Pastiche – The Final Solution?
- This topic has 78 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 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.html -
It’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:
-
-
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.?
-
-
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.
-
-
-
@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??? 😉
-
-
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
-
Hello what?, haven’t seen you in a while 🙂
I agree that pastiche is more suited to other art forms than to architecture in that you can choose to disregard or simply ignore certain genres if you don’t like them, in a way one cannot with architecture. Whatever about one-off projects, building pastiche in urban areas can help define the nature of places, and if so-called ‘theme park’ building is not agreeable to you, and it is used in helping to shape a place you value, it can be hugely offensive, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
With regard to it simply not working as a form I’d have to disagree. The ‘mud-hut arguement’ always crops up, but that is not what is in question here – it is the strictly limited use of pastiche in areas where it may ‘generally’ be considered appropriate – or more to the point, where contemporary would not, in most cases, street terrace infill locations.
It is not about whether contemporary architecture can or cannot imaginatively adapt to a sensitive location, it is not about an apathy with contemporary design, it is not about being nostalgic. The use of pastiche as I see it, would be for the purpose of re-inforcing the character of specific locations (mostly streetscape in-fill) rather than just accepting via convention that an out of place contemporary design must be built.I acknowledge that this is the key point – can you or can you not accept comtemporary architecture amongst older architecture, i.e do you think that modern design is ‘out of place’?
In most cases I totally agree with using contemporary architecture alongside older buildings; the contrast generated can be spectacular and very satisfying, and not just in the case of classical masterpieces etc.
But I think that the ‘pastiche issue’ mostly arises with streetscapes – if an overwhelming majority of an area is of a certain nature, I think this character should be reinforced – in most cases – every situation is different.It really boils down to whether you think you are being patronised by replica buildings. I agree that large scale statements that are false are nothing but wallpaper and are totally unambitious. I can think of the perfect example in Dundalk, where it is still proposed to rebuild from scratch a large 18th/early 19th century Market House on the central square in the town that was demolished in about 1967. If rebuilt, it would involve demolishing the Arts Centre there, for people who know it, and the creation of a proper square to the front, no doubt with heritage lamposts and hanging baskets to match, while the building, complete with limestone arcades to the ground floor and brickwork above (similar to Dublin Castle) would straddle the whole west side of the square.
This is actually a serious proposal – it’s not gaining much momentum though, but not on the architectural merits, but on cost grounds.
This is a blatent example of what gives pastiche a bad name, and generates the apathy with contemporary design argument. -
There is also the factor of time – i.e. – the difference in thinking between 1993, when the Bachelor’s Walk plans were being made up and now, 2005. The idea of modern, contrasting structures in a historic context is much more widely accepted now than it was then.
The accepted approach now is achieve rich contrast between new and old. Materials like glass and steel are used to add sympathetically to historic surroundings.
Though I have to say there’s still oodles of engineer-designed excrement being built everywhere in Ireland. Tax relief deadlines for development just expired there before Christmas and you’d wanna see some of the stuff that’s after coming in here to An Taisce – it’s frightening…hotels, tourist accommodation, nursing homes, multi-storey carparks, equestrian centres – all of it bulky oversized, mansard roof PVC design-free rubbish, and most of it will get built!
-
Thought I’d post these pics of a building that’s an interesting example of what could be considered as decent pastiche – indeed one of the best examples I’ve seen. Ironically it is in Dundalk sited right next to the location for the aforementioned proposed Market House, arguably the worst use for pastiche.
The building pictured is the circa 1900 Ulster Bank located on probably the most prominent site in the town. Can you tell what part of it is original? Well yes it’s pretty obvious as the new materials are crisp and clean but they’ll tone down with time.
When it became necessary to extend the original corner building, rather than add on a contemporary extention, it was decided to remodel the building as a whole by essentially building a mirror image of the original and linking it to the old with a central 2 bay facade.
Hence the 6 left-hand bays are new, while the 4 bay right-hand section is original. The attention to detail is exceptional in the upper floors, the sandstone elements were replicated perfectly – although the new granite down below looks more like cladding than a structural element as the original does. Maybe it just needs to tone down as well. The new sash windows are also perfect – all important 🙂Overall I think it works very well – one may question the design chosen in that it does come across a bit monumental when seen head-on, especially the roof, but otherwise it is a largely successful development and looks particularly fine when seen from a more natural, raking angle.
Also pleased to see discreet red floodlights were chosen for once for nightime illumination 🙂
-
Graham,
I really think that by making the extension of this building appear like a reflection of itself takes away from its strenght on this corner site. If a more original design had been executed that still payed some sort of reference to the original building, the whole street corner would have a far better coherance. What was where the new part is before this was built?
-
this building is exactly what im talking about. after a few years of weathering no one will know the difference between the original and the extension and the lie will be complete. this is worse than a cheap rip off because at least that could have hidden behind the excuse of minimum effort or expense. buildings like this confuse our collective understanding of our urban environments,their history and their story.
as architects we should not aspire to make facile lies concerned only with the creation of a false history. it is damaging.
-
What? I couldn’t agree with you more. Future generations are going to be very confused by our attitudes to our history.
-
Regarding the design of the building I think an enlarged facade here actually reinforces the corner rather than detracts from it.
I value originality as much as the next person but I do ask myself where do you draw the line? As was raised on the UK forum in the past few days – what constitutes ‘old’? How is it acceptable to extend a 1930s building in a sympathetic style but not a 1900 structure? Just raising the question – not sure I know the answer…
-
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Regarding the design of the building I think an enlarged facade here actually reinforces the corner rather than detracts from it.
I can’t see your logic there Graham. By doubling the building the focus shifts from the corner to the central piece of what I assume is now one whole building.
I value originality as much as the next person but I do ask myself where do you draw the line? As was raised on the UK forum in the past few days – what constitutes ‘old’? How is it acceptable to extend a 1930s building in a sympathetic style but not a 1900 structure? Just raising the question – not sure I know the answer…
Do you know of any examples of 1930s buildings that have been extended in a style that is symathetic to the original structure? (I couldn’t find it on the UK forum) In Ireland there are so few example of 1930s stuff left that it is hard to think of them. I personally think this is one of the problems that pastiche brings with it. For example, some good examples of early modern architecture has been destroyed to make way for more ‘traditionally’ sensitive designs. However, to answer your question, I would not agree with an extension of the old Gas building on D’Olier Street being built as a reflection of itself either.
-
@phil wrote:
I can’t see your logic there Graham. By doubling the building the focus shifts from the corner to the central piece of what I assume is now one whole building.
From the perspective of attracting attention directly to the actual corner then yes the original would have been better. But from the viewpoint of consolidating the two streetscapes as a whole I think the enlarged building does a better job.
Regarding 1930s buildings, yes there are very few such examples, let alone decent ones in this country. What I mean by the 1930s is the modern movement as a whole, and how it becomes more acceptable to replicate such architecture when necessary despite being but a handful of years away from classical/traditional architecture where it is considered taboo.
I wouldn’t agree with meddling with the Gas Building or any other landmark or high quality architecture either (not that the Gas building exactly stands up internationally anyway) but the difference in attitudes is marked.I must admit the Dundalk building is not exactly a location that ‘needs’ pastiche and certainly wouldn’t be top of my list of suitable locations. As you can see in the pics, next door there’s a 2-storey developer thrown-up scheme of shops and offices (which is a scadalous use of town centre space, esp when so many people are commuting from vast numbers of estates cropping up all round the town) that just went up before the Ulster Bank extention.
What would have been preferable would to have created a statement piece of contemprary architecture all along here right up to the original bank incorporting its extention – or second best placing it alongside in a similar style. Alas this didn’t happen – it would have created a wonderful contrast with the town’s magnificent couthouse across the way.Because of the circumstances I think the pastiche solution was at least as acceptable as a contemporary piece would have been sandwiched between the crap and the Bank.
-
this is absoloutely not a question of how old is old or being sympathetic to an original building. it is about whether or not pastiche is a valid aproach for architecture. Pastiche architecture mimics original buildings apparently to be in keeping with them whereas it actually undermines the very thing it seeks to “flatter”. it doesnt matter whether the subject of this imitation is a georgian or a 1930s modernist building it is still wrong. to be sensitive does not have to mean replicate, in fact the opposite is more of a truth.
-
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Regarding 1930s buildings, yes there are very few such examples, let alone decent ones in this country. What I mean by the 1930s is the modern movement as a whole, and how it becomes more acceptable to replicate such architecture when necessary despite being but a handful of years away from classical/traditional architecture where it is considered taboo.
Not being a smart ass here Graham, but I don’t know of any examples where a modern building was exactly replicated beside another one. At present, it would seem, that we are too busy destroying our older modernist pieces (or refacading them at least) rather than replicating them. If it came to it though I think I would be quite happy if a pastiche (mirror image) of O’Connell Bridge house were to replace the pastiche of the Ballast House! 😉 🙂
-
I’d largely agree – but not necessarily regarding the ‘undermining’ of the original. I think that is a matter of opinion.
Indeed to take that concept on board is to accept that previous forms of achitecture are dead – they can never be used again, just preserve them in a glass case and move on. I know what you mean though – I cannot think of anything worse than walking down a street knowing that every second building is a ‘fake’. But this will not happen. We have our ‘historic’ areas already, there’s only so many places you can put pastiche even if you wanted to litter the place with it.As I said before, I think street infill locations in particularly sensitive areas are those most suited to pastiche; corner, centre, one-off and any otherwise prominent locations, even in historic locations are generally capable of absorbing contemporary design.
-
I don’t refer specifically to mirror image structres Phil, rather extentions an additions to modern buildings executed the same fashion. As for O’Cll Bridge House – don’t even go there 🙂
Actually I was having a good look at it only this afternoon along the Boardwalk, those upper floors are really growing on me – noooo I’m crumbling! Being sucked into a postmodern, noughties blah blah haze of appreciation for our 60s legacy! 😮 -
@Graham Hickey wrote:
I don’t refer specifically to mirror image structres Phil, rather extentions an additions to modern buildings executed the same fashion. As for O’Cll Bridge House – don’t even go there 🙂
Don’t worry, I know you don’t always use examples of mirror images in your fetish for pastiche, I just thought that given the example you used, the O’Connell Bridge house example would be funny. I also used it because I know how much it winds you up, but you have proved me wrong…. You must be attending MA sessions at this stage (Modernists Anonymous)!! I will leave you to it though, but just be careful, you might start looking across the river in admiration of Liberty Hall! 😮
-
if it doesnt undermine the originals why would you have a sick feeling knowing every second building is fake?
infill, corner ,one off, new town, old village its never ok. -
-
@what? wrote:
if it doesnt undermine the originals why would you have a sick feeling knowing every second building is fake?
There is a line that must be drawn in areas where there are originals I think. Yes by definition of saying there’s a line one implies that pastiche is a negative thing. But if possible a pastiche building should try to be as ‘true’ as possible by replicating a building that was on the site before unless the context has changed and it would be inappropriate.
Otherwise I do see your point – at the same time there is a difference between building most of a street in pastiche and a single infill location.
But yes, I completely acknowledge what your’re saying what? I don’t claim to know the answers – clearly I am not educated in this field, nor am I an architect. I just get frustrated at seeing contemporary arhitecture going up in some sensitive loactions simply by default – the convention of always having to be different.
I don’t think that in all cases you are undermining the older building by pastiche, there is a big distinction to be made between affecting the ‘building’ and affecting the architecture. This is the foundation of the entire pastiche debate. -
@Graham Hickey wrote:
But if possible a pastiche building should try to be as ‘true’ as possible by replicating a building that was on the site before unless the context has changed and it would be inappropriate.
Graham, this is exactly the problem with falseness. To the untrained eye no difference can be told between the older building, or buildings, and the replica. As What? said in an earlier post, as the building ages it become hard to tell them apart in terms of age. The better – if that is right term – the fake is the worse the situation is. It is even more fake because it trying to hide the reality from the viewer.
As Harry Block said in Deconstructing Harry;
“Tradition is the illusion of permanence”
-
@phil wrote:
It is even more fake because it is trying to hide the reality from the viewer
Well this is it isn’t it – who says it’s trying to hide the reality? Depends what way you look at it – is it trying to look like a Victorian, i.e 19th century building, or is it simply using an architectural style? Or is it a combination of the two? Is it implied in pastiche that your’re trying to fool someone as to its age?
I like the Harry Block quote – Philip Schlesinger wrote a lot on this topic. It’s a real Liveline favourite with the cranks – tradition in a large part is indeed illusion, and peddled by those dependant upon the maintainance of the status quo.
Proper use of pastiche as I’d see it though would not be necessarily dependant upon ‘tradition’ though – but where there’s a suitable precendent for pastiche it tends to inject it with increased credibility.
It’s intersting – I’ve often pointed out that Ulster Bank people to people and they’ve always said the same things – really? that’s brand new? I never even noticed. What a decent job. how sympathetic etc.
Although yes I shouldn’t be using this as an arguement as these are also the picket-fence brigade (dare I say ‘the public’) who also favour lots of other unmentionable Archiseek-loved goodies 🙂 -
@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s intersting – I’ve often pointed out that Ulster Bank people to people and they’ve always said the same things – really? that’s brand new? I never even noticed. What a decent job. how sympathetic etc.
My point exactly! 😉
-
I know! *said in an exceptionally irritating Monica-from-Friends like way*
But is what is wrong with that? How can it be acceptable to add a major classical addition to Leinster House for example (again), but not to build in an historic fashion on a street location? Again I’m just wondering. Do we attach greater significance to more everyday locations? Is there a difference because we deem street locations to be representative of how we express ourselves architecturally on a broader level and hence shouldn’t be interfered with, whilst something like Leinster House or countless other similar projects are one-off for-the-good-of-the-national image schemes?
Regarding tradition, this quote (plucked from Paul’s thesis :)) by Gropius does sum up well how buildings should be treated:
“Respect for tradition does not mean the complacent toleration of elements which have been a matter of fortuitous chance or of individual eccentricity nor does it mean the acceptation of domination by bygone aesthetic forms.”But in my view this does not mean that all previous forms of architecture in every instance must be disregarded. Indeed to be honest I’m genuinely not a fan of pastiche in most cases. The use of the form by people building houses, often quite credible historically, I find frustratingly unambitious. For the most part I cannot stand those whitewashed houses all over the West, even in locations suited to development so insisted upon by planners to be ‘in keeping’ with the area.
They are so predicable as to make you dispair. The lack of contempoary design in standard, everyday locations and situations is a crying shame.
I think if the opposite was the case regarding the current state of affairs, i.e if the majority of what was built in the country was contemporary in nature, pastiche in certain locations would be more acceptable.
We’re undergoing a heritage blitz at the moment which doesn’t help at all.But from what your’re saying Phil and what? presumably regardless of trends pastiche is just not acceptable to you by definition…
-
-
@Graham Hickey wrote:
But in my view this does not mean that all previous forms of architecture in every instance must be disregarded. Indeed to be honest I’m genuinely not a fan of pastiche in most cases
There is a big difference between respecting older forms, and directly copying them.
-
quote “the picket-fence brigade (dare I say ‘the public’)” Graham, you raise here what is probably the more fundamental argument underlying this discussion. Should architects aspire to build what the general public would overwhelmingly seem to want ( i.e. pander to public opinion) or, do they take the stance that they are the educated experts in the built enviroment and give the public what they think is the best form of architecture (which is often at odds with what the general public feel they want).
do the public know whats best for them, or are they just not as educated in this field as architects and hence unable to see the possibilities?
-
Indeed. This has been a big issue since the beginning of time; wasn’t it highlighted by a survey that resulted in architects’ favourite buildings being the ones most hated by the public?
What the public at large like is not by any means the best gauge of architectural quality! (difficult to say that without being snobby – and as if I’m in a position to comment…)But to go back to the point about ‘respecting older forms’ – again one must differentiate between the ‘form’, i.e the architecture, and ‘the building’, i.e ‘a Georgian’, ‘a Victorian’ which are almost living embodiments of their time.
From an architectural perspective I would argue that pastiche is being totally respectful of older forms. The problem arises with the ‘truth’ of the building.
And even then there’s a blurring of lines between these two if one considers architecture as being much more than just an aesthetic art. -
Some thoughts on the discussion:
I think the main issue with the Dundalk bank is the alteration of its form – it is not now the building its designer conceived – he/she might be pissed off with what’s been done were they around today. The Venice Charter says additions and extensions to historic buildings should be clearly identifiable and of their time, and this is probably what should have been done with the bank. Banks tend to go for accurate replications cos they have the money to do it ‘well’ – there’s a bank there on College Green which replicated a stone doorcase some years ago – tut, tut.
I don’t agree that absolutely nowhere should fake ever be built. Take Mountjoy Square – yes, wretched that the originals were gone, but you simply couldn’t have built any other type of facades there if you wanted to reinstate the square.
But nowhere else really outside of that (uniform streets/squares that are mostly intact) should fake old buildings be tolerated.
Contemporary architecture in a historical setting doesn’t have to mean strong visual contrast. The Shay Cleary office block on Dawson Street is a superb example of a low-key modern insertion into a historic street.
Likewise, some of the better one-off houses in the countryside are contemporary interpretations of the vernacular.
Phil, have you seen the exhibition room in the new Architectural Archive? Desmond Fitzgerald’s original drawing of the twin O’Connell Bridge Houses on the D’Olier/Westm. Sts. quay corners is prominently displayed. Whatever can be said for O’Connell Br. Hse’s other qualities, the symmetry in this drawing is certainly more satisfying than the current situation.
-
@Devin wrote:
Phil, have you seen the exhibition room in the new Architectural Archive? Desmond Fitzgerald’s original drawing of the twin O’Connell Bridge Houses on the D’Olier/Westm. Sts. quay corners is prominently displayed. Whatever can be said for O’Connell Br. Hse’s other qualities, the symmetry in this drawing is certainly more satisfying than the current situation.
I havent seen it yet, but I will definitely go and have a look. That has always been why I would have preferred it to the present state.
Thanks,
Phil
-
It’s interesting to consider the current Ballast House; whereas it’s pastiche, and not great either, I’m not sure most people would want to see it go! It’s a tricky one as the ‘historic’ nature of it does help define the character of the city centre and it is a bridge to the past of sorts. Yet having a large pastiche on one of the most prominent sites in the entire city is decidedly dubious at best.
From an objective perspective it’d be knocked in the morning, yet with its history and in the context of what happened to the city at large it does stand as something of a ‘fond’ – if that’s the word – reminder of water under the bridge, similar to O’Cll Bridge House in a way…I agree Devin that contemporary design is more than capable of complementing streetscapes and neighbouring buildings – Stephen Court being one of the best in the city to use a well worn example – not to mention rather good in its own right.
Such ‘low-key’ design can be highly effective, albeit rarely executed. Again to stress, pastiche should not be thrown all over the place – I’m constantly hearing people talking about proposed new developments next to older ones and saying ‘God I hope they use an older style – make it fit in you know’ ‘Ah yes make it nice and traditional – in the old way yknow’ etc – and you’d just cringe at the lack of interest in modern design.I always think of pastiche as being something nice that you’re not allowed have – just like the Dundalk bank you do feel a degree of moral indignation yet at the same time feel like stamping your foot like a child – ‘but look at it, it’s nice, I want it!’
It’s funny, often thought of being interested in architecture and then looking at pastiche and liking it is akin to being a child in the 50s ‘having bad thoughts’. 😀
20 Hail Marys it is then – I’m so ashamed 🙁 -
So here is an example: the posh plant shop on harcourt street by the green has closed: probably the evil luas killed it by making the property too valuable, so there is a planning application on it now, 6 story extension to the hotel next door. Its hard not to think that this building was once part of the terrance and the appearance of the street, but not the logic or integrity of the new building, would be best served by putting up a pastiche facade with whatever modern behind; that way it will match most of harcourt street on both counts.
-
Its a tricky one down there as all the buildings that surround it have brick elevations, if you look at the Westin where a geometric design was used that was half 1930’s and half contemporary it proves the point that it is a lot easier to work contemporary designs into clusters of stone facades than brick. The Stephens Green Hotel itself is a bit of a horror storey, its not too bad at ground level but look at how each storey gets progressively cheaper and nastier as it goes up. Pastiche brick from this gang is a huge improvement.
-
Often wondered why that posh plant place stayed open there given the value of the site – it’s only a shed!
I’d have to see the location to comment, but if the site adjoins the hotel, there’s no reason why anything but a contemporary building go up: at a corner, and adjoining another modern building.
But I don’t think it is next to it – isn’t there a couple of Georgians next door (with particularly bad grey-painted replica sashes)?
Think one of them has a famous-person-lived-here plaque too…If a replica house helped to esablish the nature of Harcourt Street from this crucial introductory point of what is the city’s most picturesque and most complete in form of Georgian streets, helping to reinforce the streetscape then yes, I for one would advocate a replica…
-
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Often wondered why that posh plant place stayed open there given the value of the site – it’s only a shed!
I’d have to see the location to comment, but if the site adjoins the hotel, there’s no reason why anything but a contemporary building go up: at a corner, and adjoining another modern building.
But I don’t think it is next to it – isn’t there a couple of Georgians next door (with particularly bad grey-painted replica sashes)?
Think one of them has a famous-person-lived-here plaque too…If a replica house helped to esablish the nature of Harcourt Street from this crucial introductory point of what is the city’s most picturesque and most complete in form of Georgian streets, helping to reinforce the streetscape then yes, I for one would advocate a replica…
There are a few Georgians in between of which at least one was extensively renovated with a lot of additions to the joinery this one is one of the bars in the hotel, the house was occupied by Roger Casements fellow student Edward Carson.
I agree a well executed pastiche would be acceptable at this location
-
-
-
Hmmm…
Thought you might find this picture interesting Phil. You were quite correct in your belief that the Dundalk bank acted as a signature building on that important corner site.
Though I’d argue that as the neighbouring buildings have since been redeveloped to the same height as the bank, if not taller, it no longer holds the same status (of course still being significant).Certainly it made an impressive impact in its day:
-
Thanks for that Graham. That is a nice photo. It looks in really nice condition
-
The picture also shows that the principal front of the original was to the right (sorry, don’t know the area so don’t know the orientation or street names), whereas following the extension the impression now given is that the old front has become the side elevation. I know the Georgian tradition of planarity and the hierarchical arrangement of streets had waned significantly by the time this bank was built, but vestiges of it remained as the picture shows. These vestiges have now been destroyed, reinforcing the point made earlier that the issue of pastiche is often related to the wider context rather than simply to the individual structure and the merits of pastiche extension.
On a related point earlier in this thread, someone (phil? Graham?) asked about modern buildings being replicated- the only case I can think of is the cheap knock off of the Lisney building on SSGreen. I wouldn’t be a huge fan of the STW original, but the derivative sister is a sham.
-
@ctesiphon wrote:
the issue of pastiche is often related to the wider context rather than simply to the individual structure and the merits of pastiche extension.
Certainly I’d agree on that – all aspects must be considered. Though I think in the Dundalk case that the principal elevation of the original would be the left-hand 4-bay façade with central feature window. This is also the elevation that faces onto the Square, and is the larger of the two.
Presumably the aim in ‘pastiching’ the building was to extend this principal façade in a fashion as to reinforce this side of the building’s status, facing out into the town…(the pic is from the National Library online collection)
Agreed about St. Stephen’s Green – anyone have a picture of when the original was still green in colour?
-
I’ll defer to your local knowledge, Graham, on the principal elevation, while pointing out that the right-hand elevation seems to be the one housing the doorway, i.e. would be considered to be the ‘entrance front’. And ‘larger’ doesn’t always mean more important. In fact, the NLI (Lawrence?) pic shows what appears to be a subsidiary structure abutting the main building to the left (rere/side?), which was partly what suggested my reading of the hierarchy.
Could we both be right? How tragic would that be…? 🙂
-
Entirely possible 🙂
Bigger most certainly does not imply a greater importance, and not necessarily more ornamentation either.
The entrance front as you say ctesiphon is the right-hand side, but what must be considered here is, well, the whole point of this part of the thread – the fact that it’s a corner building! There isn’t necessarily any primary facade!I suppose the question is best resolved when considering the architecture of great country houses, where the northern elevation was usually the principal front, while the ususally termed ‘garden front’, despite being secondary in status, was often the more elaborate, or visually pleasing of the two – more ‘playful’ if that can be said, in contrast to the severe architecture of the other side of the building.
The left-hand side of the Ulster Bank does have that slightly more relaxed element to it, in deference to the regimented order of the Clanbrassil St facade: something of a garden front appearance that aims to present a less formal front to the main square of the town.
-
@ctesiphon wrote:
On a related point earlier in this thread, someone (phil? Graham?) asked about modern buildings being replicated- the only case I can think of is the cheap knock off of the Lisney building on SSGreen. I wouldn’t be a huge fan of the STW original, but the derivative sister is a sham.
ctesiphon, do you by any chance know who designed the copy? I assume that the STW one was more Tallon than Scott or Walker.
-
-
Attn. pastiche fans!
This picture appeared in the paper a while ago, when Tralee councillors wanted to delist the rear annex of a Georgian house on Denny Street in the town (above), so as it could be redeveloped. The annex is a bit unusual, with large Wyatt windows. Its smaller scale is appropriate to the side street off the main Georgian street.
Denny Street is Tralee’s most architecturally important street, a formal mall terminated at one end by a fine 1920s sandstone town hall-type building and opening at the other end into Tralee town park. See circa 1940s picture of the street here:
http://www.askaboutireland.ie/show_asset.do?asset_id=3751
Anyway the annex was delisted and here’s the resulting planning application (Ref. 05/6992):
-
-
-
That is a dreadful proposal that would make the Zoe facades on Bachelors Walk Dublin 1 look good. The roof elevation and complete failure to replicate the existing building lines are particularly crude. The use of a white finish at ground floor level will attract unsightly graffiti at an early stage and is poorly considered. But above all else this proposal failed to respect architectural diversity through eliminating what is an unusual and very interesting annex that should have been preserved.
-
Speaking of pastiche, does anyone know what the infill building on Parnell Square is to look like? The back parts of the building are almost complete and the foundations have been fully prepared for the main part of the building.
-
-
-
Well starting at the begining the annex should not have had its preservation removed in this manner, as such this is a hypothetical discussion. If you look at the image for this proposal it is blatently clear that the tallest storey has not been set back as one would have expected if this were an application on a cleared site. The point I was making was about overall height which is actually higher than the front buildings and completely destroys the effect of the very fine chimney stack.
The second area where the building lines have been breached is in relation to the alignment of the windows, which are completely at odds with the existing buildings. Perhaps if one was talking about a cleared site one may condider that an additional floor lower should be sought, for certain this application shouldn’t be in the position it is in due to political influence being used.
-
Why is it that modern-day Georgianistas must build to intimidate original Georgian development?!
It’s as if they’re saying ‘this is how it’s done’ – ‘you could learn a thing or two from us’ :rolleyes:Yes – aside from the fact that the unusual annex should not have been delisted in the first instance, aside from pastiche not being needed here, and aside from the scale of the proposed development – the design is utterly woeful!
Look at the ground floor there, it’s like an 1800 row of tiny fishermen’s cottages on a dirty little lane that have had pediments tacked on, and oh, four storeys piled up on top.The proportions, both in themselves and in relation to the area are so way off the scale it looks like a joke.
And why do developers always insist on using British Georgian over here too?! Mansard roofs indeed…
(though yes you see the odd one down south) -
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Is the Parnell Square site being filled in at last?!
Yeah, as I say, it looks like it. I would love to see the design proposal for it.
-
This is an example of bad pastiche: wrong period, poor execution, clearly mismatched windows and floor levels. this is hardly an argument against pastiche, just an argument against doing things badly. In our brains the concepts of ‘copy’ and ‘imitation’ are closely linked with ‘cheap’ and ‘pale’. Other words like ‘forgery’, ‘ripoff’ and ‘counterfeit’ inhabit the same neural nieghbourhood.
What if the developer had specified a very good continuation of the original buildings, the diference only discernible to the expert eye, or easily discernible but pleasing nonetheless? What if there were no deceit in this extension, if the year of construction, 2005, were clearly engraved on a keystone?
In this case, it looks like the commercial imperative to squeeze in two extra floors was stronger than the local planning guidelines.
-
@Frank Taylor wrote:
this is hardly an argument against pastiche, just an argument against doing things badly.
Yes. I deliberately left out the adjectives in the first post, but it is one of the most shockingly bad proposals in every way that I’ve ever seen.
-
Were there any architects involved in its ‘design’?
-
@phil wrote:
Were there any architects involved in its ‘design’?
Firm: Brendan Williams & Associates Architects [no professional qualifications shown], Market Place, Maine Street, Tralee
Client: Ned & James O’Shea, Business Centre, Rock Street, Tralee
-
@Devin wrote:
Firm: Brendan Williams & Associates Architects [no professional qualifications shown], Market Place, Maine Street, Tralee
Client: Ned & James O’Shea, Business Centre, Rock Street, Tralee
Thanks for that Devin.
It may sound bad of me to say, but I hope that the architect is not actually qualified. It would be very upsetting to finish 5 years of study and end up producing things like that. -
@phil wrote:
It would be very upsetting to finish 5 years of study and end up producing things like that.
lol – funny use of words.
Visions of young architects with heads in hands crying at their desks with reams of drawings of mini-pediments and underscaled porticos spread out in front – mourning the dashed hopes of bright and successful futures outside the world of the pastiche brigade 😀
-
I have just read through the entire thread and found it very interesting.
I think that common sense will often dictate where facade retention (or pastiche) is appropriate. I do not see either term as pejorative.
The issue of ‘experts’ designing for experts interests me i.e. the idea that the preference of the general public is not important (except as something which should be changed – presumably by (re)education?).
Do I perceive a ‘collegiality’ in the forum – a (cosy?) consensus? An assumed superiority even? (or is it just that I’m from the northside) 😀
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
