Re: Re: Pastiche – The Final Solution?
I appreciate that the question is being asked for a very particular set of circumstances but it is almost impossible to respond to this building without investigating what is going on behind the faÃ§ade. Georgian buildings respond to certain constraints of the day, from structural openings right down to beading details to hide joints. The plans of Georgian architecture responded in very intelligent ways to these constraints such that those who dwelled on the inside of the building benefited fully from what was going on outside. The point may seem obvious but this is not the case with the Zoe scheme. So is pastiche or facadism a good thing in this case? the answer has to be no. I accept that the building exists and I have no wish to rip it down but it doesnâ€™t mean that I donâ€™t think it could have been done a hell of a lot better in the first instance. Any perceived merits of the current scheme (I admit that the rhythm it creates is satisfying but hardly at the expense of whatâ€™s going on inside) could have been incorporated into a more contemporary scheme without creating a â€˜look at meâ€™ building. My main problem I suppose is that people have to live in this thing and I find it hard to separate that from this debate, especially as it seems obvious to me that the designer decided on a facade before he/she had looked at the plans.
I am sorry that, like a good politician, I have not really answered the question but I donâ€™t like pastiche for this reason, it just stinks of lack of ambition and this is not the way a city should develop. Its wallpaper and not a very nice one either.