New Acropolis Museum, in Athens, with Acropolis and Parthenon beyond, above roof

Associated Press photo by Thanassis Stavrokis

GREECE has for many years sought the return to Athens of the so-called Elgin Marbles. The statuary and friezes were taken (arguably stolen) in 1801-12 by Lord Elgin, Britain’s ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, from the Parthenon, built on the Acropolis by Pericles in ancient times.

Since 1816, they have resided at the British Museum, in London. Britain has refused to give them back, arguing that they are a cultural icon of Western Civilization, not merely of Greece. Britain contends that Greece has not shown that it could safeguard the marbles, but has said the construction of a new museum to display them would be taken as evidence that the Greeks can be trusted with them.

That new museum has now been built. Designed by Bernard Tschumi, the New Acropolis Museum is a parallelogram of black glass on a trapezoidal base a mere 918 feet from the Acropolis. It could sit comfortably on the access road to any major airport in the world. It does not bow down to the Acropolis but thumbs its nose at the cradle of history and the incubator of democracy. It scorns the Athenian polis and turns the idea of world heritage preservation on its head. It is not evidence that Greece can now be trusted with the marbles, but proof that it cannot.

Pericles must be spinning in his grave. The British should tell the Greeks that they will not get the marbles back until this museum is demolished and replaced by one that respects the traditions of Western architecture instead of raping them.

The downtown charrette

Next week, the future appearance of downtown Providence will be considered at a four-day charrette sponsored by the city Monday through Thursday, Oct. 27-30. Civic leaders, neighborhood activists, city planners, architects, residents and others will hear and respond to ideas of how downtown should evolve. Evening sessions will sum up the progress made during the daytime sessions.

The charrette will look at how to go forward in Capital Center, the old “Downcity” core of downtown, the new Old Harbor District created by the relocation of Route 195, and the “edges” between downtown and the East Side, West Side and South Side. The definition of downtown has expanded in the eyes of the city’s planners beyond its traditional boundary to include the Promenade District and the Jewelry District. The idea of downtown is changing, becoming more complex and difficult to grasp. The compactness that has made downtown easy, both for people to walk and planners to plan, is as much at risk as the historical character that has long been been central to its beauty and its appeal.

City policies under Mayor Cicilline have exacerbated these trends, and there is little indication that he or his administration regret them, let alone that they intend to address them constructively.

Shortsightedness and narrow-mindedness seem to be the chief characteristics of the city’s urban policy. The highest priority seems to be to increase the tax base. In a time of multiple challenges to the city this is understandable, but it fails to recognize that in the long run, development that respects the city’s historic character and the priorities of its neighborhood communities would make it easier to solve the city’s problems. So far, the neighborhood-by-neighborhood planning process seems intended more to buttress the administration’s desire to hasten even ill-conceived projects than to embrace community input. Friction rather than cooperation is the predictable result. At the same time, pressure from the most influential participants for modern architecture that erodes historic character and spurns public taste is likely to slow the pace of development and delay any bonanza of property taxes.

“Innovative new buildings will stand in contrast to preserved and renovated commercial, industrial and residential structures” is a key “shared vision” of a study done for the Jewelry District’s neighborhood group. Is that supposed to be a good thing? I doubt most people who live and work in the Jewelry District share a desire for contrast rather than harmony in their streetscapes. Yet that assumption typifies the attitude that guides the process.

The attitude also shows up in the ease with which developers can raze old buildings that contribute to Providence’s historic character without assurances that they will be replaced by new buildings that will strengthen that character — or that they will be replaced at all. A performance bond to deter precipitous demolitions may be a good idea.

Next week’s charrette must promote the qualities that make Providence unique rather than those that push it toward the confused urbanity of most U.S. cities. Design mandates are not required to save and augment our historical character. Responsible civic leadership that respects public rather than elite sensibilities should be sufficient. That is not too much to expect in the democratic polis of Providence.

David Brussat is a member of The Journal’s editorial board ( dbrussat@projo.com)