Pastiche – The Final Solution?
- This topic has 78 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
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…
Anyone catch the documentary on Saturday night about Edinburgh Castle by Jonathan Meade? He dismssed the fretting over the subject of pastiche in relation to buildings near the castle by talking about a Jewish restaurant owner he knows in Rome who serves prosciutto – because he likes it.
P.;
@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
Arthur Gibney’s firm signed off the application. They’ve done a couple of pastiches in their time haven’t they?
Although I see the building planned is six stories (don’t know if that’s over basement or not) either way its taller than the Harcourt Street Buildings so I wonder is it a bit of pastiche after all???
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
