Pastiche – The Final Solution?
- This topic has 78 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Here we go again I know, but this time can I ask everyone a specific question, and could as many people as possible reply, or at least try to – please 🙂 Maybe we can find a broadly agreeable position.
This thread obviously relates to pastiche architecture – so, before going any further could we define it as the decent replication of older styles.Pastiche is almost universally decried here, and elsewhere – and I’d go along with criticising widespread use of it.
But traditionally when debate about the issue arises, things tend to get a bit clouded; people get heated about related issues, or may highlight that if such a course of building was pursued by previous generations then architecture would not evolve, or people may point out that the Victorians built new styles in incongruous settings etc.But now that we are in an age where there is a very clear distinction between old and new architecture, could I apply the issue very specifically to Zoe Developments’ infamous Bachelors Walk scheme in Dublin. This terrace of bad pastiche is widely scoffed at, and with good reason – it has poor detailing, appalling ground floor elevations, and less than accurate fenestration etc.
But (and it’s a big one), since the moment these buildings went up, I believe this poor quality of execution has itself been universally used as a facade, a scapegoat, a diversion, to hide the fact that everyone secretly likes them.I think most people, from Mrs Murphy with her Grecian Corpo house, to the enlightened people on this site :), to architects and commentators, all privately love the fact that Georgian Dublin is represented in the very heart of the city – from afar generating a charming vista of bumbling 18th century Dublin.
Even Frank McDonald I believe likes it – throughout his book he points out the architectural failings and the fact that it’s a ‘barracks-like’ scheme of one-bed apartments, and laughs (like everyone likes to in a rather self-satisfied way) at how American tourists think they’re original etc – but like everyone else also, he doesn’t actually address the issue head-on of it being pastiche, i.e how appropriate it is to have such ‘falseness’ in the heart of the city, or conversely, how appropriate a sweeping terrace of modernity would have been along here, how it would have affected the character of the city.I don’t know if this assertion is true or not but it’s always the impression I’ve got from nearly everyone who discusses the issue – I think deep down people like the character generated by these buildings, the setting provided for the Ha’penny Bridge with that quoined corner building with chimney perched atop, and the fact that the nature of Dublin’s architecture and history is reflected in them (again not the design, in which there are countless laughable features)
So, to ask the question (ignoring all issues relating to quality, indeed let’s assume the development was designed by Chambers in 1994), do people genuinely hate what has been created on Bachelors Walk, i.e. pastiche?
Honest answers please. Indeed, could I dare ask people not to refer at all to the architectural quality that prevails – allbeit a major issue, it gets in the way, and avoids the core issue! 🙂 (How contrived is that smilie – it just exudes ‘don’t hurt me’)As to where I stand, frankly I don’t know – always felt rather queasy at such a large scale mock-up being created, esp in such a central location, but then again feel it is partially justified in the knowledge that there’s a couple of real-life Georgians in the mix, and that quite a few prevailed there long before this came along, and the nature of the dev reflects Dublin’s Quays.
If everyone could try to reply it would be great – it would be nice to have opinions ranging from those of architects, engineers, conservationists, the National Trust, and most importantly of course – the public 🙂 Previously, lots of people tended not to comment, perhaps because they’ve no opinion on the issue, in which case maybe you could register that anyway. Considering most members at this stage have laughed at Bachelors Walk, hopefully most people will reply.
Please excuse my audacity – naturally by the very nature of being Irish, being given a direct question is all the more reason not to answer – but if people could I’d appreciate it.
Thanks again
Here’s lots of smilies cause I’m feeling nasty for being so curt 🙂 😉 😀
Graham,
Much of the reason why I have rarely expressed an opinion on pastiche is that there is so little of it around as properly defined, i.e. a slavish adherence to a period idiom. To paraphrase the great chas mcgreevy it really is a case of ‘horses for courses’ when selecting architectural style and most designers will never execute any pastiche works except in the case of fire insurance re-instatements and even then only in the most sensitive of locations.
I take a great pride in being young enough not to know which house in Merrion Square is the replacement after the fire in the 1970’s, it was executed perfectly by someone and rightly so, some locations should never be changed no matter what in terms of style. But I would only put a list of possibly 10 Streetscapes in Dublin where this should be an absolute rule, I would favour that some of the damage done around Mountjoy Square should be the subject of architectural competitions to redesign faithfully in the Georgian style.
I think where a lot of the fog comes into the debate is the level of arcuracy required for a building to be described as pastiche, a lot of stuff around is termed pastiche simply becuase the buildings have brick elevations with granite or imitation detailing. This is a total misdescription: this stuff is designed along these lines not because its designers want a sympathetic design but in many cases becasue it is the cheapest method of construction as second rate tradesmen can be used paid a cut price rate using cheap commodity quality materials.
My own feeling in areas where a mix of building styles exist is that where possible contemporary design should be used, but that three criteria need to be followed.
Firstly the design and material quality need to be high, bearing in mind that ‘modern buildings’ will at some stage be tired looking as fashions change and change again in and out of vogue.
Secondly that a sufficiently large frontage exists for the buildings to make a statement ie at least 6 bays in georgian scale, I think that a lot people would agree that many late victorian and edwadian buildings (high empire) are absolutely fantastic where viewed closely but can often interact very badly with each other, because each needs to attract attention as their defining characteristic.
Thirdly the buildings must respect the scale of the existing streescape at the points where they interact with it.In reality the key to successful property development is the identification of ‘backland development opportunities’ i.e those long gardens which have little or no relevance in a compact modern city. The key in my opinion is to acheive as high a density as possible whilst respecting the streetscape that provides access and the high property value in the first place. I am interested to see what way the KPMG property will go when it is redeveloped shortly, pastiche? a nod and a wink? or a bold modern statement?
In other art forms, pastiche is not such a pejorative term as in architecture. A literary pastiche is just a work ‘in the style of’ another author, and need not be a pale imitation. Indeed what work of art is truly independent of all its predecessors? Plot constructs, literary devices, srchitectural proportions, compositions of form and musical rhythms may all be ‘inspired’ by previous works. If there’s nothing new its fair to deride a work as derivative, but critics more often praise a film or book for drawing on previous classics.
Often the reason given for not creating buildings in a pastiche style is that it is never done quite right and that the skills used to create the originals are now lost. I don’t buy this.
What does anyone think of this super pastiche ‘Regency style’ development in Donnybrook?
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2004/1111/1099561049502_1100112183421.htmlIt’s a good question; was it right to build historic-style facades there or should a contemporary architectural approach have been taken? Would it be done now? What constituted good contemporary infill at the time (early ’90s)? If better quality materials had been used would the scheme be so reviled? Lots of ponderables….
The funny thing is, in comparison to a lot of fake Georgian before and since, a lot of attention was paid to the design of the Bachelor’s Walk scheme (window proportions, subdivision of facades, roof & chimney detail etc.). But the results are still awful; reconstituted stone used for all the “stone†detailing (the hallmark of all cheap nasty urban renewal development) and the façade as a whole looks dead and sterile compared to the genuine historic buildings that begin on the other side of the Ha’penny Bridge (Ormond Qy).
And, funniest of all, the most prominent ‘building’ in the scheme, the one at the corner with Liffey Street, is starting to get PVC Georgian windows on its top floors now!!! (If anyone has a camera to hand could they take a picture of this?) What is the planning enforcement situation here?? Is there an obligation on the owner to keep the original sash windows? Fecked if I know.
Also funny is the nice chunky wooden de Blacam & Meagher shopfront (Coffee Society) inset into the scheme’s crappy plywood traditional-style shopfront on the Liffey Street frontage.
The previous buildings at the west end of Bachelor’s Walk were very charming. Check out this ’60s view from Merchant’s Arch:
Also they gradually stepped down to meet the Ha’penny Bridge (appropriate for a pedestrian bridge 🙂 ). The Zoe thing brings a 5-storey cliff right up to the bridge 🙁 (all the buildings are now demolished except the two with the arrows):
Sorry Graham, I know I didn’t answer the question and I talked about materials and quality when you asked us not to, but, in short, I don’t think there is a yes or no to it. On streets/squares where there are consistent terraces, yes, accurate replica should be used, but on somwhere like the Quays I think it will always be subjective…
I was about to admit to not hating the Bachelor’s Walk scheme – from a suitable distance, it does look Georgian to philistines like myself. Then I was reminded of what it replaced in the above two photographs and changed my mind. Thinking about it – it’s not the pastiche that bothers me really, it’s the destruction of the original buildings.
To separate these conflicting feelings, how many here would like to see the ESB buildings on Fitzwilliam Street demolished and replaced with Batchelor Walk style pastiche? I’m afraid, I’d probably be in favour of it.
Graham
On the whole I dont find pastiche terribly offensive. My main problem with it is defining it…. is building in a traditional style ‘pastiche’ or is it just a term used for poor replicas of previous buildings. I think Batchelors Walk works well enough (although whats behind those facades is the very worst of 1990s planning) although I agree its a bit twee and cheap. Still the atttemp to at least incorporate some variety of elements into the scheme is to be commended. Looking at the 1960s pictures… Im not at all sure what as there before was any better apart from its originality. It certainly doesnt scream ‘centre of a capital city’ to you.On the subject of pastiche (my general understanding of it) check out the new facade of the Thing Mote on Suffolk St. Good God! A ‘replica’ of Donoghues on Merrion Row. Absolutely horrendous. A subject for my thesis: ‘why are planners such gombeens!’
Admittedly, what was there before wasn’t that great Stephen, but it had a sort of higgledy-piggledy charm. I believe the Quays were very lively back then, with loads of book and antique shops, and of course the traffic was nothing like it is today.
Regarding definition of pastiche, I definitely think of pastiche as building in a historical style. I suppose also inherent in the word is that it’s done cheaply, as Frank T. noted. It’s actually fairly rare that previous buildings are replicated (well or badly) apart from the squares etc.
Have you also noticed that new pub on Liffey Street which has done exactly the same thing as Thing Mote – ripped off the paint scheme of Kehoe’s on South Anne St.?
It would be very helpful if somebody could post a picture or two of the zoe scheme as although I am from Dublin and am familliar with the scheme, I could do with having my memory refreshed as I live abroad. Thanks in advance on behalf of the ex pats
Here you go – not the best in showing its context but anyway:
Thanks everyone for your responses, lots of interesting points.
I thought I’d raise Bachelors Walk specifically simply because it’s been annoying me – the fact that there’s a lot of sneering and scoffing at pastiche, particularly Bachelors Walk – not necessarily here, but in the media, by commentators and in other circles – yet I constantly detect an underlying current of not just acceptance, but actual liking for the type of architecture chosen for this site.
I think this development broadly goes to show that pastiche can actually work (the principle, not the buildings extant!)I agree there are many interpretations of pastiche, but broadly there are two decent types, in line with the definition of pastiche for other art forms – one that faithfully uses a style of architecture to create a building that looks of its era – not necessarily for the purpose of making it look 150 years old or whatever, but the end result is generally the same.
The second type is that of using various architectural elements to create a pastiche of styles, such as the Irish Permament on O’Cll St, which varies from colonial to baronial, to neo-classical.The difficulty with using pastiche in locations (the first kind) is that every case is different. But there are still some ground rules that should be adhered to in all cases – rules that actually should restrict the use of pastiche.
At the end of the day what makes our older buildings special to us now (aside form their age) is the fact that they’re not modern, i.e the contrast generated by later building styles. If we do not continue to build in a contemporary fashion, whatever about the impact on that architecture, the buildings of old will suffer in our estimation.I think some of the points you raise Diaspora are those very rules – once you go beyond a certain point in facade scale, proportionate to the location, you have to put your hands up and say contemporary is the only mode.
Likewise, where there is such a jumble in styles of building, contemporary is generally more acceptable.
Fundamentally you must be honest to the location – perhaps ‘true’ is a better word as by definition replica or original pastiche is not honest!
I think the perfect case in point is O’Connell St (now there’s a surprise), where in the morning if possible, I’d knock Penneys and pop in a 20s neo-classical. Likewise with Schuh, some decent granite dressed brick facades, are being cried out for I think.
In these cases I think you are being true to the location, you are consolidaing the character, reinforcing the style of the area. Interestingly as was discussed on the O’Cll St thread, all re-builds on the street are themselves a charade, concrete units dressed up in classical finery.On Upper O’Cll St you have to accept the nature of the damage done, the facades are too large (Fingal & derelict site 10 bays alone, RDH 6 if not 8 bays) to credibly and confidently use pastiche. The huge mixture of styles is such as to further advocate the use of contemporary. I know that’s a departure from what I said before but really, when you get to know the place and appreciate the impact such development would have in what is a location so varied in nature, it would be a wasted opportunity. You would not be ‘true’ to the location, if that’s the word. The contrast between the needs of Upper & Lower O’Cll St I think broadly encapsulates the pastiche ‘issue’.
Devin, those PVCs have been in that corner building for quite a few years. There’s so much irony there it hurts to think about it 😀
Everytime I see that building I think of the RTE drama from 4 years ago ‘Rebel Heart’ set in 1916. One of the opening scenes was the central character running into shot and racing over a deserted Ha’penny Bridge. The corner ‘house’ and terrace were in shot and there was computer generated smoke pouring out of the chimney pots! Another reason to justify the development perhaps? 🙂
The bachelors Walk scheme is interesting on so many levels, not least the ‘cliff-like’ nature of it. It is the Georgian architecture of squares and thoroughfares, not Dublin’s Quays. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing – one could interpret it as the development the WSC never got round to 🙂
Often wondered why this quay wasn’t properly developed; I presume the set-back from the quay at the O’Cll St corner is an indication of what was planned for here.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 façade. 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 doesn’t mean that I don’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 what’s going on inside) could have been incorporated into a more contemporary scheme without creating a ‘look at me’ 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 don’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.The above photo looks really pretty! The inside of this building is pure slum. Long straight narrow corridors like a crap motel, paper thin walls, tiny rooms. I can’t imagine anyone living there who wasn’t a student or an alcoholic or both.
Maybe one day it will be pulled down and the facade kept intact like a prop from a wild west movie, while the rear is converted to something better than a battery farm.
Heh heh – I wouldn’t enter that development if you paid me. Considering Zoe’s recent change of heart, the least they can do is install a Prozac dispenser at every front door.
Irish summer sun makes everything look pretty Frank – everything…:)Modular Man, I think the opposite is the case regarding the design/use aspect of this dev. Rather than the design dictating the interiors, it was in fact much easier to to cloak the crappy accomodation in Georgiana than more contemporary designs.
It is the interiors that govern the external appearance.Must check out the Thing Mote Stephen – not sure I want to though.
On a related point, I have no doubt that if this building had been constructed to a mediocre contemporary design, It would have been derided even more. This is a situation which will happen with the Ormond hotel further down the quays. We simply have to try harder!
The Zoe scheme kept the jagged streetline of the previous buildings as well, such was the effort to be historical.
@Devin wrote:
The Zoe scheme kept the jagged streetline of the previous buildings as well, such was the effort to be historical.
Are you sure they didn’t just forget the chalk line that day??? 😉
ehhhhhhhh, right Rory.
Anyone got a pic of the bit of Zoe scheme towards the Ha’penny bridge end, the more ‘celebrated’ bit?
Nope – had a scour through the ‘archive’, not a thing. Hardly surprising, the only place it appears is in ‘Ireland – The Land of Heart’s Desire’ touristy type publications! (which incidently thinks the Custom House is 19th century and describes Liberty Hall as a skyscaper :))
Should be able to get some pics in a few days.a definition of pastiche might be a work of literature,art or architecture which imitates a historic precedent. the key word here is “imitates”. Pastiche buildings are nothing but stage sets or wallpaper as was said before. intended to be innoffensive and nostalgic. they carry no integrity in themselves and exude an almost sinister apathy. Geogian buildings are born out ideas and technologies contemporary to their time and are, because of this truthful and hence beautiful. these immitations are not only vulgar in themselves, they rape authentic Georgian buildings of their charecter by being allowed to undermine their qualities.
if we had bought into the logic that the charecter of the street should be kept in tact by the imitation of the surroundings we would never see any progression be living in thatch mudhuts and our beloved Georgian squares would never have come into existence. The safegaurd againt destroying a genuinely important georgian streetscape should lie with an educated and ethical planning authority.
if the charecter of an area or streetscape is to be maintained, mindless replication of its neighbours is not the only option. rythm, texture, material presence and other charecteristics are not the sole preserve of one historical era or another. an intelligent architect can, and many have, merge with an historical setting while leaving no doubt as to what time his building is of enriching both the new addition and the historical context. we should be allowing our city to proudly speak of its life. instead, with pastich architecture we confuse our history and coerce our city into becoming a lie.
Pastiche is the refuge of the lazy and inconsiderate unfortunately there is no lack of these qualities around today
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
