|
By Jim Gray
(Editor's Note: Jim and Lyn
Gray are longtime organizers of Friends of Liberia. Currently
they are working in Liberia. Lyn is working for the YMCA for Peter
Kamei, one of her former students. Jim is teaching at Cuttington
University College, which has reopened in Suakoko.)
On Sunday, August 1st, Lyn and I drove about Monrovia taking
pictures. Sunday is a good day for this since there are fewer people
around, and therefore less hassles. We are mainly taking pictures of
buildings or signs that strike our fancy such as Sharks Business
Center or F.F. Provision's Chilly Pissy. Young children, in contrast
to adults, seem eager to be photographed. In fact, if we start to
photo two or three especially cute children, another five or ten
materialize and impose themselves into the setting before we can
snap the shutter.
In downtown Monrovia, there are a number of buildings built by
settlers-those people of color who immigrated here in 1822 and
afterwards from the United States. These old buildings have a very
distinctive style and resemble houses in the United States built
maybe 100 years ago. Before air conditioners, houses had porches,
high-pitched roofs, and dormer windows. Because of insects and
snakes, settler houses in Liberia were built on stilts. Many were
built with wood, but as bug-a-bugs (termites) devoured the wood,
they were covered with corrugated roofing sheets. As population
pressures increased, porches were enclosed and ugly additions were
added. Also disturbing the architectural integrity, but responding
to economic pressures, small shops were tacked onto
the buildings at street level. Thus one must look carefully to spot
the shape of the original buildings.
New buildings in Monrovia seem boxy with little charm. They are
constructed with either reinforced concrete or concrete block.
"Rogue bars" are necessary on the windows, but rarely attractive.
Population and economic pressures have corrupted these new
structures as well. Like the older ones, they have additions that
would make the original designer weep.
These changes may have occurred in normal times. However, fourteen
years of war, government corruption, and chaos simply hastened the
deterioration of buildings and a dampening of whatever charm
Monrovia had left. When one did not know where the next meal was
coming from, one did not paint the exterior. Compounding the
problem, Monrovia's tropical climate encourages mildew. The mildew
and the lack of maintenance cause buildings to gradually decay.
Trees can be seen sprouting in gutters or in cracks in the concrete
overhangs. Tiles that once sparkled are now dull if they haven't
fallen off. Today Monrovia
looks quite dreary.
People in cities discount the importance of beauty. Although beauty
has no physical function, it inspires; it lifts the spirits; it
encourages everyone to have pride in their city. Regrettably concern
for beauty seems to come after people no longer have to scramble to
make a living. In the United States, cities destroyed old buildings
to erect more functional, but alas, less attractive office
buildings, supermarkets, or parking garages. Only recently has this
trend been reversed, and the past is being revered. Why should
cities like Monrovia wait? As it waits, much of its history will
fall to the wrecker's ball.
On Front Street, two old brick settler houses hinted at the splendor
of a bygone era. While we were in Liberia in the 1970s, someone (an
architect, I think) restored the one on the corner of Randall
Street. It would have fit in well on M Street in Georgetown. Of
course, it was badly damaged by the wars that buffeted Monrovia. I
envisioned that someone would again restore this attractive home. On
Sunday, when we drove by to get a photo, we discovered that someone
was tearing it down. It made us wonder about the value and necessity
of protecting a country's architectural heritage.
Although attempts by authorities to restrict individuals' use of
private property always alienate someone, some coercive action is
essential for the promotion of the common good. In Liberia, the
design of the current government - an amalgam of different factions
- means that almost nothing can get done. Certainly it would be
difficult to restrict the use of private property; at least one
faction would be offended.
As profit minded individuals trash Liberia's cultural heritage, the
government doesn't even notice. Unlike Mussolini, Liberia's current
government doesn't even make the trains - even metaphorical ones -
run on time. When Monrovia is without water, a reliable sewer
system, or electricity, when potholes in the streets make driving an
adventure to drivers and a danger to pedestrians, when street lights
and traffic signals hover inertly over the streets, it is not likely
that the government will concern itself with abstract concepts like
the nation's "cultural heritage." However, if not the government,
then who?
Water and electricity will eventually come. Signals will some day
control traffic. However, once a historical site is demolished, it
can never return.
Every Liberian might not worship the nation's past, but the past is
a part of who a Liberian is. Understanding the past permits one to
understand the present and plan for the future. Destroying artifacts
that recall an unpleasant past will not erase the effect that past
has on the present. It will only prevent the present from being
completely understood.
Monrovia is becoming an ugly city. On every available empty lot,
another business sprouts or a house is built. Cinderblock walls are
erected and topped with razor wall. Sometimes they are whitewashed
in a paean to beauty; too often they are left bare and soon become
places for posters or graffiti. Since there are no parks and few
playgrounds, the streets become soccer fields. Sidewalks are
cluttered with vendors and crowded with pedestrians. Trees on the
median strips on Broad Street provide a shady respite for hundreds
of weary citizens who have crowded into the city.
It is difficult to learn that beauty is almost as important as
function in a city. Monrovia is being swamped with function. Unless
something is done, beauty will be difficult to find here.
ASIDE: UNESCO designates certain geographic sites as cultural
landmarks. The pyramids of Giza, Mayan ruins, Angkor Wat, or the
Parthenon all qualify. Can UNESCO place its imprimatur not on a
particular treasure, but on the totality of a country's heritage
even though no part of that heritage is sufficiently important to be
protected individually?
|
