Concerning legal matters my references

were derived from the specialized text by Papapetropoulos (2006) who analyzes the

various points of the latest law on Heritage protection and from Ergolavou’s (2007)

unpublished research. As for the matter of safeguarding recent architectural heritage,

very interesting views were found in various journals. (Giacumacatos 2003; Rigopoulos

2005 & 2008; Papakonstantinou 2008), For me this demonstrates the beginning of a

growing interest for safeguarding recent architectural past in Greece.

In conclusion, three main resource areas were covered from bibliography sources:

The introduction to floor techniques, from a historical and technical point;

The Interwar social reflections on architecture through historical, social and

architectural studies

The evolution of Conservation Theory

Having reviewed the main bibliographic sources we will proceed with the observations

derived from the comparison of these data and on site research, presented in the

following chapters.

Pavements, Mosaics,Terrazzo,1


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009 1

1. Pavem

ents; Mosaics and Terrazzo

1. Pavements, Terrazzo, Mosaics

As a start for this text it is useful to make an overview of the birth and evolution

of the two techniques for artificially made floors, which are the main subjects of

this research: Terrazzo and Mosaics. This chapter clarifies the correlation

between these two techniques and their main differences; it also elucidates

terminology confusions.

The problem of terminology exists because, as Guarino (2004, 13) explains, the

term “mosaics” is used to describe floor finishes made in very different

techniques. In Greece there is an even deeper confusion because the term

μωσαϊκό (mosaic) is used for floors made by terrazzo technique while mosaics

are usually called ψηφιδωτό (tessellated).

To clear the matter a brief historical and technological review of the fabrication

techniques of these floors and pavements is therefore presented.

1.1 Pavements

The definition of a pavement from an architectural point of view is as per Curl’s

dictionary (2006, 564):

“Path surfaced with stones or other materials, including cement, cobbles, flags, rag

stones, square‐setts, tarmacadam, etc.”

Orsini (2004a, 27) explains that the birth of artificially made pavements was due

to the need for floors resistant to use and enviromental agents. When analyzing

the history of pavements it is worth understanding the root of the word

pavement. Marini (2003, 172) in his latest study notes that the word pavement

derives from the Greek verb παίω (paio) and later from the Latin verb pave. Paio

meant to beat or hit and the Latin pave to beat and level the ground. This

illustrates how the first forms of pavements were created by leveling the ground

by beating it, sometimes after mixing it with pebbles, rocks and different waste



1. Pavem


materials of construction. Later the materials started to be mixed with the lime

mortar for higher resistance, so the first battuto floors were born.

1.2 From Battuto to Terrazzo

Orlandos (1994, 50) sustains that the in the Hellenic area use of lime‐mortar

beaten floors, the so‐called battuto, is prehistoric, that means before 800 b.C.

More specifically Asimakopoulou – Atzaka (2003, 11) dates some of the first

battuto floors back to the Minoan and Mycenaean eras with testimonials from

the palaces of the times (fig. 1.1).

The battuto floor (fig. 1.2) ‐ Latin term used internationally in scientific studies of

mosaic floors ‐ has been translated in English, according to Farneti’s glossary

(1993, 131), as cement pavement, lime‐ mortar‐ or beaten floor and stands for:

“General term for all concrete‐like floors made of lime mixed with sand, and beaten

down with rammers. Depending on the type of filler used i.e. powdered marble,

crushed brick or charcoal, the floor took on a white, red or black color. A few

limestone tesserae or marble chips were often inserted in a simple geometric

pattern”

Fig. 1.1 Early testimonials of battuto floor, Mallia, Crete, Greece Source: Assimakopoulou‐Atzaka (2003, 13)

Fig. 1.2 Battuto floor, Morgantina,

Sicily, Italy Source: Author



1. Pavem


The first notes on the manufacture of this type of floor finishes in antiquity come

from Vitruvius (1960, 203), considering this kind of foors as very important. The

construction steps for Vitruvius are:

First, ramming down the earth to create a solid soil and leveling it; next, laying the level broken stones, first the larger ones and then the smaller ones;

follows a layer of a mixture of stones and lime; the final layer, the “nucleus”, is composed of lime and pounded tile; to finish, the surface must be flattened and leveled with the help of a ruler.

Moving on time we have details on the battuto techniques, ( Lavagne 1985, 26), from the craftsmen of the region of Friuli in Italy, where this type of floor finishes was produced in the XVII cent. The technique, applied on beaten earth grounds or wooden slabs (fig 1.3 ), consisted in:

3 layers of lime mortar with aggregates, stones and pottery, of different sizes.

flattening of the surface with a big ruler. compressing the floor by beating.

It is obvious that the basic techniques were those of the roman times. Depicting

this flooring technique, Fiorentini (2001,105) describes how the Friulians have

developed the final treatment of the surface of the battuto floors to reach a

more compact and brilliant surface. This consisted in smoothing and polishing

the final layer when set. From then on these kinds of floor finishes will be called

terrazzo.

Fig. 1.3 Battuto production in Friuli, Italy

Source: Fiorentini‐Roncuzzi and Fiorentini (2001,106)



1. Pavem


In Farnetti’s (1993, 155) glossary we find the definition of terrazzo as:

“Flooring in which chips of marble are scattered at random or arranged to form

simple linear patterns on a cement matrix. On setting, the surface is ground smooth

to show a cross section of chips through the mixture.”

1.2.1 Contemporary Terrazzo

From the definition itself it becomes obvious that the terrazzo pavement is a

modern version of the battuto pavements of antiquity. The real changes came

about with the substitution of lime mortar for concrete. This, as Marini (2003,

175) underlines, provided the manufacturers with quicker results and harder

flooring finishes.

There are various techniques for creating a concrete based terrazzo floor. One is

very similar to the lime based floor practiced in the Friuli region, described by

Marini (2003, 175) as:

laying one foundation layer of armed concrete; the second layer (covering) consists of aggregates of different colours and sizes mixed with cement;

the third layer (setting) is a dry laying of marble powder mixed with cement, gradually wetted afterwards;

then, and while the third layer is still wet, the marble chips are spread on it;

as practiced in the traditional battuto, the final phases consist in rolling, beating, smoothing and polishing the surface.

Fig. 1.4 Concrete terrazzo, Athens University Students club, build in 1926, Athens

Source: Author



1. Pavem


There are infinite other variations thanks to the possibilities offered by the concrete mix and its potentialities. De Chiara, Panero, J and Martin, Z report a characteristic recipe (2001, 826), where a very thin and light but always resistant floor (fig.1.5) is created:

one layer of concrete slab; the second layer which is a mixture of different color and size aggregates and concrete;

also in this case the final phases consist in rolling, beating, smoothing and polishing.

From an on site analysis in an Interwar building in Athens, the layers in section, as

demonstrated in figure 1.6, appear to follow this scheme of thinnest terrazzo

(figure 1.4) with the final layer laid directly on the concrete slab. On the basis of

this case one may presume that Interwar terrazzo in Athens was constructed in

this method.

Having analyzed the techniques of manufacturing battuto and terrazzo

pavements one can definitely classify the terrazzo as the natural successor of the

primitive types of pavements. Although the technique survived with small

transformations for centuries, another similar and more artistic development of

the craft came about; Mosaics.

Fig. 1.5 Modern terrazzo with thin layers Source: De Chiara, J Panero, J and Martin, Z (2001, 826)

Fig. 1.6 Interwar terrazzo section (case study 21) Source: Author



1. Pavem


1.3 From Battuto to Mosaics

The insertion of pebbles, chips, or limestone tesserae in patterns characterized a

development in the floor finishes techniques and a passage from the battuto

floors to mosaics. This passage, as per Dunabin (1999, 18), cannot be defined as

an ordinary transition. Mosaic and battuto floors have been used alongside in the

same houses according to the significance and the importance of the rooms

(Orsini 2004b, Ling 1998, Dunabin 1999); sometimes even in the same floor, as in

some examples of the houses on the island of Delos (fig. 1.7).

Mosaics literally represent, as Torlo explains (2005, 7), the “patient work of the

Muses”. The terminology of the name manifests a certain respect on the part of

the ancients for their decorated pavements. Even so, Kolefas (1983,10) and

Chatzidakis (2003, 51) sustain that these floor finishes were used, other than for

their strong resistance, because they offered lovely aesthetic results at a low

cost. This was because in the early days of this art, cheap materials of waste from

construction were used, and that was definitely cheaper than a marble

pavement.

Fig. 1.7 Sample from the island of Delos,

with two techniques on the same floor

Source: Fiori, Tolis, and Canestrino (2003,145)



1. Pavem


1.3.1 Pebble Mosaics

The earliest testimonies of creating patterns on the battuto floors have been

discovered, as Assimakopoulou ‐ Atzaka (2003, 11) reports, at Mallia in Crete

inside a Minoan house from the Neolithic ages. This pavement has simple

geometric patterns made out of small pebbles (fig.1.1). Yet in the Hellenic area,

there are still no archeological evidences that may link these early floors with the

famous pebble mosaics of Pella in Macedonia of the classical times (fig.1.8 ). The

pebble mosaics of the end of the fifth to the third century b.C. have given us rich

testimonials of figurative and geometric decorations of floors in different

archeological sites, and are in extensive use till today all over Greece and the

Mediterranean (fig. 1.9).

Assimakopoulou‐Atzaka (2003, 17) further on to mentions that the first important

transition in the history of the mosaic art occurred during the third and second

centuries b.C.. In experimenting new techniques for more realistic

representations the use of cut stones or marbles, the tesserae, has been

Fig. 1.8 Pebble Mosaic floor detail, Ancient Pella, Macedonia , Greece Source: Beretlli (1988, 17)

Fig. 1.9 Pebble Mosaic floor of central square with inscription 1889, Spetses

island, Greece, Source: Author



1. Pavem


introduced starting with mixed techniques of pebbles and tesserae. The creation

of the tesserae consisted in cutting the stones or the pebbles by hand with the

help of a hammer and a hardy (fig.1.10) into parallelepipeds. In fact the Latin

word tesserae derives from the Greek word for number four, τέσσερα (tessera),

referring to either the four angles or the four sides of their external surfaces. A

tessera is the smallest unit of any mosaic and the term is in use from then on until

today.

1.3.2 Tesserae Mosaics

The tesserae are the most significant factor in characterizing a mosaic. Many

changes of the tesserae, both in their forms and their uses, occurred from the

ancient times until today. This gave birth to different forms of mosaics and the

art moved on from floor to wall decoration and to work of art. These transitions

are widely analyzed in different studies (Atzaka 2003; Bertelli 1988; Fiorentini

2001; Kolefas 1983; Lavagne 1988; Raimondi 2004), but are not relative to this

study. The important question for the present paper is how the tesserae

characterizes mosaic floor finishes. The answer can again be found in Farnetti’s

glossary (1993, 140), where the definition of mosaic floors is:

“Mosaic executed on the floor and consisting of stone tesserae for greater wear

resistance. ….In antiquity floor mosaics were executed in situ using the direct method

after providing a suitable foundation. Nowadays, mosaic sections are set in the workshop

using the indirect method and then assembled in situ. The surface of floor mosaics is

usually polished to a smooth finish to withstand wear and tear of everyday use. ”

Fig. 1.10 Creation of tesserae

through stone cutting

Source: Tosi, M (2004b, 128)



1. Pavem


Mosaic

Basically a mosaic pavement consists of the tesserae and the binder. To

understand the fabrication of a mosaic floor we have to recall Vituvius’

description, which has been schematically reported by Farneti (1993, 128),

Fiorentini (2001, 130) and Loukianos (2003,43) (fig.1.11):

laying of “statumen” , the preparatory level made of big stones; followed by “rudus” , second preparatory level of lime mortar with large aggregates;

once it dries, follows the “nucleus” , a thinner preparatory layer of lime mortar and thinner aggregates;

finally a bedding layer of lime mortar is spread, where tesserae are inserted before it sets;

the mosaic surface was also flattened with a big ruler and the floor was compressed by beating.

This technique, called direct method, remained unaltered until the 19th century.

Cangemi (2001, 85) explains that even when modern materials are used, which

means less layers are required, the execution of mosaics by insertion of the

tesserae directly onto the permanent binder is called direct method.

Fig. 1.11 Mosaic

stratigraphy according to Vitruvious: 1:Statumen

2:Rudus 3:Nucleus 4:Bedding

layer 5:Tesserae

Source: Getty (2003,

unpublished)



1. Pavem


1.3.3 Modern Mosaic techniques

There are two significant evolutions in the history of manufacturing Mosaics. The

first appeared again in Friuli in Italy and relates to the posing techniques. Tosi

(2004a, 86) mentions that the mosaic artisan Gian Domenico Facchina invented

the indirect method around 1869‐74. As Lavagne (1988, 134) notes he must have

definitely been influenced by the method of detaching and transporting the

ancient mosaics from situ to museums. The indirect method consisted of the

following steps:

the design is revolved on paper; the tesserae are glued onto the paper; panels not larger than 50 x50 cm were created in the laboratory; once in situ the panels inserted on a cement mortar; when the cement was set=the glue and the water were washed away.

The advantages of this method stand in time saving and in the fact that the

mosaic, as it is created on an even surface it is already flat and needs no

flattening and smoothing.

Fig. 1.12 Mosaic created with the indirect

technique from precast

porcelain tiles in 1907 by E.Grasset

showing the fabrication

method. Source: Lavagne

(1987,img 15)



1. Pavem


The second major change occurred at the beginning of the XX century and

influenced the tesserae production. Up until that time all floor mosaics were

made out of stone tesserae for resistance to use. The fabrication of the stone

tesserae has been the same for centuries, i.e. always by hand cutting by the

traditional hammer and hardy.

At the beginning of the new century and amidst the industrial revolution the

precast tesserae were invented. These were now made out of vitreous glass tiles,

suitable for outside spaces and pavements or out of porcelain tiles. As Lavagne

(1988, 139) notes, this offered mosaics new prospects (fig.1.12). The color range

was now unlimited and combining the precast tesserae with the indirect method

marked the passage of mosaics from a solely artistic expression to an industrial

product.

One final notion should be made on the substitution of lime for concrete mortar

where, thanks to the strong adhesion power of concrete, tesserae do not need to

be planted deep into the mortar. This allowed for thinner tesserae. The precast

produced tesserae, thinner than the hand cut ones, reduced the total weight and

facilitated the transportation of mosaics created in a laboratory with the indirect

technique. In figures 1.13 and 1.14 there is a practical demonstration found in the

‘Ziller‐ Loverdou’ building in Athens.

Fig. 1.13 Tessera in section. (case study 8) Source: Author

Fig. 1.14 Section of lacuna (case study 8) Source: Author



1. Pavem


1.4 Terrazzo and Mosaic similarities

In conclusion, from antiquity on till nowadays, when analyzing terrazzo and

mosaic floor finishes one can observe lots of similarities. To begin with, we have

similar constitution materials, basically two: stones or other hard materials and a

bedding mortar. Then as per Tosi (2004b, 17), when studying the fabrication, the

battuto mortar can actually be incorporated in the preparatory laying layers of

the mosaic. It is significant that for Vitruvius, in his Tenth book of architecture, in

the chapter on floors, there is no clear distinction between battuto and mosaic

fabrication. He only notes a difference in the phrase “on the top of the nucleus,

the floor made out of slips or cubes”. So, if the structural part and elements are

very similar, we have to search for the differences in the communicative esthetic

part.

1.5 Mosaic and terrazzo differences

In both cases of these floor finishes we can observe an optic illusion of small

pieces organized in a uniform optic unity. In trying to define what differentiates a

mosaic from a terrazzo, it depends as per De Luca (1989, 12), on whether rules

are followed or not. For a mosaic to be characterized as such it should contain

organized patterns formed by tesserae and characterized by their shape, size,

and arrangement as well as the interstices of mortar between them (fig. 1.15).

Where these “rules” are not followed we have terrazzo floors (fig. 1.16).

Fig. 1.15 Mosaic particular from ‘Asaroton’, Aquileia, Italy Source: Author

Fig. 1.16 Terrazzo particular Petralona,

Athens, Greece Source: Author



1. Pavem


1.6. Conclusion

After this small overview of the history of terrazzo and mosaic floors we can

accept sure that we are dealing with an artistic technique, unaltered in time even

in the existence of stylistic variations relative to time and place (Raimondi, 2004;

Galli, 1989; Bertelli, 1988). Bosia (2002, 379) reflects that the traditional technique

has never been entirely repudiated not even by the modern culture of

construction.

The most significant alteration has been the substitution of lime mortar for a

cement based mix. This, as per Locktov and Mastandrea (2003, 18), provided

durable and water resistant floors in quicker manufacture times. I think that it is

this slight modernization in the manufacturing that allowed the incorporation of

terrazzo and mosaics in the buildings of the interwar period in Greece. As we will

further analyze Interwar constructions in Greece were mainly concrete based,

there is therefore a concordance of materials of the main building with the

terrazzo and mosaic floors.

Having clarified the correlation and the differences between terrazzo and

mosaic, the next chapter will be dealing with the connection between

architecture style of the buildings containing terrazzo and mosaics and the new

social texture of the Greek capital during the Interwar years.

Interwar social impact and Architecture in Athens2



2. Interwar social im

pact and architecture in Athens

2. Interwar social impact and Architecture in Athens

As already mentioned in the Introduction, the Interwar years, 1919‐1940, were

characterized by instability and continuous political and social movements. The

purpose of this chapter is to trace an outline of how these continuous changes

influenced social conditions in Greece and interfered with the new architectural

profile of the city. Social position was decisive in determining the choice

between the different architectural styles and only when the background of

these choices is comprehended could one focus on the subject of floor finishes in

these buildings and understand their social reflection.

2.1 Interwar new social conditions in Greece

It would be impossible to understand the social conditions of the Greek capital

during those years without briefly mentioning the results of the different wars

the country had gone through. The Interwar period for the rest of Europe

corresponded with the starting point of years of peace. The case for Greece was

quite different.

Greece, at the end of the First World War, differently from the rest of Europe,

was coming out of a total of 8 years of continuous wars, as before World War I

the country had been entangled in the first and second Balkan Wars. Contrary to

the European state for peace, Greece in 1919 continued launched at war since it

began the campaign in Asia Minor. That campaign, as Vournas (1997, 211)

explains, was veiled behind imperialistic motives, a dream of recreating the

Byzantine Empire. The conclusion was written three years later, in 1922, by the

Asia Minor catastrophe, where thousands of people were killed, and the

survivors became refugees on the Greek territory.

This dramatic conclusion marked the belated beginning of the Interwar period

for Greece. The decades spent in wars and the Asia Minor catastrophe, as

Veremis (2008, 45) explains, assigned huge economical and social problems to

the country. Defeated were actually the politics of war, as defined by Ladogianni





(1989, 8) and the beginning of that era was marked by the need for

reconstruction and modernization of the country.

2.1.1 Emigration

During the 1922 Asia Minor catastrophe, as Kaplan reports (2002, 442), in less

than 10 days more than one million refugees, mostly women and orphans, moved

from the Turkish territory to Greece (fig 2.1). This fact was followed by the

definitely largest population exchange in history between Greeks and Turks,

decided upon by the Treaty of Sevres (Veremis 2008; John 2007).

Kaplan (2002, 442) estimates that emigrates instantly augmented the population

of Greece by almost 20% and particularly that of Athens by three times. Therefore

the first case to be resolved was the housing problem of these people, followed

by their social integration.

2.1.2 Economy

The beginning of the Interwar found Greece in a terribly unstable economic

situation, with huge debts to foreign countries. Within the general effort for

recovery and modernization of the country and its economy, the continuously

alternating governments tried to create an independent economy of internal

market.

To achieve this, the creation and development of industries near the big cities

was encouraged (fig. 2.2). There is a strict correlation between the

overpopulation factor and industrialization with two sides. First of all, as Clogg

(2002, 129) notes, the large number of unemployed refugees offered cheap

craftsmanship making for a fast development of the newborn industry. At the

Fig. 2.1 Thousands of

refugees waiting to embark for Greece during

the Smyrni catastrophe,

1922 Source: Veremis

(2008, 184)





same time some of the refugees managed to bring in some kind of capital and,

most important, their enterprising spirit (Demathas 2005; Veremis 2008). These

two complementary factors gave a tremendous boost to the suffering economy.

Once the country’s economy started healing, the state, apart from sustaining

industry, made tremendous efforts to ensure economic stability. Raptis (1997,

304) explains that the nucleus for stability was searched for in increasing internal

production with the continuous realization of large public works (fig. 2.3, 2.4).

Through these actions, the economy of Greece managed to survive during the

Interwar years and to even balance the dramatic consequences of the Great

Crash of 1929. All the activities of those years marked the birth of the

contemporary capitalistic economy of the country creating a new equilibrium

between the various social classes.

Fig. 2.3 Large public works: The creation of a staircase on Marasli street, Kolonaki Source: Arseni, K (2004, 168)

Fig. 2.4 Steps on Marasli street‐ works

completed, Kolonaki

Source: Arseni, K

(2004, 169)

Fig. 2.2 Women

workers in textile

industry Source:

www.fhw.gr , © E.L.I.A

photo archives





2.1.3 Social balances

Big cities, including Athens, were now the center of a multicultural concentration

of populations of different backgrounds, which led to the change of ethics and

balances. This gave fertile ground for innovation in manners and customs,

bringing about shocking reactions to the existing consolidated social balances.

Because of this economic growth the Interwar period, as Mantouvalou (2005,

86) explains, became the triumph of the middle class, which was from then on

mainly divided into commercial and industrial. Yet, at the same time, as

Ladogianni (1989, 86) underlines, due to the fact that the financial boom was

based on the exploitation of cheap craftsmanship a huge class discrimination had

begun.

The various governments, wishing to soften these social unbalances, tried to

promote a series of social measures. The most significant one was once again

related to the growth of population and the consequent growth of

analphabetism. As Raptis (2007, 109) explains, the big educational reform was

made between 1929 and 1932, the first complete one for contemporary Greece.

These measures were necessary for the reconstruction and modernization of the

society, a mutating society of a city moving on with fast rhythms of urbanization.

2.2 Urbanization of Athens

Vasenhofen (2000, unpublished) clarifies that what is intended as urbanization

internationally goes together with the transition of Economy from agricultural to

industrial and later to the economy of services. In the case of Greece, and

particularly the city of Athens, this transition was suddenly accelerated in 1922 by

the arrival of the emigrants of the Asia Minor Catastrophe. Considering that

before 1922 the urban population of the country was only 23 %, the arrival of the

emigrants, out of which 42 % originated from urban areas, created a new urban

profile for the cities (Veremis 2008, 17).





After the initial crisis of overpopulation, this new accelerated urbanization finally

transformed the peasant town of Athens into a metropolis, (Iliopoulos 2000,

306). On the other hand, Biris (2000, 396) notes that the expansion of the city

took place through completely anarchic procedures, creating a chaotic new

urban tissue.

Before analyzing the architectural styles of this transformation phase of Athens,

we need to briefly consider the three main elements that marked this process:

the state measures, the new suburbs and the legislation of horizontal property.

2.2.1 State measures

Even if socially and economically the Interwar was mainly characterized by

private initiatives, the state played a key role, as Galani (1997, 173) underlines,

with public works and measures that modified the profile of the city.

As already mentioned, the main axis of politics in those years was

“modernization” and especially “social regeneration”. Tournikiotis (2000, 447)

further emphasizes that for these purposes large scale programmes and big

important public works were carried out; e.g. creation of new schools (fig. 2.5),

hospitals and institutions of social care.

Fig. 2.5 Example of the big educational reform, New school under

construction Source: Arseni, K (2004, 264)





In 1923 the need for housing was the first problem to be resolved; the

governments therefore took a series of measures to facilitate this procedure.

Kosmaki (1991, 207) emphasizes that these measures were consolidated by

decrees and laws relative to: expropriation of buildings and lands; obligatory

extension of leases for professional use properties; creation of social housing

and the creation of private building cooperatives. Some years later, in 1929,

the law for horizontal property was decreed.

These measures brought about the accelerated creation of new suburbs and will

be further analyzed as they were the crucial factor for the urbanization of the

city of Athens.

2.2.2. Modified Center and new suburbs

The refugees filled the city center in a chaotic way, creating, as described by Biris

(1996, 205), huge problems of cleanliness and sanitation (fig. 2.6‐2.7).

Three kinds of development occurred at that time, characterizing the very

distinctive social classes too. In the center of Athens we get two different

phenomena: evaluation and devaluation of zones. Biris (2003, 30) says that, while

the main high class neighborhoods remained in the area surrounding the Royal

Palace transforming it into a modern urban zone, some other zones, especially

around the Museum and Omonoia square, which used to be high class areas,

became mixed commercial/housing zones, downgrading their value.

Fig. 2.7 Temporary refugees ‘tent‐houses’ In Athenia square

Source: Arseni, K (2004, 264)

Fig. 2.6 Children in refugees camps Source:: www.fhw.gr , ©Benaki Museum photo archives





To deal with the quantity of refugees the city had to be expanded. That was

accomplished by creating land for sale out of private properties in the rest of

Attica and facilitated by organizing private cooperatives, as explained by

Giacumacatos (1999, 96) and Kaukala (1999, 188) and slightly criticized by Biris

(2003, 30). We have more than 19 such suburbs, the nucleus of which

concentrated expatriated population; some of them were even named after their

city of origin in Anatolia with the addition of Nέα (new) (e.g. Νέα Σμύρνη ‐New

Smyrna, Νέα Ιωνία – New Ionia).

On the other hand we also have the birth of new high class suburbs, distant from

the center and differentiated from the emigrants suburbs. Kairofillas (1988, 126)

and Biris (2003, 30) explain that the new suburbs occurred both as a response for

a healthy environment and as an aesthetically distinctive answer to the chaotic

situation prevailing in the central areas. Following the European examples of the

“garden‐city” the decrees that founded Psychiko in 1923 and Ekali in 1924

included, as Kaukala(1999, 183) analyzes, an urban plan, guidelines of high

standard building methods and regulations on very restricted commercial

activities (fig. 2.6‐2.7). These two model “garden cities” inspired the genesis of 14

other “rural suburbs” with similar but not so strict regulations.

Fig. 2.9 View of Ekali garden city, 1927 Source: Koumanoudis (2002, 47)

Fig. 2.8 Original plan by Agapitos Ekali garden

city, 1925 Source:

Koumanoudis (2002, 25)





2.2.3 Legislation for horizontal property

The final solution to the housing problem, that in any case characterized the

whole Interwar period, was given by Law 3741 of 1929 “for property on storey”.

Its analysis by Zepos (1931, cited by Marmaras (1991, 16)) is:

“As for the legal meaning of the term, property on storey or horizontal property,

defines the ownership of a building by more than one physical persons, where each

of them is in full possession of one storey of that building or just a flat in that

building”

In this manner the state found a legal solution for the creation of multi‐storey

buildings. This law certainly provided a quick solution to the problem of

accommodation but what must be underlined is that at the same time it denoted

the dramatic transformation of the social tissue and habits of the citizens of

Athens. As Constantopoulos (1999, 79) etymologically analyzes excellently, we

have a transition from the Greek word kat‐oikia, meaning “house to dwell” and

representing qualitative values, to dia‐merisma, meaning “sharing part of a

building” with clear quantitative values.

Fig. 2.10 Single family

house, with the

inscription, ‘because of demolition buildings materials for sale’,

1935 Source:

Chatzifotiou (2003, 69)





Modernization became for Athens almost a synonym for the multi‐storey

buildings. These began to grow where traditional and popular houses as well as

forests used to stand until then. The regeneration and expansion of the city had

begun with lots of benefits but with some losses too; the annihilation of

traditional architecture and the irresponsible elimination of natural environment

(fig. 2.8 ).

Amidst an uncertain political situation these changes, starting from the new

financial and social balances, brought about the urbanization of the city and

made the Interwar years the era of, the rebirth of a new Greek capital. Finally the

orientation of the crossroad between Orient and Occident turned clearly towards

Europe. All these ideological movements, social debates and evolution are

portrayed in the built environment in different architectural typologies.

2.3 Architectural typologies

The architecture of transition; this is the definition given by Cholevas (1994, 144)

for this architectural period of continuous development. The delayed arrival of

the industrial revolution and the new social and financial situation of the country

created needs for a new architectural language.

In the 1920s Athens slowly started to become more open towards international

architectural trends, a fact that as Vatopoulos (2002, 107) observes, matured in

the 30s giving way to the most creative and experimental decade of

contemporary Greek architecture. The two main characteristics of this

architectural experimentation are for Cholevas (1998, 12) the elimination of

academism and specific architectural rhythms, and the use of new materials as an

expression of the new style of urban life.

The new architectural language was invented in Greece by a generation of new

architects. These new architects as Cholevas (1998, 11) classifies, can be

subdivided into two distinctive categories. Those educated in Constantinople and

the great European Architectural schools of Germany and France, and the first

generation of architects from the Technical University of Athens, in the newborn





Architectural faculty founded only in 1917. Furthermore, as Biris (1996, 292)

observes the various styles invented and followed by architects, have been

copied and repeated by technicians, who offered the various styles in a more

economical way.

Regarding the use of new materials, especially concrete, Vatopoulos (2000, 503)

specifies that although the first concrete building in Athens was constructed in

1907, its extended use occurred only in the Interwar years. Although, as Biris

(1996, 290) explains, this new material was initially used only for finishes, it

passed from floors to walls and to constructions fully made of armed concrete.

Armed concrete, even not yet possessing the quality and technology of the rest

of the European countries, from this point onwards it characterizes Greek

building technology till today (Fessa‐Emmanouil and Marmara 2005, xxvii).

Generally, during the Interwar years the Athenian Built Environment is created in

a wavering climate. There was space and need for architectural experimentation

with various styles, without always keeping a clear distinction between these

different styles. We therefore find works of distinguished architects who either

create in completely different styles during their evolution in time or mix

different styles and influences in one building. Even so, the main styles found in

that period are: neo‐academic, popular, modernist and modern movement

architecture, that we are now going to briefly introduce.

Fig. 2.11 Moment from the

construction of the

building of the Central

Bank of Greece in

armed concrete

Source: Archives of

Bank of Greece ©





2.3.1 Neo‐academism

In order to understand the various architectural styles of the time and their

interaction we have to step back in the architectural history one moment before

the Interwar. From the moment of its foundation, the new free Greek state

based the idea of the National State on the idea of Classicism, expressed in

architecture by the so called Neoclassical style. Therefore, as Vatopoulos (2002,

93) observes, although the Interwar years marked the chronological death of the

Neoclassical style it gave birth to the so called Neo‐academism, drawing on the

idea of the importance of national identity.

Neo‐academism embraces for Giacumacatos (1999, 31) different styles, as

German Classicism, Eclecticism and the Beaux Art tradition. The architects that

followed it, mainly for public buildings in the city center, wanted to create, even

if only in ornamentation, a uniform shape of urban architecture for a Greek

capital worthy of being considered European.

The Neo‐academism used older motives and created, with modern materials,

constructions of a nostalgic aspect. Socially the use of neo‐academism in

architecture has been, through all the Interwar years, related to the conservative

thinking and the opposition to any innovation or change.

Fig. 2.12 Neoacademic building detail Benizelou and Apollonos, City Center Athens Source: Vatopoulos (2002, 97)

Fig. 2.13 Neoacademic building Rural Bank,Stadiou, City Center Athens

Source: Author





2.3.2 Popular style

Another architectural style, founded earlier due to an article titled “Popular

Architecture” published by Aristoteles Zachos in 1911, found fertile ground for its

development in the Interwar years. As Giacumacatos (2004, 31) underlines, the

text of this article was a courageous act of self consciousness because it

connected the importance of popular tradition to Byzantine culture. The basic

slogan of the popular style movement was “return to the roots” and it

emphasized a strong need for a new real national identity in architecture

(Kolonas 2006; Cholevas1994).

The popular style’s political and social aspect is very significant as it went against

the imposed vision of the country as a projection of its ancient glorious past. The

Byzantine years (those are the Balkan mediaeval years) had a more direct

influence on the habits and costumes of the population, a fact suppressed by the

Central European countries’ view of modern Greece.

Therefore, as highlighted by Fessa‐Emmanouil and Marmara (2005, xxi), after the

humiliation of the Asia Minor catastrophe ‐ also very much blamed on the

betrayal by the great Central European powers ‐ this movement expressed

opposition by returning to the natural roots of popular tradition.

What must be underlined though is that the byzantine and the rich popular

tradition were considered first as an inspiration for the architects of the so called

“popular style” since, as Cholevas (1998, 28) explains, they should create modern

art and architecture, that is, constructions using modern materials and

techniques.

Fig. 2.14

Popular style building detail , A.Chatzimichali

house, City Center, Athens Source: Author





2.3.3 Modernist

Modernist architecture for Greek constructions of the Interwar represented the

other trend: that of opposition to Neo‐academism. Biris (2003,176) explains how

this movement, mainly followed in the twenties, opposed conservatism by

proposing models that incorporated Art Nouveau and Art Deco elements.

Vatopoulos (2002, 107) explains that Art Nouveau appeared so late in Greece

because it is strictly related to the Industrial Revolution which, as already

mentioned, occurred in this country only after the second Balkan War. Another

social factor that supported the diffusion of Modernist is related once again to

the refugees of Asia Minor, who either as simple people or as specialized

architects were already familiar with and loved the forms of this movement.

Even though the modernist movement imported Art Nouveau in Athens,

Vatopoulos (2000, 504) underlines the obstacle of the craftsmen’s very limited

knowledge of ironwork at that time. Therefore what was actually created in

Interwar Athens were different plain buildings of Art Nouveau aspirations, simply

ornamented with Art Deco elements (fig. 2.15, 2.16).

Fig. 2.15 Modernist building,

Sourri, City Center, Athens

Source: Author

Fig. 2.16 detail of decoration in art deco motive Source: Author





2.3.4 Modern Movement

Following all this architectural research of the twenties, Athens in the thirties

was ready to embrace and experiment on the Modern Movement. The prevailing

favourable atmosphere is also underlined by the hosting in Athens in 1933 of the

IV CIAM Congress, which for many scholars was the last real conference on

Modern Architecture.

Athens, Tournikiotis (2000, 440) explains, not yet a metropolis, emerged in its

urbanization procedure after studying the European Modern Movement and

expressing it in its own particular language. The Modern Movement’s theories

reflected the will to transform Architecture into a symbol of social, constructive

and aesthetic improvement.

The growth of the Modern Movement in Athens, as in the rest of Europe, came

out as a natural consequence of the diffused use of modern materials, especially

of reinforced concrete. New materials gave new structure solutions and

promoted the vertical development of constructions.

For the State the acceptance of Modern Movement was related to the two

problems previously analyzed, which are, the need for immediate housing of the

refugees and the need for a new social face of the regenerated society. For this

purpose, Tournikiotis (2000, 440) summarizes, Modern architecture was the

solution for the three main state construction programmes; the new school

buildings programme, the hospitals, and the social housing. For all those urgent

needs, that also included limited funds and time problems, the Modern

Movement and particularly the principles of rationalism, gave valuable answers

as per Giacumacatos (2004, 43).

The theories of the Modern Movement in the private sector were warmly

welcomed by the newly formed urban middle class. Those private investors

identified in the Modern Movement, with the modernization of the society and

therefore the evaluation of their importance in the system and the social

balances as Fessa‐Emanouil & Marmara (2005, xxii) analyze.





The Modern Movement’s acceptance by the middle class, due to the law for

horizontal property, gave birth to the multi‐storey buildings, from then on the

most common dwelling constructions until today in Athens (2.17). The new multi‐

storey building represented the ideal housing solution, turning into a

Mediterranean version of Bauhaus ornamented with Art Deco elements, a proof

of the non‐exclusive use of architectural styles.

2.4 Conclusion

The different consequences of the various political choices brought a wind of

change in Greece during the Interwar years. The instant overpopulation created a

new social texture that forced the regeneration and modernization of the city.

Almost one hundred years after the foundation of the Greek capital its

urbanization finally came about thanks to these forced changes.

Athens needed a proper architectural language for its new metropolitan aspect.

As a consequence those years allowed various new architects to research into

and promote different architectural styles. Each style, even if not completely

detached from the others, supported and expressed different political and social

tendencies. The so called architecture of transition, incorporating all those styles

Fig. 2.17 Modern

movement multi‐storey

building attached to neoclassical

building, Patssion, City

Center, Athens

Source: Author





and their intermingling during the most creative and interesting twenty years of

contemporary architecture, left us a with a large amount of examples of

architectural heritage.

Interwar architecture is very significant not only as a pioneering leap in design

but also as a starting point for construction innovations, particularly the

experimentation with new materials. This is when traditional floor finishing

techniques like terrazzo and mosaic evolved according to the new technologies.

And that is why I consider it very important for these floors, often undervalued

and destroyed, to be recognised as unique for this period and conserved.

The conservation of Interwar architecture as a significant mark of the economic

and social evolution of the country, after years of adventures, is lately finding its

way, as will be analyzed thoroughly in chapters 4 and 5.

Before that, examples of the different architectural typologies will be elaborated

in such a way as to analyze the specific use of terrazzo and mosaic floors in

Athenian Interwar architecture. The choice of floors, the social significance and

the issues on their conservation will be analyzed within the framework of some

significant case studies.

Case Studies3



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case Studies

Initially we have seen what terrazzo and mosaic floors are, their similar

constitution materials and their major differences as to their execution method.

We then moved on to the various architectural expressions of Interwar in Greece

and their different social reflections. At this point we will try to trace a

connection between these data. Is there a crucial connection between the

different architectural types and the choice of a floor finish? And if yes, does it

affect their preservation status?

3.1 Methodology

Unfortunately floor finishes are usually not considered as important architectural

elements. Thus, in the flourishing bibliography on Interwar architecture, I found

only one mention on the use of terrazzo in the urban multi dwelling, by

Papadam‐Riza (2002, 172). For this reason, this part of my research has been

conducted with onsite visits for the collection of data, by observing the building,

the types of floor finishes and their position within the building as well as their

actual preservation status. The buildings that were chosen for observation are

mainly located in the center of Athens but also in some of its suburbs.

A total of 25 buildings were studied but, to keep a balance between the

examples, only 20 are presented in paragraph 3.3, five for each architectural

style. The remaining five, all from the modern movement, are attached in the

appendix as a proof of the abundance of modern movement examples but not

counted in the quantitative data analysis. The observation, and results have been

organized in thematic cards, two for every case: building data and floor data.

3.1.1 Building Data

In each case the first card is an introduction to the building. It includes general

data; name of the building, location, year of construction, architect and listing

number. In case of unknown data, this is marked with a question mark in

parenthesis. These are completed by a short description of the building,



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

presenting its original and its actual use, a notion on the architectural typology

and the type and location of the floor under observation. To complete the

overview of the building there is a picture of its external view and, where

available, the plans with the location of the floor finishes under observation or, in

some cases, a historical photograph.

3.1.2 Floor Data

The second card relates to the floor under observation. In cases where more

than one area of the same building has been observed there will be will be more

than one floor data card, one for each particular area. These cards contain

specific data on the floor finish, starting with the type ‐ terrazzo, or mosaic ‐

moving on to the main colours and then to some observations, usually regarding

particularities of the case. Finally there are notes on the preservation status and a

short list of the main deterioration forms. In order to better understand the

described fields there is always a picture with a detail of the floor, two or three

others with a general view of its location and finally some particulars of the

floor’s decay.

We are now ready to go through the completed case study cards. Their

comparison will lead us first to paragraph 3.3 with observations on the

relationship between architectural style and the type and location of the floor

finish and to paragraph 3.4 with an overview of the main conservation problems

of mosaics and terrazzo that were found in the case studies of this research.



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.2 Case studies

3.2.1 Neo‐academic buildings


The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

Case Study 1 General D

ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Giannarou Building

Location Filellinon & Othonos str, Syntagma – City Center

Year 1917 original, burnt, new completed in 1927

Architect First building Giannaros, N. new Metaxas, A.

Listing number 241 α/ 08.05.1991

Short description The neo‐academic building is a seven floor apartment building, originally residences, nowadays used as offices until the 5th floor and residences in the last two. It is one of the first buildings completely made of concrete. At the time of its construction it was highly criticized due to its exaggerated height (Marmaras; 1991, 44). The floors terrazzo floors under observation are in the sixth and seventh storey, as in all the other floors they have been replaced with white marble.

External view

Original view of the building:

c.s.4 original view,

Source: www.eie.gr

c.s.1 detail of neo‐academic decoration Source: Author

c.s.2 View from

Fillelinon & Othonos str,

Source: Author

c.s.3 View during construction, Source: www.eie.gr



Case Study 1 –6th floor Floor D

ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Type Terrazzo Floor detail

Main colours Red

Observations The terrazzo is still in place at the landing of the staircases, in a very narrow space of the sixth and seventh floor.

Preservation

status

Mediocre Deterioration form: Cracks, Lacunae, Erosion , Stains

General view

Floor decay particulars

c.s.5 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.6 6th floor Source: author

c.s.7 6th floor Source: author

c.s.8 Filled Lacuna Source: author

c.s.9 Crack Source: author

c.s.10 Deposits/stains Source: author



3. Case studies


ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‘Sarogleio’ Armed Forces Officers Club

Location Pavlos Melas Square & Rigillis str

Year 1924‐1932

Architect Nikoloudis, N

Listing number Not listed

Short description The neo‐academic building is a two floor building constructed as the Armed Forces Officers club, and is still used as such. All the areas of the building have terrazzo floors, with a clear distinction of simple terrazzo in corridors and offices, and terrazzo with decorative pattern in the main entrance hallway and reception areas. The terrazzo floors under observation are in the ground floor.

External view

Plan:

c.s.12 View from Pavlos Melas square, Source: Author

c.s.11 detail of neo‐academic decoration, Source: Author

c.s.13 Plan; not in scale, north point unknown

Simple terrazzo Terrazzo with decorative

pattern Source: Kotsaki (2005, 143)

Elaboration: Author

The University

Type

Main colou

Observatio

Preservatio

status

General vie

Floor decay

c.s.16 RecSource: A

c.s.19 FilleSource: A

TERRA

y of York – MA

Ter

urs Ora

ons CrevarIn tora

on VerDetCraFewhan

ew

y particulars

ception Hall Author

ed Lacuna Author

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

rrazzo

ange, black

eation of geriation of terthe corridorsange terrazz

ry good condterioration facks w cracks, nd, for elect

s

c.s.Sou

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

eometrical rrazzo colous and officeso.

dition. forms:

probably crical installa

.17 Main entraurce: Author

c.s.20 Felectrictrace, S

S IN INTERWAR

forms withurs. s simple

created bytions.

ance hallway

Filled Lacuna acal installation Source: Autho

R BUILDINGS IN

Floor deta

h

y c.s.14‐15 TSource: a

c.s.18 LSource

along ns or

N ATHENS: Con

ail

Terrazzo detaauthor

Lateral hall e: Author

nservation Issu

ail,

es

Case Study 2 Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name A.S.O.E.E (University of Economics and Business)

Location Patission 76 str– City Center

Year 1926‐1930

Architect Metaxas, A


Short description This is a neo‐academic building; designed to host the first Economics school, later University and still in use as such. It was internally modified in 1956‐57 and expanded with a new building in 1991. The floors of the main entrance and the corridors of the ground floor are all made in terrazzo.

External view

Original Drawings:

c.s.21 View from Patission str, Source: Author

c.s.22 detail of neo‐academic main

entrance, Source: Author

c.s.23 original

view, Source:

www.eie.gr




3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, Yellow

Observations Creation of geometrical forms with alternated colors of terrazzo. The floor of the main entrance is grey with big aggregates and black with small aggregates and that of the corridors yellow and black with small aggregates.

Preservation

status

Grey: Mediocre preservation status Deterioration forms: Cracks, Lacunae, Stains,Erosion Yellow: Generally good condition.

General view


c.s.30 Erosion of mortar, Source: author

c.s.24‐25 Terrazzo detail, Source: author

c.s.27 Main entrance hallway, Source: author c.s.26 Corridor, Source: author

c.s.31 Lacuna Source: author

c.s.29 Crack Source: author

c.s.28 Deposits/stains Source: author



3. Case studies


ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name GENKA A.E.

Location Kleisthenous 9 str, Omonia – City Center

Year 1921‐1930

Architect Unknown


Short description The neo‐academic building is a four floor apartment building; originally had a shop in the ground floor and residences above; nowadays it still has shops in the ground floor while the other 3 floors, plus mezzanine added later on are used as offices. The terrazzo floors under observation are in the fourth floor.

External view

Original and present plan of the fourth floor:

c.s.35 Plan; not in scale , north point unknown Terrazzo with decorative pattern

Source: Karakostas Elaboration: Author

c.s.32 detail of neo‐academic decoration, Source: Author

c.s.33 View from Kleisthenous str, Source: Author

c.s.34 Original Plan, 1939, not in scale, north point unknown Source: Karakostas




3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, red, black

Observations Creation of geometrical forms with alternated colors of terrazzo, probably achieved by different grouting.

Preservation

status

Generally good condition. Deterioration forms: Cracks and Lacunae

General view


c.s.41 Lacunae painted filling, Source: Author

c.s.39 Lacuna from loss of aggregates Source: Author


c.s.37 4th floor Source: Author

c.s.38 4th floor Source: Author

c.s.40 Crack Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Bank of Greece

Location Panepistimiou 21 str – City Center

Year 1933‐38

Architect Laskaris, K., Ppadakis, K., Zouboulidis, N.


Short description The building is the headquarters of the central bank of the country, established in 1927. It is a neo‐academic building with strong neoclassical influences. The main hall has two floor mosaics, inserted in a marble floor, while the corridors of the offices and library in the third storey are terrazzo. The floors under observation here are: the mosaics of the ground floor and the terrazzo of the third floor

External view

Original view of the Building

c.s.42View from Panepistimiou str,

Source: Author

c.s.43 detail of neo‐academic main entrance, Source: Author

c.s.44 original

view, Source:

www.eie.gr

The University

Type

Main colou

Observatio

Preservatio

status

General vie

Floor decay

c.s.46 MoSource: B

c.s.48 LacuSource: Ba

TERRA

y of York – MA

Mo

urs Yelvitr

ons ThemasymrooideVen

on MeDetero

ew

y particulars

osaic I, Bank of Greec

una ank of Greece

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

osaic

low, red, breous tesserere are two in transactiommetrically iom. There is ntifies themnice, in the Gediocre. terioration fosion.

s

ce

e cS

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

blue green rae. mosaic paneon hall, locat in the two si an inscriptio

m as manufac Gianese labo

form: Lacuna

c.s.49 Crack Source: Bank

S IN INTERWAR

varieties of

els in the ted ides of the on that ctured in oratory.

ae, cracks,

c.s.47 MSource:

of Greece

R BUILDINGS IN

Floor deta

f

c.s.45 MoSource: B

osaic II, Bank of Gree

c.s.50Sourc

N ATHENS: Con

ail

osaic detail, Bank of Greec

ce

0 Erosion ce: Bank of Gr

nservation Issu

ce

reece

es

Case Study 5a Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies



Case Study 5b –Third floor Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey

Observations All the corridors of the third floor leading to offices and the library of the bank are made in grey terrazzo, surrounded by white marble.

Preservation

status

Generally good condition. Deterioration forms: Deposits, Notches

General view


c.s.51 Terrazzo detail, Source: author

c.s.52 Corridor, third floor, Source: author

c.s.54 Corridor, third floor, Source: author

c.s.53 Entrance of library, third floor, Source: author

c.s.56 Superficial Erosion, Source: author

c.s.55 Notches, Source: author



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.2 Case studies

3.2.2 Popular style buildings



3. Case studies


ata 3. C

ase studies

Name Angeliki Chatzimichali’s House

Location A. Chatzimichali 18str, Plaka – City Center

Year 1924‐30

Architect A.Zachos


Short description The building is one of the most characteristic examples of popular architecture; originally a residence, nowadays the Museum of Folk Art. The apartments have wooden floors except for the balconies and the service rooms (kitchen, floor and servants’ rooms) that have terrazzo. The terrazzo floors under observation are in the main floor, in the service areas, and outside in the garden staircase.

External view

Plans:

c.s.57 detail of popular style decoration Source: Author

c.s.58 View from Chatzimichali str, Source: Author

c.s.13 59‐60 Plan, Ground and first floor; not in scale, north point unknown Simple terrazzo (in) Terrazzo with decorative pattern (out) Source: Fessa‐Emanouil, Marmaras (2005, 22), Elaboration: Author



3. Case studies


I. Introduction


Main colours Red, service rooms Grey, out

Observations Use of terrazzo in kitchen, corridor, bathroom and secondary entrance.

Preservation

status

Deterioration forms: Service areas: good condition, only some Cracks and Lacunae. Open air: very poor condition: cracks lacunae and biological attack

General view


c.s. 61 ‐ 62 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.63 Corridor Source: Author

c.s.64 Kitchen Source: Author

c.s.65 Secondary entrance Source: Author

c.s. 66 Erosion Source: Author

c.s. 67 Crack Source: Author

c.s.68 biological attack Source: Author



3. Case studies


ata 3. C

ase studies

Name Byzantine Museum (ex‐Villa Illissia)

Location Vas. Sofias 22, City center

Year Orginal building 1840, renovation 1926‐1930

Architect Original Building Kleantis, renovation Zachos, A

Listing number 74280/4154 α/ 21.06.1993

Short description The building was originally the residence of the Duchesse de Plaisance; afterwards army barracks. In the Interwar years, after renovation, the main building became the first national Byzantine and Christian Museum. Zachos created on the ground floor two rooms imitating the inside of byzantine churches. All the rooms are terrazzo floored, in some cases alternating with white marble. Until 2004 it hosted the permanent exhibition of the Museum, and is now temporary hosting the offices of the museum. In the future the ground floor will become the Main Entrance, with the ticket office, while the first floor will become an area of temporary exhibitions.

External view

Plans:

c.s.69 Central

entrance, Source: Author

c.s.70‐71‐ Plan: Ground and first floor; not in scale, north point unknown Simple terrazzo Terrazzo with decorative pattern Restoration intervention with terrazzo Source: Byzantine and Christian Museum Elaboration: Author



3. Case studies


3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, Red, Black mortar with small medium and large white aggregates.

Observations Terrazzo floors creating decorative forms by variations of terrazzo colours and/or insertion of white marbles. Extremely interesting is the use of this technique for integration of an ancient tarsia floor element.

Preservation

status

Deterioration forms: Inner : Heavy erosion located in black mortar, stains, notches Balcony: Grouting erosion and few lacunae

General view


c.s.76 Ground floor Source: Author

c.s.75 Corridor, 1st floor Source: Author

c.s. 72‐73‐74 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.77 Ground floor Source: Author

c.s. 78 Erosion Source: Author

c.s. 79 Notching Source: Author

c.s. 78 Lacuna Source: Author

c.s. 78 Grouting erosion Source: Author



3. Case studies


ata 3. C

ase studies

Name D. Loverdou Museum (ex‐Ziller house)

Location Mavromihali 6str, Exarheia City‐Center

Year Orginal building 1882, renovation 1930

Architect Original Building Ziller, E renovation Zachos, A


Short description The building was originally the residence of the German architect Ziller. In the Interwar years it was bought by the banker Loverdos, who commissioned Zachos with the renovation and extension of the building, turning part of its garden and the old storerooms in a Byzantine Museum. These rooms were mosaic floored. Later it was used as storage room for the costumes of the National Opera, at which time it caught fire. Presently it belongs to the Byzantine and Christian Museum, which is scheduling its restoration.

External view

Plans:

c.s.84 Orginal plan by Ziller, when the areas under

observation still storerooms and garden;

not in scale with unknown north point

Mosaics Source: Benaki Museum ©

c.s.82‐83 Details of the Entrances Source: Byzantine and Christian Museum



3. Case studies


3. Case studies

Type Mosaic Floor detail

Main colours Yellow, red, grey, black, blue

Observations Mosaic floors made of porcelain tile tesserae, imitating common mosaic motives of early‐byzantine churches.

Preservation

status

Deterioration forms: Very good conservation of the floors. Main deteriorations due to external factors: fire, stains, cements deposits. Lacunae: only few on the boarders.

General view


c.s.88 Main entrance hallway Source: Author

c.s.87 ‘Chapel’ Source: Author

c.s. 91 Concrete deposit Source: Author

c.s. 90 Lacunae Source: Author

c.s. 92 Stain Source: Author

c.s. 93 Fire Stain Source: Author

c.s.85‐86 Mosaic detail, Source: Author

c.s.89 Main entrance hallway, while Museum still in use, Source: www.iranon.gr




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Moralis house

Location Yasemion 8 str, Psychico (garden city‐ suburb)

Year 1932

Architect (?)


Short description The building is an example architecture inspired by popular style in one of the garden‐city suburbs created in the Interwar. Originally a residence, extended in the 60s and nowadays still used as such. The original building had wooden floors in the bedrooms and reception room, while the main entrance and the bathroom are terrazzo floored. The floor under observation is in the main entrance.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.95 View from

Yasemion str, Source: Author

c.s.94 Detail of popular style decoration, Source: Author

The University

Type

Main colou

Observatio

Preservatio

status

General vie

Floor decay

c.s.97 MaSource: A

c.s.99 ErSource: A

TERRA

y of York – MA

Ter

urs Gre

ons Terby vIn tand

on excDetOn

ew

y particulars

ain Entrance Author

rosion Author

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

rrazzo

ey and black

rrazzo with variations of the grey terrd black largecellent condterioration fly few surfac

s

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

k

decorative lf terrazzo corazzo use ofe size aggregition forms: ce erosion

S IN INTERWAR

line createdolours. f both whitegates.

c.sSo

R BUILDINGS IN

Floor deta

d

e

c.s.96 teSource: A

s.98 Main Enturce: Author

N ATHENS: Con

ail

errazzo detail Author

trance

nservation Issu

,

es

3. Case studies


3. Case studies




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Malliaris house

Location Thrasyvoulou 14str, Chalandri (rural suburb)

Year 1939

Architect (?)


Short description The building is an example architecture inspired by popular style in one of the rural suburbs created in the Interwar. Originally a residence, extended in the 1981 and nowadays still used as such. The original building had wooden floors only in the bedrooms and reception room, while main kitchen and bathroom had simple terrazzo, destroyed for the extension. Terrazzo with simple geometrical patterns are found in the main hall and the corridor and also in the open air areas: the street entrance and the veranda.

External view

Plans:

c.s.100 Detail of popular style decoration, Source: Author

c.s.101 View from

Thrasyvoulou str, Source:

Author

c.s.102 Original plan of the house, 1939;

not in scale, north point unknown

Demolished part Terrazzo with decorative

pattern (in) Simple terrazzo

Terrazzo with decorative pattern (out)

Source: Malliaris Elaboration: Author



3. Case studies


I. Introduction


Main colours Red, Orange, Black , hall Yellow, Black, Grey: open air

Observations Terrazzo with decorative patterns in the main hall and main corridor made by variations of terrazzo colours.

Preservation

status

Deterioration forms: In: excellent condition Open air: Few lacunae and a big crack in the central panel due to the weight of the tracks that passed for the renovation in 1981.

General view


c.s.103‐104‐105 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.106 Street Entrance Source: Author

c.s.107 Main Entrance Source: Author


c.s.109 Crack Source: Author




3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.2 Case studies

3.2.3 Modernist buildings




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Army Share Fund Building

Location Stadiou & Amerikis & Panepistimiou & Voukourestiou, Syntagma str– City Center

Year 1928‐1940

Architect Bonis, L. & Kassandris, V.


Short description This complex is a modernist five storey building; originally used as offices in the floors, entertainment areas with theater on one side and stores and restaurants in the ground floor. It has been restored in year 2007 creating a new shopping center ‘Attika’ and restoring the theater and eating areas. The floors under observation are: some in the landing of the staircases in the main building, nowadays a shopping center; some in the Cafes ‘Zonar’s’ and “Brazilian” (today ‘Clemente’) of the Ground Floor; and some in the foyer of ‘Pallas’ theatre

External view

Original Drawings:

c.s.111 Detail modernist decoration, Source: Author

c.s.112 View from

Stadiou str, Source:

c.s.113 First prize

winning drawings,

1926 Source: Fessa

Emmanouil , Maramaras (2005, 203)



Case Study 11b –Zonar’s cafe Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

Type Terrazzo and Marble Floor detail

Main colours White, Pink

Observations There are two parts of the cafeteria where the terrazzo floor decoration has been maintained; the main entrance and the surrounding area of the elevated level. In both cases pink and white terrazzo quadrants and triangles, alternate with white marble form geometric designs.

Preservation

status

Excellent, no visible form of decay

General view


No visible decay

c.s.119‐120 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.120‐121 ‘Zonars cafe’ main entrance and central hall, Source: Author



Case Study 11c –Brazilian cafe Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Red and black

Observations In the central corridor of the cafeteria the original floor has been maintained. It is a terrazzo with the logo and a decoration made by black terrazzo.

Preservation

status

Good Forms of deterioration: One long crack, deposits and some lacunae

General view



c.s.124 Terrazzo with original logo, Source: Author

c.s.125 View of Café’s

outdoor gallery, Source: Author

c.s.127 Crack, Source: Author

c.s.126 Surface Erosion, Source: Author

The University

Type

Main colou

Observatio

Preservatio

status

General vie

Floor decay

c.s.132 ExSource: A

TERRA

y of York – MA

Ter

urs Yel

ons In flooyellgeoIn tfloopormo

on GooForSta

ew

y particulars

xfoliation, Author

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

rrazzo

low, black, r

the entranor), mosaic olow porcelometrical pa the entranceor), same partion of yelloosaic. od rms of deterains and som

s

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

red, purple,

ce of the of purple, reain tesseraatterns. e of the foyeattern plus aow and black

rioration: me exfoliatio

c.s.124 Foyer EntranceSource: Author

c.The

entraSoAu

S IN INTERWAR

pink, white

theater (1st

ed, pink andae forming

er (2nd a smaller k meanders

n

c.s.13Sour

e,

.s.124 eatre ance, ource: uthor

R BUILDINGS IN

Floor deta

t d g

33 Erosion ofrce: Author

c.s.124 MSource:

N ATHENS: Con

ail

f glazing and s

Mosaic Deata Author

nservation Issu

stains,

il,

es

Case Study 11d –Pallas theatre Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Athens 26th High School

Location Souidias and Marasli str , Kolonaki – City Center

Year 1929

Architect Mitsakis, N. in collaboration with arch. Antoniadis, A.


Short description The building was constructed as part of the new school programme, and was the Girls High School “Aristotelis”. Presently still used as a school building. It is a modern movement building combined with classical decorative elements. It was altered in 1958 by the addition of one more storey. All the floors are made of colored terrazzo which creates geometric patterns.

External view


c.s.135 View from

Souidias str, Source: Author

c.s.136 original

view, Source:

www.eie.gr




3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, red, yellow

Observations Creation of geometrical forms by variation of terrazzo colours, probably achieved by different grouting in corridors and main halls while monochrome grey terrazzo in the classrooms.

Preservation

status

Deterioration forms: Grouting erosion, Few Cracks and Lacunae

General view


c.s.136 Terrazzo detail Source: Author

c.s.139 Surface Erosion, Source: Author

c.s.140 Filled lacunae, Source: Author

c.s.141 Crack, Source: Author

c.s.137 Main entrance Hall, Source: Author

c.s.138 Corridor, Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‐

Location D. Areopagitou 17 str, Makrygianni – City Center

Year 1930

Architect Kouremenos, V.


Short description The building is a modernist four‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays still used as such. It is considered as the most characteristic example of art‐deco building in Interwar Athens. Unfortunately today a case is pending for its demolition for the sake of the New Museums of Acropolis cafeteria view. The terrazzo floor under observation is in an apartment of the third floor.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.143 View from

Areopagitou str

Source: Flenga‐

Kouremenou (phot.

Nikolaidou)

c.s.144 main entrance, art deco detail Source: Author



Case Study 13 –Third floor Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Main Hall: Yellow, green, red Corridor: Grey Balconies: grey‐red

Observations Terrazzo with decorative patterns in the entrance and main hall.

Preservation

status

Internal very good condition. Deterioration forms: External: mediocre condition Elevated erosion

General view


c.s.144‐145‐146 Terrazzo detail Source: Author

c.s.147 balcony, Source: Author

c.s.148 main entrance Source: Author


c.s.150 Surface erosion Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‐

Location Vas. Sofias 57 str, Kolonaki – City Center

Year 1928

Architect (?) Prezanis, F. or Kriezis, K. or Kitsikis, K.


Short description The building is a modernist five‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays offices. The floor under observation is in the building’s entrance; no entry to the apartments was possible. The main entrance is covered by grey terrazzo.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.152 View

from vas. Sofias,

str Source: Author

c.s.151 main entrance art deco detail Source: Vatopoulos (2002, 117)




3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey

Observations Use of terrazzo in the main entrance’s floor.

Preservation

status

Very good condition, only some erosion and lacunae in the proximities to the marble.

General view



c.s.155 main

entrance Source: Author

c.s.153 terrazzo detail Source: Author

c.s.156 lacuna Source: Author

c.s.157 surface erosion Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‐

Location Skoufa 59 str, Kolonaki – City Center

Year 1929‐1930

Architect Kitsikis, K.


Short description The building is a modernist four‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays offices. The floor under observation is in the building’s entrance; no entry to the apartments was possible. In contrast to the white marbled entrance, the corridor that leads to the back is terrazzo floored and was probably the service entrance.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.158 view from Skoufa str,

Source: Author

c.s.159 detail of modernist entrance, Source: Author



Case Study 1 5 Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey

Observations Use of terrazzo in the secondary entrance’s floor.

Preservation

status

Very good condition, only some black signs probably residues of previously glued carpet (fig).

General view



c.s.161 secondary entrance, Source: Author

c.s. 162 secondary entrance, Source: Author

c.s.163 stains, Source: Author



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.2 Case studies

3.2.3 Modern Movement Buildings




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‐

Location Solonos 74str, Kolonaki/Exarcheia – City Center

Year 1934

Architect Unknown


Short description The building is a modern movement three‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays offices. The floors under observation are: some in the ground floor and some in an apartment of the second floor. The apartments have wooden floors except for the balconies and the service rooms (kitchen, floor and servants’ rooms) that have terrazzo.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.164 View from Solonos str

Source: Author



Case Study 16a – Ground floor Floor D

ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies


Main colours Grey, balconies and service rooms

Observations Use of terrazzo in usage areas.

Preservation

status

Balcony: excellent status but dirty. Service areas: good condition, only some Cracks and small Lacunae.

General view



c.s.168 cracks, Source: Author

c.s.169 deposits/stains, Source: Author

c.s.166 Kitchen, Source: Author

c.s.167 Kitchen, Source: Author



Case Study 16b – 1 st floor Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, balconies Yellow, service rooms

Observations Use of terrazzo in usage areas.

Preservation

status

Balcony: excellent status but dirty. Service areas: good condition, only some Cracks and Lacunae mainly in the kitchen near the sink . The bathroom floor has been covered with modern tiles.

General view


c.s.176 Bathroom covered with new tiles Source: Author





c.s.173 Balcony Source: Author



Case Study 1 7 General D

ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Dance Academy

Location Omirou 55 Kolonaki – City Center

Year 1934

Architect Kontoleon, G.


Short description The building is a modern movement building, originally school and residence, nowadays used as the National Dance Academy. The classrooms have wooden floors. Corridors, service areas and landing of the staircases are made in terrazzo.

External view

Original view and Plan:

c.s.178 View from Omirou,

Source: Author

c.s.177 original view, Source: Fessa Emanouil , Marmaras(2005, 189)

c.s.179 original 3D Model, Source: Fessa Emanouil , Marmaras(2005, 189)

c.s.180 Plan; not in scale, north point unknown Simple terrazzo Source: idem

Elaboration: Author




3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Grey

Observations The terrazzo is still in place on the corridors at the landing of the staircases, and all the service areas.

Preservation

status

Except from the entrance corridor, heavily decayed, some deterioration is present in the humid areas of kitchen and bathroom, mainly near edges and bathtubs. Deterioration form: Cracks, Lacunae, Stains

General view



c.s.182 Main Entrance, Source: Author

c.s.183 Staircases landing, Source: Author

c.s.184 Bathrooms, Source: Author

c.s.185 Erosion, Source: Author

c.s.186 Stains, Source: Author

c.s.187 Cracks, Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name ‐

Location Orestou 20 str, Petralona – City Center

Year 1936

Architect (?)


Short description The building was a modern movement two storey residence house, and is still used as such. The terrazzo floors under observation are in ground floor of the original building in all the rooms, apart from the bathroom that has been covered with tiles and from one room covered with laminated wood. There is also a small part in the beginning of the staircase, all the rest of the yard has been covered with tiles.

External view

Plans:

c.s.189 View from Orestou str,

Source: Author

c.s.190 Plan, not in scale, north point

unknown Terrazzo

Source: Tzartzanis, N



Case Study 1 8 Floor Data

3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Green, Yellow Red Green with large white marbles

Observations All the rooms were floored n terrazzo, each one in a different color.

Preservation

status

Good condition. Deterioration forms only in the kitchen: Lacunae

General view


c.s.20191‐192‐193‐194 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.195 Bedroom, Source: Author

c.s. 196Main hall, Source: Author

c.s.197 Courtyard, Source: Author

c.s.198 Lacunae, Source: Author

c.s.199 filled lacunae, Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Agios Savvas – Greek Anticancer Institute

Location Alexandras av 171. Ambelokipi – City Center

Year 1936

Architect Tsagris, B


Short description The building was constructed as the first hospital in Greece dedicated to cancer treatments and is still used for the same purpose. It is a modern movement building It has received various extension and modernization of its structure in 1942, 1960, 1979 and 1980‐89 . Probably all its floors were in terrazzo, but many of them are today covered with plastic tiles.

External view


c.s.200 View from

Alexandras str, Source: Author

c.s.201 Original view , Source: http://www.agsavvas‐hosp.gr




3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Green, yellow Grey

Observations Entrance: Creation of geometrical forms with alternated colors of terrazzo Corridors: Simple grey terrazzo

Preservation

status

Generally good condition. Deterioration forms: Erosion, Cracks and Lacunae

General view


c.s.202‐203 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s.206 Aggregates erosion lacunae, Source: Author

c.s.207 Cracks, Source: Author

c.s.204 Corridor, Source: Author

c.s.205 Main Entrance,

Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies 3. C

ase studies

Name Georgiadis house

Location Agiou Andrea 3 str, N. Smyrni ( refugee suburb)

Year 1938

Architect (?)


Short description The building was a modern movement one storey refuge house. Later one more floor was added on top of the original building. The terrazzo floors under observation are in the original building of the ground floor in all the rooms, apart from bedrooms.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s.208 View from Agiou Andrea str;

original house Source: Author




3. Case studies

3. Case studies


Main colours Green, entrance Yellow, main Hall and corridor Light Green, Kitchen and balcony Red, kitchen service entrance

Observations Terrazzo in all the rooms, part of the bedrooms, and the external spaces.

Preservation

status

Mediocre condition. Deterioration forms: Lacunae mainly found in the open areas green terrazzo and the internal green and red terrazzo.

General view


c.s.217 Morta erosion lacunae, Source: Author




c.s 209,210,211, 212 Terrazzo detail, Source: Author

c.s. 213 Main Entrance, Source: Author

c.s. 214 Main Hall, Source: Author

c.s.215 Balcony Source: Author

The University

3.3 Type o

The 20 ca

Interwar b

was wide

this resea

Patterns,

There is s

different

ignored b

distinctive

and mode

this poin

architectu

made.

Fig. 3.1repres

of percefl

exampler

Sourc

Fig. 3.2 Grepresen

of percentafloo

examples research reto archite

Source: A

TERRA

y of York – MA

of Architec

ase studies

buildings o

espread (fig

arch into a

Mosaics.

some indica

architectu

by the mod

e predomin

ernist build

t more sp

ural style,

1 Graphic entation ntage of oor type es in this research ce: Author

raphic ntation age of or type in this elating ectural

style Author

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

cture and c

s demonst

of Athens w

g. 3.1). The

a new divi

ative data

ral styles o

dern move

nance of te

ings. The o

pecific obs

location in

00,5

11,52

2,53

3,54

4,55

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

choice of f

trated that

was very lim

compariso

ision: simp

as to the

of the Ιnte

ment. Terr

errazzo wit

opposite oc

ervations

n the build

42%

Fl

S IN INTERWAR

floor finish

t the use o

mited where

on of these

ple Terrazz

use of thes

erwar (fig.3

razzo was

th decorat

curs in mod

related to

ding and s

10%

48%

loor fin

R BUILDINGS IN

h

of mosaic

eas the use

e results le

o, Terrazz

se three flo

3.2). Mosai

used by al

ive pattern

dern movem

choice of

symbolic si

ishes

N ATHENS: Con

floor finish

e of terrazz

ads the su

o with de

oor finishe

ic was com

l styles yet

ns in popu

ment build

f floor fin

ignificance

Mosaic

Terrazz

Terrazzdec.pat

Mosaic

Terrazzo

Terrazzodec.patt

nservation Issu

3

h in the

zo floors

bject of

corative

es in the

mpletely

t with a

lar style

ings. At

ish and

will be

o

o with ttern

o

o with tern

es

36

3. Case studies

3. Case studies



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.3.1 Simple Terrazzo

Simple or monochrome terrazzo was met in fourteen of the case studies,

demonstrating the extended use of this technique in a large variety of mortar

and aggregates, color and granular size, in all four architectural styles (fig. 3.3).

Yet, the choice of location for these floors within a building is directly affected by

the social reflection of the building itself, in other words whether it was a poor or

a prestigious construction.

In the case of poor constructions, mainly the houses of refugees, terrazzo was

used in all the areas of the house and the courtyard, varying in colors and

aggregates so as to define the different rooms (case studies 17, 19 and appendix).

Terrazzo floors offered hygienic ambient in very modest prices and the possibility

of a primary decoration.

On the other hand, in the urban constructions of the center and some public

buildings we find terrazzo mostly in the secondary and/or service areas: kitchen,

bathrooms, corridors, servant rooms, balconies and auxiliary entrances (case

studies 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 1415a‐b). The rest of the house was covered with the

more prestigious and expensive wooden floors. In these cases, particularly in the

housing case, there is an even clearer social discrimination. The newborn urban

class wished to diverge from the houses of the poor but, as terrazzo was needed

for its high resistance and its hygienic qualities, it was only used wherever

necessary, meaning in the secondary and the utility zones.

Fig. 3.3 Typical simple grey

terrazzo Source: Author

Fig. 3.4 Distinction between usage and prestigious areas Urban modern movement apartment Source: Author



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.3.2 Terrazzo with decorative patterns

Terrazzo with decorative patterns can be classified as an intermediate solution

between Mosaics and simple Terrazzo. The reason is that these terrazzo types

proposed decorative motives of ancient mosaics but with terrazzo technique,

either by altering terrazzo colours or by inserting marble pieces geometrically

distributed (fig. 3.5). They are located in important parts of the buildings, such as

entrances, main halls, main corridors etc., a fact which demonstrates that were

made so as to attract attention.

This shows that architects of the time found a strong ally in concrete terrazzo.

They could create resisting floors compatible with the concrete structure of the

building, at the same time ornamenting the floors thus adding decorative value

to their building.

Twelve examples of such terrazzo were found in all architectural types. Though

expressed in different architectural languages all the buildings that have terrazzo

with decorative patterns were initially designed for the newborn urban class

housing (case studies 4, 9, 10, 11) or for significant public buildings (case studies 2,

3, 7, 11a‐b‐c, 12, 18) Therefore, we have again a symbolic distinction; applying a

technique used by the lower classes but in a more prestigious manner.

Fig. 3.5 Terrazzo with decorative pattern, Source: Author



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

Before moving on to mosaics special mention should be made to two more facts

about terrazzo. First, the extended use of terrazzo in public buildings, like

hospitals, schools, and universities, either simple or with decorative patterns,

which demonstrates that architects of the time found a very cheap and resistant

solution for large areas harmoniously integrating with all the different

architectural languages (fig. 3.6). Second, the diffused use of terrazzo in the

entrance halls of multi‐storey buildings, an important area of these

constructions, as explained by Moiras (2001, 43). This is even more widespread in

the modern movement as demonstrated in case studies 21, 23, 24, (appendix I)

and the 24 photo examples (appendix II) of terrazzo floored entrances from the

ongoing research of ‘Elliniki Etairia’ (fig. 3.7). This latter research includes a

section on entrances with 157 photographs, and the 24 selected for the present

study are 15% of the total. I believe that these data indicate that terrazzo was

particularly appreciated by architects of the experimental modern movement

and should be considered an inseparable element of that architectural language

of the Interwar.

Fig. 3.7 Landing of staircases in public school, Kolonaki, City Center , Athens Source: Author

Fig. 3.8 Entrance in Modern movement building, City Center , Athens Source: Elliniki Etairia (unpublished)



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.3.3 Mosaic

Of the 20 buildings included in the case studies chapter only three contained

mosaics floor (fig. 3.9). A fourth example was mentioned (architect Efi Kalliga,

pers. comm. January 2009) the Kanellopoulos villa, with a courtyard full of

mosaics; an edifice which has unfortunately been demolished. Apart from the

very limited use what is also very significant is the kind of buildings these floors

were found in.

The building of the Bank of Greece, a Museum, the biggest at the time Theatre of

the Balkans and a rich private Villa give proof that mosaics were very expensive

at that time too. All these buildings were exclusive constructions and were some

of the few the owners which could afford such a luxury in a very tight economic

period for the country. This again has a strong symbolic value, as it distinguishes

those that had the power to significantly differ from decorative elements used

by common people.

Fig. 3.9 Detail of Mosaic floor, Loverdos Museum, City Center, Athens Source: Author

The University

Summing

mainly of

that arch

technique

floor finis

value. Thi

where th

important

seen only

examine n

relationsh

TERRA

y of York – MA

up, we ha

f terrazzo a

itectural st

es. What is

h, was its t

is symbolism

he mosaics

t hall of th

y by employ

now is how

hip betwee

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

ve seen th

and some o

tyles of the

more signi

ype and loc

m can be s

imported

he building

yees, has si

w do these

n type, loca

M

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

at in all arc

of mosaics

e time wer

ficant than

cation in th

summarized

from Italy

while the

mple terraz

varieties of

ation and p

Fig. 3.11 Mosaic floor,

ain hall, Bank of Greece Center Source: Author

S IN INTERWAR

chitectural

s can be fo

re interacti

n the archite

he buildings

d in the exa

y are locat

third floor

zzo floors (

f pavement

preservation

FigMofloMaBaGreCeSouAut

R BUILDINGS IN

styles of th

ound. This

ng and so

ectural styl

s, reflecting

ample of th

ted in the

r, which w

(fig. 3.10, 3.

ts weather

n status.

g. 3.10 osaic or, ain hall, nk of eece nter urce: thor

N ATHENS: Con

hat time ex

proves onc

were the

le for the c

g a strong s

he Bank of

central an

as designe

.11). What w

r and if ther

nservation Issu

4

xamples

ce more

flooring

hoice of

symbolic

Greece,

nd most

ed to be

we must

re is any

es

41

3. Case studies

3. Case studies



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

3.4 Choice of floor finish and preservation status

All the floor finishes observed are manufactures that have undergone over seven

decades of use. As already introduced by the case study cards, they have

suffered different decay forms. The main deterioration forms occurring in the

three above mentioned categories will be now summarized.

3.4.1 Simple terrazzo

The deterioration of the simple terrazzo, as the case studies demonstrated, is

strictly related to its location. The most severely decayed terrazzo are those in

open‐air areas, especially when they were not covered (case studies 6, 10, 13,20).

In the inner spaces the severest deterioration occurred in humid environments

(kitchens and bathrooms) (case studies 16a‐b, 17). This is no surprise, as both for

the weathering of stones (the aggregates) (Schaffer, 2004, 42) and of concrete

(the mortar) (Papadopoulou, 2008, 16‐17), the most damaging factors are the

presence of water and the variations in temperature.

In total, five are the main deterioration forms observed in terrazzo (3.12‐3.17):

Cracks: linear breaks of the floor, few millimetres large.

Found in different areas of the floor.

Erosion: abraded surface that has lost its superficial

compatibility and integrity, increasing its porosity and

diminishing the glow. Usually found in the main walking

paths of each floor.

Erosion of final grouting: when the last grouting is of a

different colour the erosion of the final grouting appears

like a discoloration of the surface. From a visual inspection

it seems that it affects neither its porosity nor its lucidity. It

is also found in the main walking paths of each floor.

Fig. 3.12 Source: Author





3. Case studies

3. Case studies

Lacunae: an irregular part of the floor that is missing; this

can be due either to heavy erosion of the aggregates

(most common) (fig. 3.15) or to erosion of the concrete

(fig. 3.16). Small superficial lacunae can be found on the

entire surface, while usually deeper lacunae, which involve

also one of the bedding layers, are found in the corners.

Stains: various types of deposit that have imprinted the

floor; for example oily or glue residues. They are mainly

found in the edges of the floors.

3.4.2 Terrazzo with decorative patterns

Terrazzo with decorative patterns presents the same deterioration forms of the

simple terrazzo. The above described deteriorations have been found in many

cases but are less intense and evident. I believe that this is due to three main

reasons. One can first of all suppose that more attention was given at the

moment of their fabrication. Then, that the areas with the decorative patterns

are not in humid areas of frequent use, like bathrooms and kitchens. And last,

due to their decorative motives, owners could have more easily appreciated

valuable manufactures and so eagerly cared for their everyday maintenance.




The University

3.4.3 Mos

The deter

creation.

creating o

The three

due to the

In the cas

various ex

In the cas

found the

few lacun

by misuse

of the ma

Fig. 3.18 Sourc

Fig. 3.19 Source

Fig. 3.21 Sourc

Fig. 3.3.22 Sou

TERRA

y of York – MA

saic

rioration of

Mosaic flo

one surface

e cases take

eir differen

se of the Ba

xtended de

se of the L

e floor in an

nae in the p

es and bad

aterials.

ce: B.o.G. archive

e: B.o.G. archives

ce: B.o.G. archive

urce: B.o.G archiv

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

f mosaics i

ors are sur

e, which me

en under co

t constitut

ank of Gree

eterioration

Cracks: l

the tesse

Erosion:

resistanc

Lacunae

mortar. U

Stains: v

imprinte

Loverdou‐Zi

n excellent

proximities

maintenan

es

s

es

ves

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

s quite diff

rfaces mad

eans that th

onsideratio

ion materia

ece, where v

n forms (3.1

inear break

erae.

abraded

ce of vitreo

: complete

Usually foll

various typ

ed on the flo

iller buildin

t preservati

s of the wa

nce of the b

S IN INTERWAR

ferent due

e by single

he result is

n, present

als.

vitreous gla

8‐3.21).

ks of the fl

tesserae

ous glass tile

e loss of t

ows the ou

pes of depo

oor.

ng, where p

ion status;

all. The only

building an

R BUILDINGS IN

to the par

e tesserae t

a non‐comp

different d

ass tiles we

oor betwe

surface, d

es to walkin

tesserae an

utline of the

osit that a

porcelain ti

no erosion

y importan

nd not due

N ATHENS: Con

rticularities

that is, sing

pact surfac

deterioratio

ere used, w

en and/or c

due to th

ng over the

nd/or the b

e tesserae.

are attache

iles were u

n, no cracks

t decay wa

to poor re

nservation Issu

4

in their

gle units

ce.

on forms

we found

crossing

he poor

em.

bedding

ed to or

sed, we

s, only a

as stains

sistance

es

44

3. Case studies

3. Case studies

The University

In the cas

similar to

could ind

preservat

presented

There are

later resto

The differ

Pallas The

frequency

the Lover

any case w

Summing

observati

cracks; e

vitreous

including

Fig. 3.23 Sou

Fig. 3.24 So

TERRA

y of York – MA

se of the P

colour an

dicate sam

tion status

d two decay

e no cracks,

oration inte

rence in the

eatre and th

y of use. W

rdou –Ziller

would be le

up, all t

on can be

rosion, inc

tesserae a

loss of tess

urce: Author

ource: Author

AZZO AND MO

in Conservation

Pallas theat

d dimensio

me manuf

s; but man

y forms (fig

Erosion o

the tesse

Exfoliati

the surfa

, and have

ervention.

e resistanc

he Loverdo

hile thousa

r Museum w

ess frequen

the main

e divided i

cluding sup

and exfolia

serae or ag

OSAIC FLOORS

n Studies, 2009

tre were u

on to those

facture. T

ny of the

g. 3.23, 3.24

of the glaz

erae

ion: comple

ace, usually

been found

e of the sa

ou –Ziller M

ands of visit

was for on

nted than th

decay for

nto three

perficial, g

ation for p

gregate, lo

S IN INTERWAR

sed also po

e in the Lo

hese floo

yellow an

4):

ing: found

ete loss of

y on the edg

d only a few

ame materi

Museum, is d

tors have w

nly few yea

he theatre.

rms of te

main cate

grouting er

porcelain t

oss of morta

R BUILDINGS IN

orcelain we

overdou‐ Zil

rs are ge

nd some o

where stai

the tessera

ges of the t

w lacunae f

al, porcela

definitely d

walked on t

rs of inten

errazzo an

egories: de

rosion, ma

tile tessera

ar and notc

N ATHENS: Con

ere used ti

ller buildin

enerally in

of the bla

ins have im

ae layer pa

tesserae.

filled proba

in tiles bot

ue to the d

the theatre

sively used

d mosaics

eposits and

aterial eros

ae; and l

ching (fig.3.

nservation Issu

4

iles very

g which

n good

ack tiles

mprinted

arallel to

ably in a

h at the

different

’s foyer,

d, and in

s under

d stains;

sion for

lacunae,

.25 ).

es

45

3. Case studies

3. Case studies



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

Deposits/Stains Cracks Erosion Lacunae

3.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of the floors of 20 buildings of the Interwar in Athens

highlighted the widespread use of terrazzo compared to mosaic floors.

Regarding the connection between different architectural types and choice of

flooring finish, one could notice a significant difference only in the modern

movement, which did not use mosaic at all and embraced terrazzo floor finishes.

Apart from that there is no strong connection between architecture and choice

of floor finish. In all other types of architecture either one of them or a

combination of the two is present with variations in technique, colour and

location. There is however a relation between location and value attributed to

each floor type and the significance of the building.

Fig. 3.25 Cummulative table of the main decay forms in terrazzo and mosaics, Source:



3. Case studies

3. Case studies

Location and choice of floor type are also easily translated into an expression of

social distinction. According to the economic profile of the owner, more or less

expensive flooring techniques were used. Mosaics were located in important

areas of the building and the same happened with terrazzo with decorative

patterns (fig. 3.26, 3.27). On the other hand, in rich constructions, terrazzo was

used in secondary and utility zones while in lower‐class constructions it is found

in all the inner and the outer spaces.

Location and the initial fabrication methods have a strong influence on the kind

and extension of decay of the floors. Depending on the different floor typology,

deterioration forms can be similar but may also have differences due to their

fabrication techniques, location and whether or not their artistic value is

recognized. Furthermore, same materials can also weather differently due to the

frequency of use of the room the floor is placed in.

Having identified the main deterioration forms, we should now propose some

solutions. As conservation is an art with theoretical bases, we will analyze the

conservation approach towards the recent architectural past. This will then certainly

result in the formulation of a valuable discussion with proposals for the conservation

problems of these floors.

Fig. 3.27 Same

building as 3.26; simple

terrazzo in the

corridors, Athens Source: Author

Fig. 3.26 Terrazzo with decorative patterns in the main entrance hallway, Neo‐academic building, City Center, Athens, Source: Author

Contemporary Conservation approach

to Recent Architecture

4



4. Contem

porary Conservation approach to R

ecent Architecture

4. Contemporary Conservation approach to Recent Architecture

Conservation of artifacts and buildings is nowadays considered a science with

different philosophical backgrounds. I therefore think, before coming to the

discussion and proposals for the conservation problems of Interwar terrazzo and

mosaics, a brief overview of the principal schools of thought and the evolution of

this science should be done through the positions of its main representatives. It

is important to do so in order to mark the limits of traditional conservation

philosophy when applied to more recent buildings. Thus we can analyze which

of the traditional axioms are applicable to conservation of recent architecture

and also how and when a mutated approach might be necessary.

4.1 Historical overview of Architectural Conservation in Europe

We define conservation as all those actions that aim at preserving valuable

testimonies of the past. More than two centuries have elapsed from the day

Pietro Edwards in 1977 published his Capitolato, a text which as Munoz – Vinaz

(2005, 3) defines, can be considered the first written guidelines for architectural

conservation. During the nineteenth century, in Europe several theorists and

practitioners have attempted to leave their mark on what should be “correct

conservation”.

Two were definitely the most significant personalities of the nineteenth century

with worldwide influence. The French Eugene Viollet le Duc (1814‐1879) who

identified conservation as a completion “in style”, imitating and inventing

missing parts of the building (fig 4.1). and his extreme opposite, the Englishman

John Ruskin (1819‐1900) who, with a romantic approach to the charm of the ruin,

sustained that conservation must be the non‐alteration of that charm (fig. 4.2)

(Munoz‐ Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Sette 2001; Napoleone 2005c; La Regina

2005; Vassalo 1996; Marmotti‐ Politi 1996; de Martino G.1996; Ceschi 1970).



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

All other theories have been influenced by these two opposite theses, either

rejecting or combining their ideas. In Italy, Camillo Boito (1836‐1914) was one of

the most important figures in defining the monument as a historical document.

He insisted on the necessity of a philological approach, proposing the

simplification of forms and materials in the interventions. He was followed by his

student Gustavo Giovannoni (1873‐1947) who gave a more modern and scientific

approach to the subject (Munoz‐Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Grissoni 2005; Sette

2001; Curuni 2005, 1996; Di Biase 1996; Ceschi 1970).

At the same time, in Britain, William Morris (1834‐1896) founded the Society for

the Protection of Ancient Buildings and published the “Manifesto“against

destructive restoration, underlining the necessity for effective and honest repairs

and excluding any kind of imitation (Munoz‐ Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Esposito

2005; Sette 200; de Martino R. 1996; Ceschi 1970).

Some years later, at the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the most

significant theorists for the development of architectural conservation was the

Austrian Alois Riegl (1858‐1905). He introduced the concept of the monument

Fig. 4.1 Drawing by Viollet le Duc for the reconstruction of Saint Nazaire a Carcassone, France Source: Frerigang, C Kremier J (2003,349)

Fig. 4.2 Drawing by Ruskin, with all the detailsof the decay. San Michele, Luca, Italy Source: Ruhl, C (2003, 466)



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

both as intended monument at the time of its construction, but also for edifices

which were later attributed the value of monument that is, architectural works

initially not intended to be monumental but evaluated as such at a later time..

Through this theory value was introduced in conservation (Napoleone 2005b;

Munoz‐ Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Sette 2001; Pretelli 1996; Ceschi 1970).

Half a century later Cesare Brandi (1906‐1988) in Italy reexamines the issue of

value. In 1963 he published the “Teoria del Restauro”, principally relative to works

of art, but also to architectural conservation. His theory was based on the

coexisting double value of the works: historical and aesthetic (Napoleone 2005;

Munoz‐ Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Sette 2001; Carbonara 1996; Ceschi 1970).

During the twentieth century different attempts were made for the organization

of all these schools of thought. As a result, Konsola (1995, 61) summarizes,

national and international charters (key examples: Athens 1931, Venice 1964,

Burra 1979, ICOMOS 2003,) and declarations (key examples: Amsterdam 1975,

Strasbourg 1985, Nara 1994 etc.) were issued and Heritage conservation

organizations, such as UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and lately the DOCOMOMO,

were founded. The efforts are incessant, re‐elaborating the principal theories and

previous conclusions, to demonstrate that conservation is a science in

continuous evolution.

4.2 Conservation of the recent architectural past

We have gone briefly over the main philosophical trends that formed the

conservation science of Historical Buildings in Europe. The question to be

answered now is whether these principles are just as valuable regarding the

conservation of our recent Built Heritage.

The first attempt towards an accurate study on the conservation of the closer

architectural past was in 1989 by the foundation of the DOCOMOMO

(DOcumentation and COnservation of buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the

MOdern MOvement). Next came the foundation of “ICOMOS 20th Century

Heritage International Scientific Committee” (Prudon 2008; Burke 2007; Casciato



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

1998). The publications and activities of these institutions are focused mainly on

the buildings of the Modern Movement. Even so, I personally think that

considerations regarding the conservation of early Modern Movements’

heritage, born during the Interwar years, can be applicable to other buildings of

that period too.

Unfortunately, as Iamandis (1989, 183) underlines, there is no clear philosophical

or methodological approach regarding our recent architectural Heritage. The

problems arise with relation to perceived values, as reflected in earlier

conservation debates by Riegl and Brandi,. In the case of recent Built Heritage

the most puzzling values are related to time and intention, intensified by the

construction methods.

It is imprinted in the western societies that Time/Age affords value to objects,

therefore to buildings as well. The main problem in the conservation of our

recent architectural past is therefore the short time elapsed from their creation

(Burke 2007; Guillet 2007; Philippot 2005; Maxwell 1997;) which gives Interwar

architecture a kind of familiarity. This is why it always becomes very difficult both

for individuals and for state organizations to consider these innovative

constructions as part of our architectural Heritage and subsequently care for

their safeguarding.

Initial intention is the second important issue in the evaluation process. Quite

often buildings of the time, considered today worthy of conservation, were

private constructions not intended to be monuments. They were actually not

constructed to last but only to be useful. Maxwell (1998, xiv) further analyzes,

that in some cases, buildings of that time were erected as a declaration of

opposition to tradition, to continuity. This brings about serious difficulties in the

process of their evaluation and eventual conservation.

Additional questions to the philosophical value issues arise from the fact that

materials then considered to be innovative and extraordinary are today common

and widespread (e.g. concrete.). Moreover, ignorance of the proper use of the

new materials at that time caused a poor resistance of the materials in time, thus



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

diminishing the later recognized value of the buildings even more. For those that

look down upon the architecture of that time, material failure represents the

symbolic failure of innovation, therefore architecture which does not deserve to

be saved (4.3‐4.4).

Limited time distance, initial intention and material choice makes the evaluating

process of our recent Built Heritage complicated. Even so, we have nowadays

slowly managed to start recognizing that the buildings of the Interwar years

represent an important moment of the architectural and social history. When it

comes to their conservation, how does this different evaluation process

influence major conservation considerations like authenticity and minimum

intervention?

Fig. 4.3 Refugee modern movement buildings in 1929 Source: Arseni (20024, 89)

Fig. 4.4 Same

buildings today, listed

Source: Author



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

4.2.1 Authenticity in conserving our Recent Architectural Past

Authenticity has right from the start been one of the foremost debates in the

history of architectural conservation. In the Venice Charter, considered as the

main document for contemporary architectural conservation, the closing

sentence of the first paragraph of its preamble underlines:

“It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.”

After this, the argument as to what the term authenticity referred to, came back

on the table. In the Eurocentric cultures authenticity has been usually identified

with material authenticity (Munoz‐ Vinas 2005; Jokilehto 2005; Ceschi 1970). In

the years to follow and as the term Heritage kept widening the concept of

authenticity had to be reexamined. Finally, in 1994, at the Nara meeting and in

article 13, a widened range of authentic value was expressed:

‘Depending on the nature of the cultural heritage, its cultural context, and its

evolution through time, authenticity judgments may be linked to the worth of a

great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the sources may include form

and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques,

location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors.

The use of these sources permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social,

and scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined.’ 1

From this document onwards we moved towards including the spiritual value of

a monument as authentic. As Petzet (2004, 29) accentuates, material

authenticity becomes subjective according to the different spiritual values given

by the observer. This fact will become the key for understanding the question of

authenticity regarding recent architecture.

The constructions of the Interwar years portray the transformation of the society

and the will for innovation. Their main value is purely symbolic and therefore 1 Full text in the International Council on Monuments and Sites website:

http://www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

what must be conserved and read by future generations is their spirit, the idea

(Prudon 2008; Iamandi 1999; Henket 1996). Contrary to the trend for the charm

of ruined antiquities, modern architecture needs to look new in order to transmit

this concept (Allan: 2007, 16). Therefore authenticity in the conservation of

recent constructions has less of a material and more of a spiritual value. As the

materials of that time weather very badly, they must be repaired. Hence,

integration of missing parts or replacement of failed material is acceptable and

usually preferable as it aims at preserving the authentic spirit of recent

architecture.

By evaluating spiritual as an authentic value for the recent Built Heritage,

integration and reconstruction can be a valuable conservation solution. There is,

however, another issue to be dealt with; the short lifetime of these buildings. If

the monumental value of a construction has not been recognized, replacement

and reconstruction actions can end up annihilating instead of conserving,. Where

important elements of the architectural expression are substituted by modern

elements, the authentic spirit of the construction is slowly but constantly

depleted.

When dealing with conservation of our recent architectural past, authenticity

expresses the predominance of spiritual value of the original idea over material

value. Even so, there is always the problem of how much integration and

replacement allows us to still speak of an authentic building. Is the principle of

the minimum intervention applicable and necessary also in conserving our recent

architectural past?

4.2.2 Minimum intervention in conserving our Recent Architectural Past

The principle of minimum intervention is another debate, as old as the

conservation science, born as an opposition to the falsification of history by

stylistic reconstruction. The main idea is to promote how little rather than how

much one should do to respect authenticity when intervening in a historical

building.



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

As Munoz‐Vinas (2005, 188‐9) underlines, minimum intervention makes once

again evident the relativity of philosophical questions. He clarifies that a more

coherent thesis in conservation treatments should be “minimum intervention to

achieve its goals”. The main goal in conserving recent architecture, as we have

previously explained, is to keep alive the original concept of the building. In that

sense no extended additions or reconstructions should be accepted as they

could easily compromise the original architecture.

On the other hand, minimum intervention regarding materials should be

reconsidered, as Macdonald (1997, 181) emphasizes. Problems are once again

related to materials which were used with enthusiasm but without the required

technical knowledge, often ending up in severe deterioration. (Guillet 2007;

Christ 2001; Arnold 1982). These deteriorations, other than the aesthetic problem

previously explained, can be the beginning of a profound decomposition of the

structure and could cause serious problems, problems of stability. Since we are

dealing with buildings, safety should always be a priority; therefore, if we want to

keep using these buildings, a maximum intervention in their constitution

materials must be made.

To be able to keep the authentic spiritual values of recent architecture, one must

once again bear in mind that we commonly deal with buildings still in use yet with

a given value as monument. The concept therefore of minimum intervention,

regarding materials, has been transformed into maximum intervention. Even so,

spiritual value still requires a minimum intervention approach that acts as a

barrier to unjustified large scale interventions. Summing up, to keep the

authentic spirit of constructions, massive interventions in the materials should

only be made in cases of necessity and only in those parts of the structure that

really require it.

4.3 Conservation approach on the Architectural Heritage in Greece

Focusing on the geographical area our research we shall now examine the

approach to conserving architectural Heritage in Greece. It is necessary to report

first the main steps in recognizing architecture as Heritage legally and then the



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

contemporary approach that follows international standards towards recent

architecture.

The establishment of the new Greek state took place at the beginning of the

nineteenth century, in 1830. That was the time of the conclusion of the era of

Enlightenment , marked by the reevaluation of historicity and also the time when

the main conservation science debates were born. It is therefore easy to

understand how European sensitivity towards the testimonies of the past

immediately influenced the legislation of the new state which, as Papateropoulos

(2006, 1) reports, had passed had a law on the protection of antiquities as early

as 1834.

The term antiquities is the only one used in the Greek heritage legislation until

1950, until law 1469/19502 finally extended the protection of antiquities to

monuments as well. At the same time a steadily progressive incorporation of the

above mentioned international charters and regulations and joining specialized

organizations is observed, constantly giving more significance to architectural

heritage.

Presently architectural heritage in Greece is protected by the new archeological

law 3028 /20023: “On the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in

General”. Ergolavou (2007, 12) explains that the new law gave a broader

definition to the meaning of Heritage and its safeguarding in Greece. Regarding

Built Heritage, this becomes clear in chapter two, article 6, entitled “Distinction

of immovable Monuments‐Classification”. In paragraph 1 it introduces a large

timescale classification of the monuments in:

antiquities created before until 1830;

recent constructions, after 1830 and more than 100 years old…;

2 Full text in the Hellenic Ministry of Culture website: http://www.yppo.gr/5/51/neot/n1469.jsp

3 Full text in the Hellenic Society for Law and Antiquity website: http://www.law‐

archaeology.gr/Index.asp?C=136



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

recent cultural objects less than 100 years old which are classified as

monuments due to their particular architectural, urban, social, ethnological,

folk, technical, industrial or in general historic, artistic or scientific

significance4.

From a legislative point of view the subject of our research is located in the last

category of monuments, that is, the recent constructions that are less than 100

years old. The question is whether the influence of this law is significant for the

protection of the recent architectural past.

4.3.1 Conservation of the recent architectural past in Greece

Let us first look at Charkiolakis’ (2007, unpublished) observation which

highlights the main problem of bringing once again the protection of

architectural heritage under a law composed basically for antiquities, always

leaving architectural Heritage in their shadow of antiquity. This creates

continuous conflicts both in ethical choices and in funding matters.

Furthermore, regarding the so called recent cultural objects, meaning in our case

the buildings of the Interwar years, they suffer a further distinction in the

classification of priorities due to the addition of the word ‘particular’ in the

definition. Giacumacatos (2003, B44) notes that this kind of distinction is double‐

edged. On the one hand it provides the opportunity to list and save recent

constructions too, but on the other it introduces subjectivity in safeguarding

some very important buildings of the thirties onwards as their “particular”

significance needs to be proven.

The problem of subjectivity is a major one as the buildings of the twentieth

century, contrary to earlier constructions, do not enjoy acceptance by their

obvious ally, public opinion, nor that of the state (Rigopoulos 2005 & 2008;

Tournikiotis 1989).

4 Idem



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

Fortunately during the last decades many specialists have been working on the

revaluation of this period’s architecture. The foundation of the Greek

DOCOMOMO in 1990, presently hosted in the Neo‐Hellenic Architectural Archives

of the Benaki Museum, was a significant start followed by the birth of a

systematic program of documentation of this architecture by the Hellenic Society

for the Protection of the Environment and the Cultural Heritage in 2001. Finally,

last year a similar new program was promoted by the Municipality of Athens

(Kontaratou‐Rassia 2008; Papakonstantinou 2008; Tournikiotis 1998). All these

initiatives, by organizing conferences, exhibitions and publications, contribute

positively to a greater awareness and appreciation of recent architecture.

In conclusion one could say that Greek law does provide protection to our recent

architecture. However, the problem comes back once again on the discussion of

values, as there is quite a skeptical approach towards recent constructions in

Greece too, yet specialists and organizations are working towards finding the

right solutions.

I would like to close this analysis with an observation by Giacumacatos (2003;

2006). He suggests that special legal provision should be dedicated to the

twentieth century architectural heritage. Once again he emphasizes that a

general guideline for conservation cannot be easily applied because the

conservation of recent architectural past has different thoughts and

philosophical issues to deal with.

4.5 Conclusion

In a science like conservation, with a strong philosophical background, any

absolute position is to be excluded a priori. We have seen that even if a

conservation approach has alternated several times in the last two centuries, the

generally accepted solutions are not fully applicable when it comes to recent

architecture.

The relativity of the conservation approach is a direct consequence of the

different values we recognize in the constructions to conserve. When it comes to



4. Contem


ecent Architecture

recent architecture, the most important value to conserve is the idea, the initial

concept. As we come to deal with serious material failures, it is necessary to

intervene so as to restore the integrity of design and its symbolic and educative

value.

One could at this point argue that conservation of recent architecture returns to

one of the 18th century principal trends of restoration, the stylistic interventions

promoted by Viollet le Duc. Clearly there is a strong correlation, but we should

not underestimate that theories and declarations through the centuries have

given the recent architecture‘s conservation intervention a more moderate and

limited profile, excluding arbitrary “creative” interventions.

When it comes to the case of conserving recent architecture in Greece, one can

fortunately observe that international standards are adopted and followed. Even

more, the latest law on the protection of Greek Heritage gives a wider span to

the protection of the recent architectural past. The problem once again is

ignorance or lack of information on the value of these buildings, a problem that is

beginning to be seriously dealt with by different organizations and private

initiatives.

As Allan (2007, 15) summarizes, solutions for safeguarding our recent

architectural history stand in repair, improvement and reformation. So, we are

now going to discuss how conservation problems with terrazzo and mosaics,

presented in the case study chapter, can be approached through this particular

philosophical approach of the conservation of recent architecture.

Discussion5



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

5. Discussion

The analysis of location and types of floor in a building and their main

preservation forms left open questions. Combining these problems with the

axioms of the contemporary approach t0 conservation in recent architecture we

now have enough elements to conduct a relative discussion. Its main aim is to

present solutions for the conservation of terrazzo and mosaics of Interwar

buildings in Athens. Thus, questions related to what we preserve and why,

economics and conservation but also to some practical intervention responses to

earlier preservation problems will now be highlighted.

5.1 Interwar architecture’s conservation issues

Architecture incorporates and expresses the history of every city and its

inhabitants (Zivas 1991, 162). Therefore, every attempt to preserve and safeguard

architectural past is an act of respect towards history. I strongly believe that

safeguarding the architecture of the years that marked the formation of the

modern urban society of Athens is of crucial importance. There are serious

problems regarding Interwar architecture and although more attention is

nowadays drawn to the great blow on modern movement, a brief explanation

will be made of how almost all Interwar architectural styles can be at risk.

Unfortunately in Greece, as Lavvas (1983, 28) emphasizes, from the foundation

of the new country in 1833 until today, architectural historical continuity has

repeatedly been disrupted, sacrificing the recent testimonies for the adoration of

the glorious ancient past. At this point the relation between architectural style

and safeguarding an Interwar building in Greece will be highlighted. Out of the

four main architectural styles of the Athenian Interwar, the only ones easily

salvaged, since they are obviously perceived as monumental, are the neo‐

academic constructions.

The modernist edifices are usually considered by the public as worth saving but

can still be undervalued by the state. A good example is the ‘unlisting’ and the



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

proposed demolition of one of the finest modernist, art‐deco buildings of Athens

on D. Areopagitou 17 str (case study 13) for the sake of the view from the New

Acropolis Museum. The ancient adoration position of the state has been

protested against by newspapers, organisations and the web community, with

worldwide participation, finally bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

The buildings of both popular and modern architecture are in an even less

privileged position. Popular architecture and its influences has often been

ignored even by specialist writers, and more so by common people. On the other

hand Modern movement architecture is neither widely understood nor accepted

and is often accused of being the cause of concretization and the multi‐storey

profile of Athens that occurred later, in the 60s and 70s. Absurd demolition

decisions are continuously taken these last years (Tournikiotis 2009, unpulished)

and actual demolitions of modern movement buildings (Kontaratou‐Rassia 2008,

43) are carried out (5.2‐5.3).

5.1 One of the most intensive public protests on the web, collecting till today 32610 signatures against the demolition of Areopagitou 17 str

building Source:

http://areopagitou17.blogspot.com/

5.3 The 20.01.2009 decision of the

court forbidding the demolition of

this building unfortunately

came too late for the buildings characteristic

entrance, Source:

www.monumenta.org

5.2 Ravine str, Kolonaki, City center, before the demolition Source: www.monumenta.org



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

Realizing that Interwar buildings are worth conserving one should think of how

they should be conserved. The different constitution elements of the buildings

must be preserved, avoiding any attempt at facadism, where the outer aspect is

conserved while the inner is completely demolished. As Earl (1996, 59)

emphasizes, a building expresses its documentary value only when it is not

treated as an accidental collection of elements but when the materials,

decoration and taste of the period are maintained. In this respect the choice of

floor finishes should be conserved as an inseparable part of the architectural

expression with strong symbolisms,.

5.2. Economics and conservation: a proposal

Conservation is strictly related to financing, like everything in contemporary

society. Apart from historic issues, as Earl (1996, 11) emphasizes, usually buildings

are preserved as a valuable source of income, serving contemporary needs.

The case of Interwar architecture in Athens is quite complex from an economic

point of view. This was a very fertile construction period with buildings that were

not designed to be monumental; so a large quantity of everyday constructions

has to be dealt with. Such a huge amount of Built Heritage to be preserved

creates serious funding problems as there is a growing amount of such buildings

but the funds for culture remain the same. Therefore, as the number of buildings

to conserve increases, the proportion of funds for each diminishes accordingly.

As a solution to the huge amount of recent architecture and its conservation,

Henket (1998, 14) proposes an accurate selective process. I would agree with

Henket that it is neither possible nor desirable to preserve all the works of our

recent past. Yet I disagree with the proposal for selection and an eventual listing

as being very risky. Selectivity is very subjective and could bring about the

demolition of masterpieces just because of differing tastes or conflicting



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

interests. Moreover, listing in Greece is seen as condemning the building to death

since the owner usually does not have the funds for a conservation intervention.

I strongly believe that the safeguarding of Interwar architecture, consequently of

recent history, stands within a process of evaluating the familiarity. Buildings of

those years stand in an ambiguous time distance from today. People perceive

them simply as old but at the same time familiar because their grandparents may

have constructed them and their own parents may also have lived there; it is

difficult as such to understand that these buildings could be valuable and

important testimonies of the past. The answer to funding problems could be in

convincing people of the value of their ownership. Well informed private

individuals may willingly care for and maintain the buildings as something

extraordinary, respecting their original architectural language.

Evaluating recent architecture also increases the commercial value of these

constructions. This is another key factor for their safeguarding because if owners

can see them as a valuable income resource they will care for their conservation.

For this model to succeed it should be made clear that what must be preserved is

the authentic spirit and the architectural language of the building. This, with

relation to the specific subject of our study, could act favorably and result in

caring and saving the original choice of flooring technique.

As analyzed, the answers to economic matters can be found in the private

initiatives. Understanding the given monumental value and keeping a building in

use can be a good solution. In addition, ordinary maintenance is always the most

economical answer to the expensive and extreme act of restoration. If we accept

that private initiative is a very important factor, then public awareness will

become the key for preserving Interwar architecture and its constitutional

elements.



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

5.3 Public awareness

Before moving on to specific preservation problems the significant difference

between terrazzo and mosaics in relation to public awareness must be

underlined.

In Athenian Interwar architecture mosaics were located in buildings intended to

be monumental (case studies 5, 8, 11d ). Furthermore, in Greece mosaics are

easily perceived as an artistic expression, therefore precious, due to their

continuous use through the centuries in mural decorations of Greek‐orthodox

churches (fig 5.4). Because of these two characteristics, public awareness of

their value and consequently of the necessity for their conservation, is a

spontaneous reaction like in the case of the floors of the recently restored Pallas

theatre (case study 11d) and the protection of the floors from walkers in the Bank

of Greece, automatically turning them into museum pieces. (case study 5).

On the other hand, since history continuously repeats itself, terrazzo just like its

ancient expression battuto (Maioli, M. G. pers. comm. 2002), has for long been

undervalued and often destroyed as in the case of the internal yard of the house

in Petralona (case study 18) and the bathroom of the second floor in the modern

building of case study 16b . The undervaluation of terrazzo, seen as a very poor

and insignificant constructive element and only related to the secondary areas of

the building, was obvious while talking about the subject of my dissertation to

5.4 Osios Loukas church, detail

from the arches’ Mosaic byzantine

decoration Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

various owners (Chatzinikoli M, Georgiadis N, Malliaris E, Meleggoglou I, Nikos

Tartzanis, N; pers.communication January 2009); its artistic expression

possibilities were completely ignored.

Yet, while visiting to take photographs of the floors, some of these owners

were becoming curious of the fact that I was interested in this kind of flooring

(case studies 2, 4, 7, 10, 16a). After some chatting, explaining the relation

between terrazzo and mosaic and the historical continuity of this kind of

technique, things sometimes changed; indifference turned to pleasure and pride

for their floors and buildings, with a feeling of owning a symbolic piece of history.

In conclusion, in cases of mosaics people are already aware of the importance of

that flooring technique, while regarding terrazzo, wider information must still be

given. To save the terrazzo technique it is urgent to divulge its historical,

symbolic and aesthetic values.

5.4 Guidelines for restoration problems

Having understood the importance of safeguarding Interwar architecture with all

its elements, in our case the original floorings, the cases where more than

ordinary maintenance is required will now be considered.

As already explained, conservation of recent architecture must safeguard the

authentic, symbolic power of the original architectural language of the time. In

our cases, floor finishes must also look integral, therefore often invasive

restoration interventions must be made.

Certainly, in restoration interventions there is not one solution that fits all. For

any kind of intervention to be successful it has to previously be carefully studied

and planned. To find the correct solutions the constituent materials must be

analyzed in order to create a visibly harmonious and at the same time materially

compatible intervention. Even so, after years of personal hands on experience in

the restoration field of ancient mosaics I have noticed that there are some quite

standardized and common restoration procedures that give valuable solution.



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

Even if cement replaced lime mortars fabrication techniques are similar to the

ancient, so I believe these standard procedures could also be applied on

‘modern’ terrazzo and mosaics.

In the case studies I came across very few interventions, mainly failed filling of

the lacunae (case studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 18, 21) (fig. 5.4). Combining satisfactory

solutions from my craft experiences with the observations in chapter 3 for the

main decay forms, I would like to propose some general guidelines, subdivided

according to decay and flooring technique.

As seen in our case studies, there are some predominant decay forms (fig. 3.25):

deposits, cracks, lacunae and erosion. For these main decay forms of terrazzo

and mosaic the most common interventions, presented in their typical

application sequence, are the following (fig.5.5 ):

Decay form Restoration Intervention

Deposits (attached or not) Dry, wet, chemical or mechanical cleaning

Cracks Mortar filling

Lacunae Integration

Erosion Consolidation

Beyond preservation, the following guidelines aim at fulfilling conservation issues

relating to the coexisting values of every artifact, aesthetic and material, as

introduced by Brandi (1977, 6). Material integrity and aesthetic compatibility must

5.4 Examples of various failed lacunae repairs, Source: Author

5.5 Table of the main decay forms and relative treatments, Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

be ensured respecting the architectural language of the original architecture. The

next paragraphs will give a brief overview of how to achieve this result.

5.4.1 Deposits ‐ Cleaning

The importance of cleaning the surfaces before any conservation treatment must

never been undervalued for two reasons: First, because only when the surface is

clean the real preservation status can be comprehended. Second, if the dirt is

not removed it could be pushed into the structure and consolidated with some of

the following restoration treatments.

All these floors have survived ordinary housekeeping for decades. This proves

that any kind of water and/or soap cleaning can be safely applied. There are only

two suggestions to be taken into consideration:

Chemically aggressive products, like those based on ammonium or chloride acids,

as well as abrasive techniques should generally be avoided as they could

augment porosity and accelerate other decay processes.

In addition, for the specific case of the mosaic in the Bank of Greece, where

fragile vitreous tesserae have been used, only soft and dry cleaning is suggested.

5.6 Dry cleaning, Source: Author

5.7 Wet cleaning with soft brushes,

Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

5.4.2 Cracks ‐ Mortar Filling

The crack decay form is very common to terrazzo and was also present in a

mosaic in one of our case studies. The restoration intervention by mortar filling is

usually a localized small scale operation in these cases.

Before integrating a crack it is strongly recommended to monitor it. If after some

time the crack does not grow, then one could fill it with compatible mortar.

Otherwise, if the crack is still active, the filling will be expelled on the first

thermal variation.

The procedure starts with is dry cleaning by aspiration. It is followed by wetting

with water, which ensures the upcoming adhesion of the mortar to the surface

(fig. 5.7). Again, if the crack is very deep, it is a good practice to inject some

mortar mix in a very liquid state (fig. 5.6). After wetting it, either with water or

liquid mortar, the crack will be filled with a both chromatically and materially

compatible mortar, usually with a spatula. The final step consists in eliminating

any excess mortar with a wet and carefully strained sponge.

5.7 Injection for wetting Source: Author

5.8 Injection with liquid mortar Source: Author

5.9 Filling with mortar by spatula Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

5.4.3 Lacunae ‐ Integration

5.4.3.1 Mosaic

Integrating a lacuna in a mosaic is of crucial importance as, due to the

discontinuity in the structure of mosaics, lacunae create the broken necklace

effect (fig. 5.9). That is, if one tessera is missing, the adjacent ones will easily

follow and so on. Different techniques have been developed for integrating

lacunae in mosaics in a more or less traceable manner. As has already been

explained integrity in recent architecture conservation is of fundamental

importance, both visual and material. Therefore out of the numerous techniques,

two are briefly presented here as valuable solutions to the need for integrity.

Integration with same or similar material.

As in cases (case studies 5, 11d) of mosaics floors made out of ceramic tile

tesserae, still in use, resisting and aesthetically accepted solutions have to be

found. The mosaic can be reproduced either by the same material i.e. new

ceramic tiles, or by other resisting materials, like stones of the same chromatic

quality, cut in the same dimension of the original mosaic and following the

original mosaic pattern. The key for a successful intervention stands in deepening

the lacuna so as to have the necessary space to apply preparatory and laying

mortar, the tesserae too on the correct level (fig. 5.10).

5.9 The broken necklace effect Source: Author

5.10 Integration with similar

material, Pallas

theater, Athens Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

Integration with incised mortar.

This technique can be applied only in cases where the mosaic is exhibited as a

museum object, meaning mosaics not stepped on (case study 5a). In this

technique there is no need to deepen the lacuna; the void is filled with a mortar

at the level of the surface. Moments after and while the mortar dries but is still

workable, the surface is incised with the help of a small spatula or a lancet

simulating the tesserae form (fig. 5.11). The integration is completed by colouring

the surface (fig. 5.12). This technique, widespread in ancient mosaic restoration,

gives excellent results at a very low cost yet the colour is not resistible in case of

ordinary use of a mosaic.

5.4.3.2 Terrazzo

In terrazzo, when the lacunae are formed from the erosion of aggregates then

they should be repaired with a plastic material imitating their colour and form.

First, the lacuna must be cleaned, eliminating the rest of the aggregate that

would otherwise keep decaying under the integration. Then, integration can be

made with coloured concrete mortar or synthetic resins. The substitution of the

missing aggregate with original material would not be a good practice as the

aggregates have irregular forms and are not reproducible. By inserting a smaller

aggregate, the filling of the surrounding gap would be attracting attention due

to its different colour tone, thus spotting the intervention area (fig. 5.13).

5.11 Incised mortar formed to imitate tessera Source: Author

5.12 Colouring

Incised tessera Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

When the lacunae are larger zones, a new layer of terrazzo mixture can be

applied after an accurate study of the size and colour of aggregates and binders.

It is quite difficult to succeed in such an intervention; therefore different tests

must be made on a separate surfaces (like on a wooden table) before choosing

the correct proportion of materials.

In both cases, the restoration intervention will be completed with grouting and

polishing.

5.4.4 Erosion ‐ Consolidation

The cases of erosion and their following treatment are strictly related to the

constitution material of the floor. The extension of the intervention will be

related to the extension of the erosion.

5.4.4.1 Mosaics

In the case of vitreous tesserae, the intervention must be focused on a surface

treatment which will consolidate the glass vitreous structure. In the case of

porcelain tile tesserae, where erosion usually destroys the glazing, a non‐

restorable situation, the tiles must be consolidated to increase their resisting

characteristics. In both cases the treatment is given by spraying or brushing the

surface until rejection.

5.4.4.2 Terrazzo

Erosion in our terrazzo case studies has been observed as the most common

decay form. To recreate a compact surface the grouting procedure must be

5.14 Quite well done

Lacunae filling

Source: Author

5.13 Marked intervention area by surrounding void Source: Author



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

repeated all over the surface. This operation consists in applying by spatula a

mortar of cooked linseed or a glue, cement and lime. The mix should be left to

dry for about a week, then the surface should be polished it with a grouting

stone machine. As highlighted by Crovato (2002, 75) for a good maintenance of

any terrazzo, this operation should be repeated periodically every 5 to 10 years.

5.4.5 Extremely decayed floors

In our cases we found heavily decayed floors only in terrazzo of secondary and

open‐air areas (case studies 6, 10, 13, ). If the number of lacunae and cracks is too

large, apart from the fact that the integrations would create an aesthetically

confusing patchwork, they would also end up in an extremely expensive

operation. For these reasons and as in recent architecture the material value is

less important than the aesthetic authentic value, these floors should be

replaced instead of restored. Even so, the replacement must be made in such a

way as to recreate a terrazzo floor respecting the authentic architectural

language.

There were no cases of extreme decay in mosaics, but if that occurred, it would

be very difficult and expensive to propose a replica of the original floor again in

mosaic.

5.4.6 Documentation of the interventions

All the above described operations must definitely be accompanied by an

accurate documentation. The documentation process, photos, mapping graphs

and observation reports, must be made before, during, and after the operation.

Once again, what should never be forgotten is that collecting infinite data should

not be an end in itself; it must be a procedure focused on organizing a

consultable system for the future.

In the case of conservation of recent architecture documentation plays a crucial

role for two more reasons. First, due to the choice of integrating without leaving

any visible traces so as to reinstate the authentic aspect to the building,

documentation will be the only evidence of these actions. Then, documentation



5. Discussion

5. Discussion

can be a valuable future resource for the creation of a data base on the aging of

these materials and also on their behaviour in relation to contemporary materials

used in the intervention.

5.5 Conclusion

Summing up, the discussion started by emphasizing the importance of

safeguarding our architectural past as a testimony to our history. For Interwar

architecture and its floors conservation is usually problematic not due to the

young age of the buildings but mainly with relation to the evaluation or non

evaluation of the different architectural typologies.

Examining economics and conservation one faces another serious matter; the

large quantity of Interwar buildings in Athens. At this point the suggestion is to

avoid a historical‐mummifying approach and try giving value to familiarity.

People and public awareness are the key for safeguarding mosaic but especially

the undervalued terrazzo floors of the Athenian Interwar. Once the public

realizes the historic and financial value of these constructions and their

constituent elements, it will actively participate in their conservation through the

economical solution of ordinary maintenance.

To conclude the discussion about terrazzo and mosaics as well as the issues on

their conservation, a final overview of solutions for decay has been made.

Guidelines have been given for cases where deterioration is evident, and

according to the theories of conservation for recent architecture, maximum

material interventions are required.

Having completed the study and observations of this research we will now move

on to the final conclusions.

Appendix


75 The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Alppendix -I

Appendix I: Case studies

5 extra case studies of Modern Movement Buildings

THE CONSERVATION OF TERRAZZO & MOSAICS OF INTERWAR BUILDINGS IN ATHENS


Appendix I


ata

Name ‐

Location Likavittou 5 & Solonos str, Kolonaki – City Center

Year 1934

Architect Sgoutas, K.


Short description The building is a modern movement five‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays used as residences and offices. The terrazzo floors under observation are: one in the lateral external entrance of the building and some on the landing of the staircases and the building’s secondary entrance; no entry to the apartments was possible.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s. 220 View from Solonos Source: Author

c.s. 221 View from Solonos & Lykavittou str Source:

Author




3. Case studies

Appendix I Type Terrazzo Floor detail

Main colours In: Light blue Out: Grey

Observations In: Use of terrazzo for the landing of the staircases and in the secondary entrance’s floor. Out: The whole corridor

Preservation

status

In: Very good condition Deterioration form: Erosion of grouting Out: Very bad condition Deterioration form: Cracks, Lacunae

General view


c.s.226 Surface erosion Source: Author

c.s.227 Cracks Source: Author

c.s.224 The lateral entrance to the building on Lukavittou Source: Author

c.s.225 The internal

entrances Source: Author

c.s.222‐223Terrazzo detail Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies A

ppendix I Name Kardaras’ house

Location Megalou Vasileiou 12 & Korai, N. Smyrni – Suburb

Year 1939

Architect (?)


Short description The building was a modern movement one storey refugees house. In 1981 two more floors were added on the top of the original building. The terrazzo floors under observation are in ground floor of the original building in all the rooms, apart from the bedrooms and the office which have wooden floors

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s. 250‐252 View from

M. Vasileiou and Korai

the original building Source: Author




3. Case studies


Main colours Red with yellow aggregates, entrance and hall Red, with white aggregates, corridor and kitchen

Observations Terrazzo in entrance, main hall, corridor and kitchen. The bathroom has mosaic tiles.

Preservation

status

Excellent condition. All the decay was caused by extraordinary events, like planting concrete columns to add floors, or demolishing a wall to modify the spaces.

General view


c.s.230‐231 Terrazzo detail Source: Author

c.s.232 The main hall Source: Author

c.s.233 Corridor to the Kitchen Source: Author

c.s.234 Filled lacunae Source: Author

c.s.235 Lacunae Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies A

ppendix I Name ‐

Location Ermou 44, Syntagma – City Center

Year (?)

Architect (?)


Short description The building is a modern movement apartment building, originally residences, nowadays used as offices. The floors under observation are in an apartment of the fourth floor. The apartment had wooden floors and terrazzo at its service entrance. At the last renovation of August 2008, the terrazzo in question was destroyed. A terrazzo is also found in the secondary entrance of the building.

External view

Plan:

c.s. 235 View from Ermou

Source: Author




3. Case studies


Main colours Grey, service area Yellow, secondary entrance of the building

Observations The terrazzo of the apartment has been destroyed.

Preservation

status

The grey terrazzo of the apartment was in very bad condition as it had previously been covered with a glued on carpet. The terrazzo of the secondary entrance in good condition except for one crack.

General view


c.s.237‐238 Terrazzo detail Source: Author

c.s.239 The secondary entrance Source: Author

c.s.240 The secondary

entrance of the apartment

Source: Author

c.s.241 Glue residues Source: Author

c.s.242 Cleaning test Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies A

ppendixI Name

Location Ypsliantou 28, Kolonaki – City Center

Year (?)

Architect (?)

Listing number Not Listed

Short description This is a modern movement three‐storey apartment building, originally residences, nowadays still used as such. The terrazzo floor under observation is in the building’s entrance; no entry to the apartments was possible.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s. 244 View from

Ypsilantou Source: Author

c.s. 243 Detail of Entrance Source: Author




3. Case studies

Appendix I Type Terrazzo and Marble Floor detail

Main colours Yellow

Observations Terrazzo with large aggregates, alternating with white and red marble forming rhombs.

Preservation

status

Very good Deterioration form: Lacunae, due to the elevated erosion of the mortar not the aggregate.

General view


Figure 1


c.s.246 The main entrance Source: Author

c.s.247 The main entrance Source: Author

c.s.248 Lacunae due to mortar erosion Source: Author




ata 3. C

ase studies A

ppendix I Name

Location Irodotou 9, Kolonaki – City Center

Year (?)

Architect (?)

Listing number Not Listed

Short description The building has both traces of modern movement and influences of the popular style with an arched entrance. It is a four‐storey apartment building, originally residences with two shops on the ground floor, nowadays still used as such. The terrazzo floor under observation is in the building’s entrance; no entry to the apartments was possible.

External view

Plans:

No plan available

c.s. 250 View from Irodotou

Source: Author

c.s. 249 Detail of popular style inspired main entrance Source: Author




3. Case studies

Appendix I Type Terrazzo and Marble Floor detail

Main colours Yellow

Observations Terrazzo with large aggregates, alternating with white marble forming rhombs. Could be the so called ‘kozanitiko' terrazzo as the small aggregates appear to be golden.

Preservation

status

Very good Deterioration form: Lacunae, due to the elevated erosion of the mortar not the aggregate.

General view


c.s.251 Floor detail Source: Author

c.s.252 The main entrance

Source: Author

c.s.253 Lacunae due to mortar erosion Source: Author


76 The University of York – MA in Conservation Studies, 2009

5. Discussion

Alppendix -I

Appendix II: Elliniki Etairia

24 photos of the research of Elliniki Etairia (2008)



3. Case studies

Elliniki Etairia Resarch‐1 ‘Protection and evaluation of architectural heritage of the 1930s –modern movement‐ of the Municilpality of Athens’,

Records: arch. Katerina Chatzikonstantinou, Source: Elliniki Etairia

Appendix II



3. Case studies



Appendix II



3. Case studies



Appendix II

Resources



5. Discussion

Resources

Primary resources

Archives

Archives of the Byzantine and Christian Museum, ‘Loverdos Muesum archive’, January 2009 Bank of Greece, ‘Department of Historical archives and collections’, January 2009 Ellliniki Etairia‐ SAK (Hellenic Society for the Protection of the Environment and

the Cultural Heritage, Council for Conservation of Architectural Heritage),

Project: «Προστασία και ανάδειξη της αρχιτεκτονικής κληρονομιάς της

δεκαετίας του 1930 (μοντέρνου κινήματος) του Δήμου Αθηναίων» (Protection

and evaluation of architectural heritage of the 1930s –modern movement‐ of the

Municilpality of Athens), Project director: archaeologist Eirini Gratsia/SAK,

Researcher –records: architect Katerina Chatzikonstantinou., January 2009

Neo‐Hellenic Architecture Archives of the Benaki Museum©, ‘E. Zillers archive’, February 2009

Interviews

Owners:

Chatzinikoli M, case study 16b , December 2008

Flenga‐Kouremenou M, case study 13, January 2008

Georgiadis N, case study 20, December 2008

Kardaras A, case study 22, December 2008

Karakostas P, case study 4, January 2008

Malliaris P and E, case study 10, February 2009

Meleggoglou I, case study 16, January 2009

Moralis I, February, case study 9, 2009

Perdikis S, case study 23, July 2008

Tzartzanis N, case study 18, December 2008



5. Discussion

Resources Architects:

Kalliga E, January 2009

Deligiannis C, January 2009

Koumanoudis I, February 2009

Secondary Resources

Bibliographic Resources

Arseni, K (2004) Athens Between the wars through photographs of Petros Poulidis,

Athens: Commercial Bank of Greece

Asimakopoulou‐Atzaka, P (2003) Ψηφιδωτά Δάπεδα‐Προσέγγιση στην τέχνη του

αρχαίου ψηφιδωτού (Mosaic floors‐approach to the art of ancient mosaics),

Thessaloniki: University Studio Press

Allan, J (2007) ‘Points of Balance’, in Macdonald S, Normandin, K and Kinderd, B

(eds), Conservation of Modern Architecture, 13‐46, Dorset: Donhead

Bardeschi, M (2004) Restauro: Due punti e da capo, Milan: FrancoAngeli

Bucci, G and Farioli, R and Guarieri, G (2006)‘Mosaici di Ravenna e del

Mediterraneo’, in Augenti, A and Bertelli, C (eds), Santi Bancheri Re, 84‐96,

Milano: Skira

Burke, S (2007) ‘Twentieth century Heritage International Scientific Committee’,

in Macdonald S, Normandin, K and Kinderd, B (eds), in Conservation of Modern

Architecture, 143‐150, Dorset: Donhead

Bertelli, M (1988) Il Mosaico, Milano: Mondadori

Βiris, K (1996) “Αι Αθήναι” (Athens), Athens: Melissa

Biris, M (2003) Αθηναϊκή Αρχιτεκτονική 1875‐1925 (Athenian Architecture 1875‐

1925), Athens: Melissa



5. Discussion

Resources Biris, M (2000) Η ίδρυση της Αθήνας‐ Σχεδιασμός και Πολεοδομική εξέλιξη, Αθήνα

από την κλασσική εποχή ως σήμερα (Foundation of Athens, Design and Urban

development, Athens form the Classic ages till today), Athens: Kotinos

Brandi, C (1977) Teoria del Restauro, Turin: Einaudi

Bosia, D (2002) ‘La tecnica “moderna” del Mosaico’, in Biscontin, G and Driussi, G

(eds), I Mosaici Cultura, Tecnologia, Conservazione, 380‐388 , Venezia: Arcadia

Ricerche

Cangemi, A (2001) Making Mosaics – Materials, Tools, Techniques, Palermo:

Eurogrfica

Carbonara, G (1996) ‘Cesare Brandi’, in Casiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro,

339‐356, Venice: Marsilio

Casciato, M (1998) ‘Confronting the Modern in Architecture: The Limit, the Limit’,

in DOCOMOMO Conference Proceedings: Vision and Reality, 183‐187, Stockholm:

Docomomo Sweden

Ceschi, C (1970) Teoria e Storia del Restauro, Rome: Mario Bulzoni

Chatzidakis, P (2003) Delos, Athens: Olkos

Chatzifotiou, Z (2003) Το Κολωνάκι πριν την άλωση (Kolonaki before the invasion),

Athens: L. Brazioti

Cholevas, N (1998) Η Αρχιτεκτονική της μετάβασης στην Αθήνα του μεσοπολέμου

(Architecture of transition in Athens of the interwar), Athens: Libro

Cholevas, N (1994) Αρχιτεκτονική του μεσοπολέμου στα Βαλκάνια (Architecture

of the interwar in the Balkans), Athens: Filippoti

Curuni, S.A (1996) ‘Gustavo Giovannoni. Pensieri e principi di restauro

architettonico’, in Casiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro,269‐292, Venice: Marsilio

Curuni, S.A (2005) ‘Gustavo Giovannoni’, in Torsello, B (ed), Che cos’e’ il restauro?,

87‐90, Venice: Marsilio



5. Discussion

Resources Constantopoulos, E (1999) ‘From City Dwelling to Multi Dwelling’, in Kontaratos,

S (ed), Greece 20th century, 79‐88, New York: Prestel

Clogg, R (2002), Συνοπτική ιστορία της Ελλάδας 1770‐2000 (A concise History of

Greece). Athens: Katoptro

Curl, J S (2006) Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Oxford:

University Press

De Chiara, J Panero, J and Martin, Z (2001), Time‐saver Standards for Interior

Design and Space, New York: McGraw‐Hill

De Luca, M (1989) Il Mosaico per immagini, Ravenna: Essegi

De Martino, G (1996) La ricaduta del pensiero di Ruskin sulla cultura italiana del

XIX e XX secolo, in Casiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro, 141‐146, Venice: Marsilio

De Martino, R (1996) ‘William Morris e la “protezione dei monumenti”’, in

Casiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro, 147‐158, Venice: Marsilio

Demathas, Z (2005) Διαδικασίες αστικοποίησης κατα το πρώτο τρίτο του 20ου

αιώνα, στο Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος και Ελληνική Πόλη (Urbanization procedures in

the first third of the 20th century, in Eleutherios Venizelos and the Greek Town), 35‐

47, Athens: TEE

Di Biase, C (1996) ‘Camillo Boito’, in Casiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro, 159‐

182, Venice: Marsilio

Dunabin, K (1999) Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Earl J. (1996), Building Conservation and Philosophy, Reading: The College of

Estate Management

Esposito, D (2005) ‘William Morris’, in Torsello, B (ed), Che cos’e’ il restauro?, 99‐


Farneti, M (1993) Glossario tecnico‐storico del Mosaico, Ravenna: Longo



5. Discussion

Resources Fessa‐ Emmanouil, E and Marmaras B (2005) 12 Έλληνες Αρχιτέκτονες του

μεσοπολέμου (12 Greek Architects of the Interwar), Heraklion: Crete University

Press

Fiori, C, Tolis, N and Canestrino, C (2003) Mosaici a ciottoli capolavoria decline del

arte musiva piu antica da Pella a Delos, Ravenna: Girasole

Fiorentini‐Roncuzzi, I and Fiorentini, E (2001) Mosaico Materiali, Tecniche e Storia,

Ravenna: MWeV

Fisher, H (1957), A History of Europe From the beginning of the 18th century to 1937,

London: Eyre & Spottiswoode

Frerigang, C and Kremier J (2003) ‘Euguene Emmanuel Viollet le Duc’, in Teoria

del architettura 117 trattati dal rinascimento a oggi, 344‐ 355, Koln:Taschen

Galani, S (1997) ‘Οι γειτονιές του κέντρου της Αθήνας στην περίοδο του

μεσοπολέμου ο χώρος ως έκφραση των κοινωνικών αντιλήψεων της εποχής’,

στο Αρχιτεκτονική και πολεοδομία από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα η περίπτωση

της Αθήνας (‘Athens central neighbourhoods in the Interwar space as expression

area for the social beliefs of the time’, Architecture and urbanism from antiquity

till now – The case of Athens), 171‐176, Athens: Arsenidi

Galli, G (1989) Il Mosaico nella tradizione di Ravenna. Storia, materiali, tecniche,

Torino: Ulisse

Giacumacatos, A (2006) ‘Ο νέος αρχαιολογικός νόμος και η προστασία της

μοντέρνας αρχιτεκτονικής’, στο Τουρνικίωτης Π, (επ) Do.co.mo.mo 01 Που είναι

το Μοντέρνο; (The New archaeological law and the protectction of modern

architecture, in Tornikiotis, P (ed) Do.co.mo.mo 01 Where is the modern?) Athens:

Futura

Giacumacatos, A (2004) Ιστορία της ελληνικής αρχιτεκτονικής 20ος αιώνας

(History of Greek architecture 20th century), Athens: Nefeli

Giacumacatos, A (2003) Η μοντέρνα αρχιτεκτονική είναι διατηρητέα (The

modern Architecture is listed), To Vima. n.13917. B44



5. Discussion

Resources Giacumacatos, A (1999) From Conservatism to populism, pausing at Modernism

The Architecture in the Interwar Period, in Kontaratos, S (ed) Greece 20th century,

27‐40, New York: Prestel

Guarino, M (2004) ‘La lunga stagione di un’arte minore’, in Guarino, M (ed)

L’immagine e il frammento ‐ Il mosaico in Emiglia‐Romagna, 13‐25, Bologna:

Compositori

Iliopoulos, D (2000) Εν Αθήναις, Κάποτε… (In Athens, Then…), Athens: Ellinika

Grammata

Guillet, A (2007) Docomomo international, in Macdonald S, Normandin, K and

Kinderd, B ( eds), Conservation of Modern Architecture, 151‐156, Dorset: Donhead

Grisoni, M (2005) ‘Camillo Boito’, in Torsello, B (ed) Che cos’e’ il restauro?, 95‐98,

Venice: Marsilio

Henket, H (1998) ‘The icon and the ordinary’, Cunningham,A (ed) Modern

Movement Heritage, 13‐17, London: Routledge

Iamandi, C (1989) ‘The should not of the Conservation Doctrine: on the

Legitimacy of Reconstruction of MOMO Architecture’, in DOCOMOMO Conference

Proceedings: Vision and Reality, 183‐187, Stockholm: Docomomo Sweden

Johns, C (2007), 1922 Ο μεγάλος ξεριζωμός (1922 The great uprooting), Athens:

Lambrakis

Jokilehto, J (2005) A History of Architectural Conservation, Oxford: Elsevier

Butterworth – Heinemann

Kassimatis, G (1999), “Το Σύνταγμα του 1927” στο Νεότερη Πολιτική Ιστορία της

Ελλάδος 1750‐1940 (The Constitution of 1927 in Modern Greek Political History 1750‐

1940), 205 ‐ 393, Athens: Livanis

Kairofila, G (1988) Η Αθήνα του Μεσοπόλεμου (Athens in the Interwar), Athens:

Melissa



5. Discussion

Resources Kaplan, R (2002) Φαντάσματα των Βαλκανίων (Balkan Ghosts), Athens: Roes –

Printa

Keyens, J (1974), The general History of Employment, Interest and Money, London:

Macmillan

Kolefas, G (1983) H τέχνη του ψηφιδωτού (The technique the Mosaics), Athens:

EOMMEX

Konsola, D (1995) Η διεθνής προστασία της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς (The

international protection of the world Cultural Heritage), Athens: Papazisis

Kontararou‐Rassia, R (2008) Η σύγχρονη Αθηνά γκρεμίζει τη μοντέρνα

(Contemporary Athens demolishes the modern), Eleutherotipia. n. 19912. 43

Koumanoudis, I (2001) Η Εκάλη που έφυγε 1920‐1941 (Ekali that has gone lost 1920‐

1941) Athens: TEE

Kosmidis, D (1997), Άτλας της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας (Atlas of International

History), Athens: Kathimerini

Koutsoukos, G (1984) Σελίδες από την παλιά Αθήνα (Pages from old Athens),

Athens: Estia

Kyriakidis, B (2001), Επίτομη Ελληνική Ιστορία (Abridged Greek History), Athens:

Kyriakidis

La Regina, F (2005) John Ruskin, In Torsello, B (ed) Che cos’e’ il restauro?, 103‐106,

Venice: Marsilio

Lavvas, G P (1983), ‘Θεσμική προστασία της Ελληνικης Παραδοσιακής

Αρχιτεκτονικής: Φάσεις‐ Αντιφάσεις – Κίνδυνοι’ στο Συντήρηση και Αναβίωση

Παραδοσιακών Κτιρίων και Συνόλων (Constitutional protection of the Greek

traditional architecture: Diction – Contradiction – Dangers in Conservations and

revitalisation of Traditional Buildings and Urban complexes) , 126‐140,

Thesaloniki: University Studio Press

Lavagne, H (1988) Il Mosaico attraverso i secoli, Ravenna: Longo



5. Discussion

Resources Ling, R (1998) Ancient Mosaics, London: British Museum Press

Locktov, J and Mastandrea, D (2003) Mosaic sourcebook, Hove: Apple

Loukianos, G (2002) Η τέχνη του ψηφιδωτού και η τεχνική του (The art of Mosaics

and the technique), Athens: Votsalo

Macdonald, S (1997) ‘Technical Responces to Typical Conservation Problems or

Architecture in England After the War – Current Research and Case Studies from

English Heritage’,in DOCOMOMO Conference Proceedings: Universality and

Heterogeneity, 179‐ 183 Bratislava: DOCOMOMO Slovakia

Mantouvalou, M and Kalantzopoulou, M (2005), Πολεοδομία και

πολιτικοκοινωνικά διακυβέυματα στην Ελλάδα του Μεσοπολέμου,

στοΕλευθέριος Βενιζελός και Ελλήνικη Πόλη (Urbanism and socioeconomic stakes

in Greece of the Interwar,in Eleutherios Venizelos and the Greek Town), 85‐90,

Athens: TEE

Maramotti‐ Politi, A (1996) ‘Ruskin fra architettura e restauro’, in Cassielo, S (ed)

La cultura del restauro, 117‐140, Venice: Marsilio

Marini, G (2003) I mosaici della Basilica di Aquileia, Aquileia: CISCRA

Markzinis, S (1968), Πολιτική ιστορία της Νεότερης Ελλάδος‐ Τόμος 4 (Political

History of Modern Greece‐ Part 4), Athens: Papyrus

Marmaras, B (1991), Η αστική πολυκατοικία της μεσοπολεμικής Αθήνας (Multi‐

storey buildings in Athens of interwar), Athens: ETBA

Maxwell, R (1998) Preface, in Cunningham, A (ed) Modern Movement Heritage,

xiii‐xvii, London: Routledge

Moiras, N (2001) ‘The entrance to Apartment Buildings of the Interwar period’, in

Fillipides, D (ed) Urban House of the 30s, 43‐50, Athens: Nireas

Munoz‐ Vinas, S (2005) Contemporary Theory if Conservation, Oxford: Elsevier

Butterworth – Heinemann



5. Discussion

Resources Napoleone, L (2005) ‘Cesare Brandi’, in Torsello, B (ed), Che cos’e’ il restauro?,91‐


Napoleone, L (2005b) ‘Alois Riegl’, in Torsello, B (ed), Che cos’e’ il restauro?, 73‐76,

Venice: Marsilio

Napoleone, L (2005c) ‘Eugene Emmanuel Viollet –le‐Duc’, in Torsello, B (ed), Che

cos’e’ il restauro?,107‐112, Venice: Marsilio

Orlandos, A (1994) Τα υλικά δομής των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και οι τρόποι

εφαρμογής αυτών (The constructive materials of the ancient Greeks and their use),

Athens: En Athinais Arhaiologiki Etairia

Orsini, B (2004a) ‘Il mosaico: origini e tecniche’, in Guarino, M (ed), L’immagine e

il frammento ‐ Il mosaico in Emiglia‐Romagna,27‐33, Bologna: Compositori

Orsini, B (2004b) ‘Archeologia musiva in Emiglia‐ Romagna’, in Guarino, M (ed),

L’immagine e il frammento ‐ Il mosaico in Emiglia‐Romagna, 35‐43, Bologna:

Compositori

Overy, R (1999), Ιστορικός Άτλας του 20ου αιώνα (Historic Atlas of the 20th

century), Athens: Bibliosynergatiki

Pantelidou‐ Gkofa, M (1997) ‘Η Αθήνα στην προϊστορική εποχή’ στο

Αρχιτεκτονική και πολεοδομία από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα (‘Athens in

Prehistoric Times’,in Architecture and urbanism from antiquity till now – The case

of Athens), 23‐35, Athens: Arsenidi

Pantelodimos, D (1997) ‘Η Αθήνα σε περιηγητικά κείμενα του ΙΘ’ αιώνα’,

Αρχιτεκτονική και πολεοδομία από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα(‘Athens in

travelers texts of 18th century’, Architecture and urbanism from antiquity till now –

The case of Athens), 134‐141, Athens: Arsenidi

Papakonstantinou, D (2008) Μια συνεργασία για την καταγραφή του

μοντέρνου κινήματος της δεκαετίας του 1930 (A cooperation for the

documentation of the modern buildings of the thirties), Elliniki etairia. n. 30. 14



5. Discussion

Resources Papapetropoulos, D (2006), Νόμος 3028/2002 Για την προστασία των

αρχαιοτήτων και εν γένει της Πολιτιστικής Κληρονομιάς (Law 3028/2002 On the

Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General), Thessaloniki: Sakkoula

Paris, R (1999) ‘Dalle origini al II secolo d. C.’,in Donati, A (ed) La forma del colore.

Mosaici dal antichita’ al XX secolo, 27‐33, Milano: Electa

Petzet, M (1995) In the full richness of their authenticity. The Test of Authenticity

and the New cult of Monuments’, in Nara Conference on Authenticity, 85‐99,

Trondheim: Tapir

Philippot, P (2005) ‘Forward’, in A History of Architectural Conservation, viii‐ix

Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth – Heinemann

Pretelli, M (1996) ‘Alois Riegl’, in Cassiello, S (ed), La cultura del restauro, 239‐252,

Venice: Marsilio

Prudon, T (2008) Preservation of Modern Architecture, New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons

Raimondi, E (2004) ‘Un percosro ininterroto’, in Guarino, M (ed), L’immagine e il

frammento ‐ Il mosaico in Emiglia‐Romagna, 13‐22, Bologna: Compositori

Rigopoulos, D (2005), Μοντέρνα κτίρια η ώρα της κατεδάφισης (Modern

buildings time of demolition), I Kathimerini n. 26033. 20

Rigopoulos, D (2008), Τα ξεχασμένα διαμάντια του Μεσοπολέμου (The

forgotten diamandos of the Interwar) I Kathimerini n. 27034. 21

Ruhl, C (2003), ‘John Ruskin’, in Teoria del architettura 117 trattati dal rinascimento

a oggi, 462‐469, Koln:Taschen

Sette, M (2001) Il Restauro in Architettura, Torino: UTET

Shaffer, R J (2004), Weathering of natural building stones, Dorset: Donhead



5. Discussion

Resources Tosi, M (2004a) ‘Dal mosaico paleocristiano al mosaico moderno’, in Guarino, M

(ed), L’immagine e il frammento ‐ Il mosaico in Emiglia‐Romagna, 85‐93, Bologna:

Compositori

Tosi, M (2004b) Il Mosaico Contemporaneo Tradizione, evoluzione, tecnica e

conservazione, Milano: Mondadori

Tournikiotis, P (2000) Το δημόσιο ενδιαφέρων για τη μοντέρνα αρχιτεκτονική

στην Αθήνα του Μεσοπολέμου, στο Αθήναι από την κλασσική εποχή ως σήμερα

(Public interest on Modern architecture in Interwar Athens,in Athens form the

Classic ages till today), 370‐397, Athens: Kotinos

Tournikiotis, (1989) ‘Social Aspiration and Modern Architecture in Greece during

the Twenties and the Thirties’, in DOCOMOMO Conference Proceedings: Vision and

Reality, 241‐245, Stockholm: Docomomo Sweden

Travlos, I (1967) Νεοκλασική Αρχιτεκτονική στην Ελλάδα (Neoclassical

Architecture in Greece) Athens: Trapeza tis Ellados

Tsounis, G (2004) Γύρω από την Ακρόπολη (Around Acropolis), Athens: Explorer

Vassalo, V (1996) ‘Eugene Emmanuel Viollet –le‐Duc’, in Cassiello, S (ed), La

cultura del restauro, 69‐94, Venice: Marsilio

Vatopoulos, N (2000) Η Αθήνα σήμερα,στο Αθήναι από την κλασσική εποχή ως

σήμερα (Athens today,in Athens form the Classic ages till today), 370‐397, Athens:

Kotinos

Vatopoulos, N (2002) Το πρόσωπο της Αθήνας (The face of Athens), Athens:

Potamos

Vatopoulos, N (2002) Η πολυκατοικία γίνεται κλασσική (Multi‐storey buildings

are becoming classical)I Kathimerini 26.11.1999

Veremis, T (2008) Εμείς οι ‘Ελληνες –Πολεμική Ιστορία της Συγχρονής Ελλάδας

(We, Greeks – War History of Contemporary Greece), Athens: Sky



5. Discussion

Resources Vournas, T (1997), Ιστορία της νεώτερης και Σύγχρονης Ελλάδας‐ Τόμος Β (History

of Modern and Contemporary Greece), Athens: Pattakis

Vidulli Torlo, M (2005) Aquileia Mosaici, Trieste: Bruno Fachin

Vitruvius (Morgan, M. H. – trans) (1960), The Ten books on Architecture, New

York: Dover

Zivas, V (1991) Τα μνημεία και η πόλη (Monuments and the city), Athens: Libro

Unpublished resources

Arnold, G (1980) An appraisal of modern Buildings of the thirties in Britain,

unpublished MA dissertation, University of York

Charkiolakis, N (2007) Αναστύλωση, Ανάδειξη και βελτίωση της

επισκεψιμότητας των Μνημείων και Μνημειακών συνόλων στην περιοχή της

Πλάκας (Restoration, Evaluation and upgrading the visiting conditions of

Monuments of the area of Plaka) paper given at TEE ‐ Athens, Scientific Day

Conferences for the protection of the Cultural Heritage, 7 March 2007

Christ K(2001) Sacrosanct or Sacrificial? The future of Mid‐twentieth century

Heritage and the role of Design, unpublished MA dissertation, University of York

Ergolavou, M (2007), Η προστασία του πολιτιστικού περιβάλλοντος (The

protection of Cultural Heritage), unpublished assessment, Kapodisitrian

University of Athens

Kaukala, K (1990) Η ιδέα της κηπούπολης στην ελληνική πολεοδομία του

μεσοπολέμου (The idea of the “garden city” in the Urbanism of the Interwar),

unpublished Phd dissertation, Aristotelian Univeristy of Thessaloniki

Kosmaki, P (1991) Σχεδιασμένοι οικισμοί στην Αθήνα του Μεσοπολέμου

(Designed settlements in Interwar Athens), Unpublished PhD thesis, Athens

E.M.P. Polytechnic University



5. Discussion

Resources Kotsaki, A (2005) Το έργο του αρχιτέκτονα Αλέξανδρου Νικολούδη (1875‐1944)

ως έκφραση του οράματος για αστικό εκσυγχρονισμό επί Ελευθερίου

Βενιζέλου (The work of architect Alexander Nikoloudis (1875 ‐ 1944) as

expression of the vision for urban modernization during Eleftherios Venizelos

time). Unpublished PhD thesis, Athens E.M.P. Polytechnic University

Ladogianni, G (1989) Το περιοδικό "Ιδέα" 1933‐1934. Παρέμβαση στην κοινωνική

κρίση και την αισθητική αναζήτηση (Magazine Idea1933‐34,Interference with

the social crisis and the aesthetical research), unpublished PhD dissertation,

Ioannina Unevirsity

Maragou, T (1999) Rehabilitation and enhancement of historic fabric in Athens,

unpublished MA dissertation, University of York

Tapini (2007) Heritage conservation in the Interwar: Italy, Greece, Cyprus,

unpublished summative assessment, University of York

Papadam‐ Riza, E (2002) Η συμβολή της πολυκατοικίας στη γέννηση της

ελληνικής οικοδομικής (Contribution of urban multi‐dwelling inthe birth of

contemporary Greek construction), Unpublished PhD thesis, Athens E.M.P.

Polytechnic University

Papdopoulou, E (2007) Methods and techniques for the conservation of

reinforced concrete buildings, unpublished MA dissertation, University of York

Raptis, P (1997) Οι εκπαιδευτικές μεταρρυθμίσεις του μεσοπολέμου στην

Ελλάδα (Educational reform of the Interwar in Greece), unpublished PhD

dissertation, Panteion University

Vasenhofen, L (2007) Πόλεις και βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη (Cities and sustainable

development), conference held in 5 November 2007 for Elliniki Etaireia, Athens



5. Discussion

Resources Web resources

Agios savvas Hospital, http://www.agsavvas‐

hosp.gr/site/main/details.php?type=1&catID=52&lang=el, page consulted 22

December 2008

Areopagitou 17 BlogSpot on the Salvation of two listed buildings on Areopagitou

street: http://areopagitou17.blogspot.com/ , page consulted 20 December 2008

Hellenic Ministry for the Environment Physical planning and public works, listed

buildings directory: http://estia.minenv.gr/ , pages consulted from 7 December

2008 till 2 February 2009

Koumantaropoulou, M Michailidis, M (1994) Διατηρητέα Νεοκλασικά της

Αθήνας (Neoclassical buildings of Athens to conserve)

http://www.weblab.gr/ak/AthensAtrcheo/AthensIndex.html, , Page consulted 20

February 2008

Raptis, P (2007) Η εκπαιδευτική μεταρρυθμιστική κίνηση του Μεσοπολέμου

στην Ελλάδα συναφείες και αποκλείσεις στον κύκλο της θεσμικής ασυνέχειας

(Educational reform in the Interwar in Greece: relevancies and irrelevances in the

cycle of constitutional discontinuity), http://conf2007.edu.uoi.gr/Praktika/97‐

151.pdf , Page Consulted 10 August 2008

International council on monuments and sites, ‘Nara Document on Authenticity’:

http://www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm, page consulted 10

December 2008

National Center for research, Archaeology of the city of Athens, contemporary

monuments database: http://www.eie.gr/archaeologia/Gr/arxeio.aspx , pages

consulted from 7 December 2008 till 2 February 2009

Foundation of the Hellenic world:

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/14/gr/1923_1940/civilization/choros/02.html#, page

consulted 16 December 2008



5. Discussion

Resources Getty Conservation Institute, ‘Illustrated Glossary: Mosaics In Situ Project.’ 2003,

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/bibs.html The

Getty Conservation Institute and the Israel Antiquities Authority, page consulted

26 October 2008

Hellenic Ministry of Culture, ‘Law 1469/1950’:

http://www.yppo.gr/5/51/neot/n1469.jsp, page consulted 10 December 2008

Hellenic Society for Law and antiquity, ‘Law 3028/2002’: http://www.law‐

archaeology.gr/Index.asp?C=136, page consulted 10 December 2008

Tournikiotis, p (2009) Μια κοσμοπολίτικη πολυκατοικία στα Ιλίσια ( A

cosmopolitan multi‐ storey building at Ilissia):

http://www.monumenta.org/article.php?IssueID=2&perm=1&ArticleID=315&Cate

goryID=6&lang=gr , page consulted 26 January 2009

2009 Terrazzo and Mosaic Floor in Interwar Buildings in Athens: Conservation issues

Documents

conservation studies

mosaic floors

interwar buildings

conservation issues

use of terrazzo

university of yorkdepartment

y2265156 ma

discussion listoffiguresi