Architecture in the West

Try the RIAI web site(http://www.riai.ie) for advice on selecting an architect. Sorry can’t recommend a good architect in the area

Architects have been known to travel.

Seek quotes, always

Signle Farmer – How do! G/F is from West Clare and the blight caused by the new builds you reference depresses me every summer and winter when we travel down to see her family. I’m not an architect but I’ve often though that if we bought land down there I’d aim to make the house almost invisible from the road by building into the land and providing a green roof and using local stone on all exposed surfaces. Does anybody have examples of inovative West Coast housing to stir the imagination?

Clare Co Co are going to publish a rural housing guide soon

I don’t know if this correct or not, but one gets the impression sometimes that the two options available to people building in the countryside are to build a typical red brick/garish/all round inappropriate house, or to go in the opposite direction and build something that cannot be seen by building in a fashion that is hidden from view, with grass on the roof and the use natural stone etc on exposed parts – i.e. bad architecture in the countryside is that we have all around us, and good architecture is that that cannot be seen!

Why can we not see decent architectuire in the countryside – in full view, that makes a statement, albeit sensitively sited?
This is just the impression I get at times: that acceptable architecture in rural areas must disappear into the landscape, as if there’s no other option to the self-build bungalow.

Graham – I’m not suggesting that my proposal for a house I might build should be adopted as any sort of standard. That said there is a logic to this building type in this context. The vernacular – happy to be corrected – is a single story stone built cottgae. Would this have been tatched anyone? And the water wash? On these two points I’m in the dark. Anyway, the buildings nestled – often together – into the landscape; a landscape de-nuded of tress of woods thus exposing all buildings in all directions for miles around. Imposing suburban building types in this context gives you a low density suburb that actually looks rather crowded at times – achne scared. One off buildings have their place but the vernacular dominates and the current vogue dominates in all bnegative sences of the word. My proposal – nothing particualrly original – would have a much softer impact upon the environment in all sences of the word.

Again, does anybody have examples of how similar environments have adapted to 21st century demands. The Danes and the Scots certainly have similar landscapes and climates. Any ideas? Shane

You will need a very talented architect to create a house that will blend into the sourroundings in west Clare. I was there last summer and I was fairly appaled with the amount of bland bungalows that infest the area. All seem to be the same shape, size and most have the same terracotta colour.Since there is no hedges to conceal all the houses so you can see every house for miles around. The strong winds and harsh weather dont allow large gardens to grow so thehouses are very exposed though some type of a alien spiky bush grows and are grown in place of hedges. The area could be so much more beautiful without so many bungalows. I’m glad to see that someone has decided to try to build an imaginitive building, at least.

As regards the architects try
http://www.irishbuildingindustry.ie/Headings/ArchitectsWest.htm

If you ever get the project up and running let us know as it sounds like it could be an interesting project.

P.S. Does anyone know how to turn off overwright? That made typing this post kinda aqward.

Why is the classic ‘single storey stone built cottage’ defined as the definitive vernacular (by vernacular, I presume it is meant ‘native to’) form of Irish architecture and celebrated as a model of what sensitive rural architecture should be like. Indeed, the only other alternative seems to be to write ourselves completely out of the natural landscape by designing buildings that have the most minimal presence in the natural landscape. Why should humans not have their place in the natural landscape??? Oddly enough, we celebrate the Ceide Fields project, the tombs of Carrowmore etc – these are all ‘unnatural’ manmade constructions of no great architectural merit so why should we attempt to delete our present existence from the Irish rural countryside while preserving such past traces – we are part of what makes that countryside ‘Irish’!

As regards vernacular forms of architecture, it could equally be argued that the tower house is a vernacular form of Irish architecture of equal significance to the traditional cottage. Why then are people not allowed build 5 storey stone clad buildings in natural landscapes? Surely it is equally as legitimate and historically and culturally as sensitive as building a stone cottage?! Indeed, perhaps it would be more legitimate to do so as the stone cottage was, for the most part, a statement of the impoverished condition of the Irish peasantry – it was not a statement of indigenous architectural aesthetics, rather it was a statement of financial reality. I am sure that the average peasant was not so much concerned about how sensitively built and cited his cottage was with respect to the local natural environment. In the same way, the modern standard bungalow that seems to raise the aesthetic ire of many is a functional building that is a statement of the financial reality of the people who inhabit them rather than some bold aesthetic gesture to the surrounding landscape. Perhaps the peasants of the 19th century hated the standard cottage design as much as the modern bungalow is despised now, but for some reason we now see the 19th century cottage as a nice sensitive little building that respects our natural and cultural heritage. Why – does this have anything to do with John Hinde postcards, Quiet Man films and nostalgia for the past? In which case, perhaps in 200 years time people will look at the contemporary bungalow and will glorify it as an embodiment of sensitive architecture.

It could equally be argued that the ringfort is the best example of vernacular architecture as it was a style that lasted for centuries whereas the classic cottage does not share such longevity in its presence on the landscape. In this case, the crannog is equally valid in terms of its place in vernacular Irish architecture. Why then should we not be allowed build the modern equivalent of a small rural farmstead (ie a bungalow) on the edge of a lake or better still in a lake?

Bungalows may not be pretty and may not be the nicest form of architectural presence on the natural landscape, but given that they are the standard dwelling of many Irish people in the same way that the ringfort and crannog were centuries ago, I do not see a problem in embracing them. The bungalow is an architectural embodiment of socio-cultural reality at the present time, as were the ringfort and crannog. To that end, it should make sense that bungalows have as valid a presence in the landscape as any other structure defined by the sociological, cultural and economic realities of the time in which it was constructed and dwelt in.

that is the best argument i have heard yet for bungalows. well done pdll. but they still look like shit. it’s the reality really. along with finicial necessity they are the form most co.co. and espically down this side seem to fancy. it will take an extremely long time to convince planners that a different form of house will suit their particular part of the world. they also don’t like setting precedents for some reason. i wish both of you luck if you ever try.

I have sent you a private message singlefarmer

cheers

Ryan Hood
http://www.hbkarchitects.com

A load of cobblers if you ask me; show me one towerhouse with a floorplate akin to a modern house. They may have been tall but they generally used one complimentary material and very rarely used more than two colours in total and certainly never used gaudy and garish materials that scream attention such as orange roof tiles or white plastic windows.

Where I do agree with you is that it is a fair representation of the current socio economic environment; ie desert urban Ireland and plonk a sub-standard pile on the cheapest site for sale with little professional design advice using the cheapest and loudest materials possible. (I have no problem with genuine locals building in their own rural area once they receive proper design advice and once the site has the capacity to absorb the quantum of development sought and once it is solely occupied by those with specific local need)

@Thomond Park wrote:

and certainly never used gaudy and garish materials that scream attention

Meet Jeremy Irons:

He might just want to correct you on that one.

@Thomond Park wrote:

A load of cobblers if you ask me](I have no problem with genuine locals building in their own rural area once they receive proper design advice and once the site has the capacity to absorb the quantum of development sought and once it is solely occupied by those with specific local need)[/B]

The average tower house took up a huge surface area – you are forgetting the large curtain walled areas and outlying turrets that often constituted the full scope of the structure – many of these curtain walls are of course now lost.

I have heard no arguments against building new structures to the same height as a tower house in naturally sensitive environments. You will notice that I mentioned stone clad structures above. Of course, any building built with garish building materials is unwelcome, no matter how small it is. However, I would bet my last dollar that if I wanted to build a nicely designed (stone and wooden materials etc) 5 storey structure somewhere near the Burren, for example, I would not be allowed. Why not? If it respected the vernacular tradition of tower house building in Ireland, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so. I bet you I would find it easier to get planning permission for a nice little two room thatched cottage. In short, why does one form of ‘vernacular’ architecture have supremacy over others? To say that such one off high rise developments in naturally sensitive areas should be unacceptable is to negate one of the very few examples of indigenuous architecture which Ireland has in its cultuaral history.

It is part of a general mentality in this country that certain forms of historical architecture are to be seen as the only decent forms of architecture and all else should be either modelled on them or pay homage to them – in the countryside it is the traditional cottage, in the city, it is the typcial Georgian house. These are the benchmarks – anything that veers away from them in terms of height or design is seen as disrespectful to our cultural history or our natural or built environment. It seems to me, the picture of Ireland implicit in the ‘conservationist’ mentality is a countryside dotted with Peig type cottages and little farmsteads and a city (Dublin) with a largely Georgian facade. Certain exceptions are allowed – namely buildings designed with natural materials that would look good on the cover of a trade magazine for architects.

For many average bungalow dwellers, architect-designed houses that fit sensitively into the local environment are simply unaffordable luxuries. Bungalows are, for the most part, the working buildings of the rural community – they are homes, offices, stores etc all in one for many members of the farming community in exactly the same way that the ringfort, crannog and cottage were in their historical contexts. I don’t think any iron age farmer in Galway would have thought that a mud and wattle hut in the middle of a ringfort was a thing of architectural splendour – it wasn’t – it was never meant to have been. Ironically, however, such structures are now mostly protected monuments. I would wager that in years to come the average appalling bungalow with its PVC windows and Woodies fittings will form the centre piece of a folk-musuem on the west coast of Cork.

Before condeming these structures, should we not stand back and look at them for what they are – an embodiment of rural life in contemporary Ireland (as was the cottage before them). It is so easy to be critical of the present and celebratory of the nostalgic past.

Bungalows – personally, I hate them, but I accept them as part of the continually unfolding palimpest of Irish social archaeology. If people want it differently, they should give grants to the average farmer to design nice sensitive natural material structures. In the meantime, allow the people of Ireland to live on the land that is Ireland in a manner suited to the particular socio-economic circumstances of the present time. It would be interesting to travel back 150 years and count the number of festering ugly little cottages that lined the scenic and naturally sensitive coastlines of Galway, Clare and Cork. Quite a few I would imagine!

PDLL I agree with much of what you say but that is a different argument and merits a thread of its own. I think Singlefarmer who originated this post must be even more confused by now. Can someone tell him if the booklet called something like “Working with your Architect” and produced by the RIAI is still available? If yes, he should obtain a copy as it sets out many useful points.

Singlefarmer – Having worked on three different houses with three different architects, the most important thing is to know what YOU want, ‘cos if you don’t, you probably will not be happy with the result. Look at magazines, get a few books out of the library and note what you like, take copies or digipics. Drive around and if you see a house you like do not be afraid to bang on the door and ask who their architect was – most people are flattered by this and are very helpful, they may even tell you that the architect was good or bad to work with. If you want a vernacular style, for ideas look at local photos from the Lawrence collection in the National Library. Decide on your budget, (allow 1500 per sq.m. for really good quality) decide on your room/space requirement and then match the two. If you have a possible budget overspend, do not cut back on quality, cut back on “built” space i.e. do without now but have it planned for a later stage (e.g. prepared for electrics, plumbing). Ignore suggestions like “you must allow 10% of the value of the house for the kitchen” as that is crap – a chipboard carcass is exactly that, whether or not it comes with a designer label from Germany or Galway. I put in a solid oak door kitchen from Instore ( a Heitons company?) for about 6k and I defy anyone to say it came from Woodies sister!

When you decide what you want, then look for an architect. From what I’ve experienced, architects want to build what is their present idea of their dream house, using your money and in my experience are not very good at listening. However they do bring a lot to the equation when they do listen. Show them what you like, jump up and down on them if you have to. Agree in advance what the fee is. We all have to live, but 11% of contract sum is a bit rich – negotiate! Then tie him/her down to the number of site visits he/she will make, how many meetings are covered and what – if any – extras there will be.

Start planting the site perimeter now, you will be amazed how they will have matured by the time your new home is finished.

Please do not do what is happening in West Cork and Kerry – here there are firms of builders and architects that now sell from a portfolio book of houses which have passed through the planning process; you provide the site, they provide the rest (at reduced scale architects fees and standard contract sum) and you are reasonably sure of getting PP. That is why so many of the damned things are sprouting everywhere with their stone-faced porches, manmade slates and plastic conservatories tagged on to a gable – the SW of Ireland vernacular of the 2000’s, economic prostitution at its worst.
KB2

@PDLL wrote:

The average tower house took up a huge surface area – you are forgetting the large curtain walled areas and outlying turrets that often constituted the full scope of the structure – many of these curtain walls are of course now lost.

Curtain walling first arrived in Ireland in the 1960’s and generally relates to commercial architecture alone. The tower houses must be taken in isolation they were fortified settlements that reflected the need to protect their occupants from lawless elements.

@PDLL wrote:

I have heard no arguments against building new structures to the same height as a tower house in naturally sensitive environments. You will notice that I mentioned stone clad structures above. Of course, any building built with garish building materials is unwelcome, no matter how small it is. However, I would bet my last dollar that if I wanted to build a nicely designed (stone and wooden materials etc) 5 storey structure somewhere near the Burren, for example, I would not be allowed. Why not? If it respected the vernacular tradition of tower house building in Ireland, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so. I bet you I would find it easier to get planning permission for a nice little two room thatched cottage. In short, why does one form of ‘vernacular’ architecture have supremacy over others? To say that such one off high rise developments in naturally sensitive areas should be unacceptable is to negate one of the very few examples of indigenuous architecture which Ireland has in its cultuaral history.

As dealt with above the Tower house emerged to protect its inhabitants no such threat exists today comparison is therefore invalid.

@PDLL wrote:

It is part of a general mentality in this country that certain forms of historical architecture are to be seen as the only decent forms of architecture and all else should be either modelled on them or pay homage to them – in the countryside it is the traditional cottage, in the city, it is the typcial Georgian house. These are the benchmarks – anything that veers away from them in terms of height or design is seen as disrespectful to our cultural history or our natural or built environment. It seems to me, the picture of Ireland implicit in the ‘conservationist’ mentality is a countryside dotted with Peig type cottages and little farmsteads and a city (Dublin) with a largely Georgian facade. Certain exceptions are allowed – namely buildings designed with natural materials that would look good on the cover of a trade magazine for architects.

The conservationist mentaility is directed towards conserving the countryside and has little to do with building height]For many average bungalow dwellers, architect-designed houses that fit sensitively into the local environment are simply unaffordable luxuries. I would wager that in years to come the average appalling bungalow with its PVC windows and Woodies fittings will form the centre piece of a folk-musuem on the west coast of Cork. [/QUOTE]

Your views are very clear……… Let it rip

@PDLL wrote:

Before condeming these structures, should we not stand back and look at them for what they are – an embodiment of rural life in contemporary Ireland (as was the cottage before them). It is so easy to be critical of the present and celebratory of the nostalgic past.

They are an embodyment of yellow pack architecture and bad planning when developed speculatively and sold on as holiday homes or for commuters.

@PDLL wrote:

count the number of festering ugly little cottages that lined the scenic and naturally sensitive coastlines of Galway, Clare and Cork. Quite a few I would imagine!

Quite unlike the 200-450 sq metre piles that are built these days on elevated sites as trophy homes, the cottages you refer to were built for local occupation; out of direct need and were generally 30-60 sq metres and made exclusively from local materials.

What is the most profitable crop these days?

Before condeming these structures, should we not stand back and look at them for what they are – an embodiment of rural life in contemporary Ireland (as was the cottage before them). It is so easy to be critical of the present and celebratory of the nostalgic past.

You’ve constructed an interesting argument PDLL. I don’t have time now to construct a full counter-argument now but there are a few ideas. The basic objection I have to “venacular” Irish country housing is not the architecture but the dispersed pattern of development.

It’s not a question of hiding human existance, its the homogenisation of the landscape. The current patterns of countryside development is to dot similar bungalows at regular intervals on every patch of available land. This represents an increase in entropy. In the end we get uniformity – any constrast between wilderness and human settlement is gone – and so there is nothing to appreciate about either. Life is made interesting and enjoyable by contrasts. The reason travel is enjoyable – even involving small distances like a 100 miles or so – is the novelty of seeing differences.

This pattern is not sustainable and I don’t mean from an modern environmentally aware perspective. The Irish countryside is covered in insolated ruined houses. And I’m not talking about medieval castles or crannogs – I’m talking about many houses less than 100 years old. This represents a massive waste of human effort. Were such houses originally built in a hamlet, village or town, it is far more likely they would have been maintained thus adding to to cultural/historical stock of the country. Many of the isolated modern bungalows of today will suffer the same fate. Contrast with the prevailing patterns of country settlement in many of our european neighbours like France or Italy where the town or village is focus of development.

From a human perspective, these patterns of development have a significant social cost. Nobody should be forced to interact with neighbours, etc. but study after study has shown that the more daily social interactions a person has, the happier they are. Conversely isolation increases the chance of depression, etc. I’m surprised that nobody else has considered that there might be some connection between the fact that the west of Ireland has one of the highest rates of suicide in Europe and the fact that the prevailing pattern of living is one of dispersal and isolation.