Pastiche – The Final Solution?

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.

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 🙂

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…

@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.

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! 😮

@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.

@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 🙂