National Gallery Extension
- This topic has 100 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I like the Museum of Scotland, but I’m not so sure about this matching-stone business. Modern buildings seldom model stone in the same way as old ones did – they merely use stone as a surface material.
Consequently, identical stone on a new building can look very different to that of its neighbours. Given which, a contrast may well be better than a match.
– same applies to brick. New British Library is suposedly the same red brick as 19th century St. Pancras Station next door. Even with the station cleaned, it looks nothing like.
Even when old-fashioned mouldings are used, matching stone still doesn’t necessarily work. Think of Norman Foster’s South Portico in the British Museum Great Court. The French limestone is actually identical to Portland stone, as used on the 150-year old surrounding facades. But Foster’s portico is brand-new and looks it. Not least because it hasn’t been weathered for a century and a half.
There is an interesting use of stone facing/cladding on the new office/retail building beside the Mansion House, Dawson St. Two different colours are used, a creamy coloured sandstone (possibly?) and a reddish coloured stone, both contrasting but fitting in with the red brick on one side and the lighter coloured Mansion House on the other.
Interesting point re: new stonework – however the facts are somewhat different re: ‘old’ stone:
Since the widespread advent of brick as a building material in the 1500’s most stone faced buildings are actually clad in stone over brick structural walls – (Actually the Romans started this form of construction – see the Forum etc – all brick).
Most stone faced buildings in Dublin are either of brick construction with stone facing or of rough calp construction beneath a stone skin.
PS – as to Foster’s British Museum – in fact the French ‘portland’ is quite dissimilar both geologically and visually. It is worth noting incidentally that the grand court was covered in almost from inception – there was no weathering of the existing stone – the effect referred to is simply that of a poor choice of stone on the part of the contractors.
Re: Brick – a lot depends on the pointing perhaps even more than the brick tone itself.
Pedantry time: Walls of Great Court were in fact exposed to the weather – not covered in as James says, although much of the floor area of the court was indeed covered in bookstacks. A gap was left open to the elements around the edges. You can clearly see the effects of water on the facade surfaces down the years.
As for Foster’s famous “Anstruther Claire” stone portico, my understanding is that this is the same geological bed as Portland where it surfaces in France. Which is not to say that the Museum wasn’t diddled, only that the end result is the same.
There’s a lot of xenophobia in the hysterical response from some quarters – what, French stone in our glorious imperial museum? (nobody ever talks about the smooth new Spanish limestone now cladding the Round Reading Room in the centre of the Court).
I have seen a sample of “real” Portland set against the new portico, and there is no discernible difference in texture or colour. Though I admit you’d have to have a very large sample – like, a complete second portico – to be absolutely sure.
Indeed, elsewhere in the Great Court, new “real” Portland has been used for patch repairs (and in a new band just beneath the new glass roof). This looks identical to Foster’s supposed “wrong” stone in the portico. Because it is new.
Others have pointed out that, since any stone – particularly a sedimentary stone such as limestone – differs from layer to layer, there is no hope of ever getting an exact match anyway, since the areas being quarried now are far removed from those which sourced the original stone for the Museum.
So it’s a real storm in a conservationist’s teacup. But – personally, I’d like to know – what’s Foster doing producing a classical stone portico anyway? As the original had long vanished, a good case could be made for a modernist equivalent, or none at all.
But Foster can (just) justify the huge expense and weight of the South Portico on good modernist functional grounds: it is the grandest of grand liftshafts. No, I don’t think it’s much of an excuse, either.
Removing my anorak of stone, I see that this thread is meant to be about the National Gallery extension in Dublin by Benson and Forsyth.
Your anorak dos’nt fit you too well Hugh:
Firstly the French stone, not only does not originate from the same geological bed – it isn’t even a close geological match – hence the difference.
This is somewhat akin to arguing that the Chinese Granite used for paving in Dublin is the same as Irish Granite because they both are Granites.
Secondly the Great Court was enclosed up to cornice level – check it out in Fosters own promo literature.
I visited the Museum last winter and this summer – the differences are fairly obvious. The job of work carried out by the architects is pretty good but the French ‘Portland’ is a bit of a disaster.
There is a strong argument for a portico to be realised in a modern idiom – however Fosters rightly assessed the situation as one where the majority of the underlying structure and form survived and sensibly enough opted for re-cladding.
If you contact English Heritage’s technical support service they will be able to ‘put you right’ and further clarify the position regarding the stone.
Pedantry apart (and I’m not sure that it is pedantic to try to match materials correctly when carrying out restoration work) the point here is that local stone can be of use (as can any other ‘local’ contextual material) in tying together new and old. I think this is fairly obvious and cannot imagine that any sensible architect would have much difficulty with such a concept.
The situation in Clare Street is somewhat different – the materials used are not characteristic of the street (to the greater detriment of the new museum) – however it is a decent if somewhat brutalist piece of work and will probably ‘weather the storm’ fairly easily.
In fact, in the end of the day my only major quibble (brutality apart) is that perhaps it might have been more sensible to use a lighter cladding material as the exterior feels somewhat ‘ponderous’.
Sorry James, there was indeed a lot of clutter in the BM courtyard around the Round Reading Room – not least the bookstacks of 1857 often referred to as the “iron library”, and later accretions – but “enclosed up to the cornice”? No.
Aerial pictures before the Foster work clearly show the gap around the edges. As do construction site photos as work began, looking across the court, showing the elevations to the courtyard very clearly. Exposed to the elements, and well weathered.
You’ll find these and much else in “Building the British Museum” by Marjorie Caygill and Christopher Date, published by the BM itself.
It’s always best to cross-check what comes out of the Foster publicity machine.
So what do people think now?
I see Shane O’Toole (yesterday Sunday Times) and Frank McDonald (saturday Irish Times) both seemed to like it…I think the interiors look intresting but that they may have succumbed to the same over-designing that weakened their Museum of Scotland scheme in Edinburgh. While the spaces in the Scottish building are undoubtedly impressive, the architects have a tenedency to cover every surface (lift shafts, reception desks as well as principal walls) with these ‘random’ slits and openings. In some cases they frame views and work quite successfully bit they generally give the impression of being far too arbitrary and tend to dilute the overall sense of space by distracting the eye. I see from the photos of the Clare St. extension that these seem to feature porminently again but I hope that they won’t weaken it to the extent that they do in Edinburgh.
……Can’t wait to see the new National Gallery extension and the new Impressionist Exhibition it houses too, all the big guns are there ….Monet, Renoir, etc…..great for the city of Dublin, making us feel that bit more European.
Looks great of the outside, a really lovely thing, I smile every time I see it. I amn’t sure about the red light gantries they have fitted to the front by Clare Lane, are they going to hang banners off them?
bit of a turn around Greg?, was kind of dissapointed to hear Pat Kenny say on Friday’s Late Late (yes apparently i am actually that sad to watch it) that “you’d never know you were in Dublin”, guess it kind of says a lot in a way…I think its a great building, and have no reservations about it standing up against the other georgian buildings on Clare street…i have found myself nearly go out of my way to walk past it recently, and so i reckon that any building that has such an effect on a person (granted its only me, and i’m certainly no expert) is a very worthy extension to the NG.
No U turns here…..I was more or less commenting on the interiors, space, lighting and the exhibition itself….the exterior is still debatable within a Georgian streetscape…..especially when it gets dirty and aged….the newness impact will wear off. I guess it is the spectre of the ESB offices on Fitzwilliam Street that haunts me.
[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 22 January 2002).]
I have just seen it. It looks magnificent on the inside. It is a real surprise to see just how much space there is in the atrium. The space flows very nicely from the entrance to the main staircase, which is very generous in size. The strange geometry of the windows and alcoves is very odd, but not unpleasant. Some of these spaces are functional [for housing brochures, leaflets or as passageways] others seem entirely decorative.
Immediate highlights for me of the building were
1 – The dramatic contrast in apparent scale between the entrance and the inside – it is quite disorienting and surprising to see how big it is inside compared to its appearance from outside on Clare street.
2 – The diagonal walkway near the ceiling. What agreat idea to paint it red !
3 – The staircase – I dunno, I just like it.i have just been to the museum of scotland, and have not yet physically seen the finished gallery yet.
it certainly seems impressive, its architecture a new (confusing, original???) blend of brutalism and PoMo.
but i hope it does not weather as badly as its edinburgh cousin. unlike most of the stone in the city it appears to be going green, detailing gone wrong??? i hope the architects did not apply the same formula in dublin
Cant help thinking we could do without the Georgian Building and ballroom though! – Sorry conservationists
Originally posted by nono:
i have just been to the museum of scotland, and have not yet physically seen the finished gallery yetHeading over myself to Edinburgh over the next few days and going to go see the Museum first and then visit the National Gallery early next week.
Nothing wrong with stone going green – Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire has an amazing “Green Room” where all the internal stonework has gone bright green with algae or whatever.
On the other hand, that’s because of the lack of roof owing to Reformationist zeal. I doubt whether the Museum of Scotland stone was meant to go green. Still, enjoy the happenstance…
You’ve got funny ideas about stone Hugh. The museum of scotland extension is clad in clashac stone, it’s beautiful and very colourful: pink, orange and amber and I can’t imagine that anyone was really hoping it would go green and slimy. I also share BM’s concern way back there about self conscious and overworked detailing of the interior, I find it hard to spot the exhibits in the Edinburgh museum, the building keeps getting in the way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
