The work of E. W. Pugin
- This topic has 159 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
@publicrealm wrote:
I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points – but I am intrigued by the above quote.
Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure’?
For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?
He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example – I would not share his ‘belief ‘but is his belief not akin to the ‘liturgical preference’ above?
(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)
The Illium Properties case is more interesting than Cobh Cathedral as the conservation issues are not overlain by obscure and largely irrelevant liturgical arguments.
The Inspector’s Report on PL 29S.131528 took the view that while the works were more charaeristic of a Palladian style villa rather than a Georgian period townhouse “they constitute an expression of individual aesthetic taste which, given the ‘private dwelling’ nature of this protected structure and the reversibility inherent in their application as decorative features, can reasonably be described as acceptable interventions”
This seems to imply that if the protected structure is your private dwelling you are entitled to modify the interior in accordance with your personal taste provided the works are reversible.
The only one who mentioned this case in relation to Cobh Cathedral was McCutcheon and Mulcahy. Are we there again?
@Praxiteles wrote:
The only one who mentioned this case in relation to Cobh Cathedral was McCutcheon and Mulcahy. Are we there again?
Semper argumentum ad hominem!
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
There you said it – once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community. That says it all. What was proposed in Cobh was not in accordance with the rules of the community, ie the Universal Catholic Church.
What constitutes a ‘religious community’. Can it be possible that you think that a bishop – any bishop – along with a few of his clerical friends constitutes a religious community? Where does that leave the other 90% of people in Cobh in your reckoning?I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.
@Sirius wrote:
I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.
In the first place this is not a question of Faith or Morals. If it were those who make up FOSCC and the vast majority of the parishioners in Cobh wouldn’t have opposed their Bishop.
A short history of what happened in Cobh.1992 Restoration project set up – Cobh Parish has to date contributed €1.3 million to this project – on third of the total – this was the percentage Cobh Parish contriuted to the building of the Cathedral. The population of Cobh is c. 1/13 of the population of the Diocese, therefore the people of Cobh have per head contributed vastly more that those in the other parishes of the Diocese, naturally as this is their parish church. c.18,000 people in the Diocese outside Cobh signed the petition against the changes to the Cathedral.
1998 re-rodering was first announced to the people, even though some tried to say that this had been included in the original Restoration Project as presented to the people – it was not. The basic plan of extending the sanctuary, removing the altar rails (less radical than the eventual plan) and intrucing new cathedra, chair, altar and ambo. The people objected. Everyone agreed that a new altar should be put in place of the present temporary altar, but the rest was unnecessary as people saw it. This is still the situation.
Numerous promises were made to come back to the people with the eventual final plan, this did not happen. On 18th July 2005 plans were submitted to Cobh Town Council for planning permission. That same evening saw the first of the “consultations” with the people, in other words the people were faced with a fait accompli.
At no time since 1992 have any of those behind the project attempted to explain to people “WHY”.
If you go into Cobh today and talk to people about their Cathedral, that is the one question that will come up again and again – Why? No effort was made in Midleton to answer this question.Finally and most importantly this is not a case of ‘disobedience’ to the lawful authority of the Church. At no time have people been instructed to stop opposing the changes. And there has been no consultation with the Roman Curia on this matter, other than by the people themselves. Had the document ‘Liturgical Requirement’ which accompanied the planning application, been submitted and approved by Rome then FOSCC and the people of Cobh would have found it very difficult to oppose further.
It must have been very embarrassing for poor bishop McGhee sitting thre at the the Oral Hearing in Midleton and having to listen to the evidence being produced that made it more than clear that there were discrepencies in what he had been telling various people:
– in making a solemn promise that he would come back to the people fo Cobh BEFORE submitting any plans for the Cathedral which has never been honoured.
– stating in a letter to the FOSCC in April 2004 that NO plans EXISTED for the Cathedral when in another letter to Rome in October 2003 he announced that plans had been FINALISED. As it turned out, the plans had been completed on 23 June 2003.
– trying to suggest that a public consultation had taken place on the mad-hatter scheme of Professor Cathal O’Neill when in fact the public were not shown the plans until AFTER they had been submitted and at a point when no suggestions could have been taken on board.
What are we to call all of this in ordianry terms: mendaciousness.
It is peraps just as well that he has made no further statements on the Cobh Cathedral debacle since the publication of the ABP ruling. Had he done so, could have been believed?
@Bruges wrote:
This seems to imply that if the protected structure is your private dwelling you are entitled to modify the interior in accordance with your personal taste provided the works are reversible.
Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.
I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable – i.e. that certain very limited expressions of ‘personal taste’ may be permissible (provided they are reversible).
Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista – might as well scrap the record of PS’s and be done with it.
(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn’t yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) 🙂
@publicrealm wrote:
Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.
I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable – i.e. that certain very limited expressions of ‘personal taste’ may be permissible (provided they are reversible).
Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista – might as well scrap the record of PS’s and be done with it.
(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn’t yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) 🙂
The principle behind the Illium decision would appear to be that the designation of the INTERIOR of a private dwelling as a protected structure should not unduly restrict the right of the family to arrange the layout of the interior to suit their domestic requirements. It would be unreasonable to insist that just because a family lives in a protected structure they must consult with Ian Lumley and Dr. Freddie O Dwyer when they want to rearrange the furniture.
It is important however not to read too much into the Illium decision. Mr Desmond was in an unusually strong position as he already had planning permission by default as a result of a spectacular own goal by the Dublin City Council planners and conservation officers. In deciding to grant permission under PL 29S.131528 the Board was not comparing the proposal with a do nothing scenario but rather with the scheme which was already been deemed to be permitted by the High Court judgement of O’Leary J. in October 2004.
@publicrealm wrote:
Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.
I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable – i.e. that certain very limited expressions of ‘personal taste’ may be permissible (provided they are reversible).
Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista – might as well scrap the record of PS’s and be done with it.
(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn’t yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) 🙂
Scrapping the list of PSs is exactly what would have ensued in the wake of the CObh Case had the personal preferences of the Trustees been acccpted by ABP.
@Sirius wrote:
For the education of Gianlorenzo:
The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door opeThe following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady ChapelThere was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the applicationHere endeth the lesson
Been away for awhile.
Sirius – do you imagine that these are original proposals? They are now in the domain of the mundane.
Do not be surprised that the parishioners in Monkstown are not objecting. They have been lied to, and have in their innocence accepted the word of their priest and the so-called architectural and liturgical experts.
What is happening in Monkstown is a scandal and in years to come people ( including architects) will ask ” How was this allowed to happen”?I would like to know if you have any information/photos/records about EWP’s work on Our Lady and St Hubert’s church in Great Harwood, Lancashire.
I have recently been in touch with a descendant of James Lomax who provided the funds to build the church.
Thanks!
The Church was designed by Edward Welby Pugin, son of Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin famous for his work on the Houses of Parliament. Pugin senior died at an early age and his work was continued by Pugin Junior who completed his fathers commissions and went on to become internationally famous in his own right.
Is there any way to confirm that the church in Great Harwood was actually designed by AWNP?
@gh78 wrote:
I would like to know if you have any information/photos/records about EWP’s work on Our Lady and St Hubert’s church in Great Harwood, Lancashire.
I have recently been in touch with a descendant of James Lomax who provided the funds to build the church.
Thanks!
Some news regarding Gorton monastery & the high altar:
Hello, I am wondering if you or anyone subscribing could possibly help me? I am desperately looking for any information/drawings/plans, etc, regarding a small Private Chapel in Euxton Lancs that has been confirmed as being designed by E W Pugin. The chapel concerned is within the grounds of Euxton Hall and was commissioned by the Andertons who owned the estate at the time. It is a miniture (sisiter church) to the nearby St Mary’s Church and was re-built at the same time (1865-1866). The Chapel has many typical Pugin architectural features, Maw and co floor tiles similar to those in Westminster, and also a beautiful Hardman stained glass window. Any information would be much appreciated.
The Pugin Society may be able to help here:
@sangallo wrote:
I have already posted some information about All Saints Church, Barton-upon-Irwell, on the “reordering and destruction” thread. Here is some more information from English heritage on this great E.W. Pugin church, which is on the Grade I heritage list.
Roman Catholic church. 1867-8. By E. W. Pugin. Rock-faced stone with slate roof. Nave, aisles, west bell turret, apsidal chancel with north chapel. Gothic Revival. 8-bay nave and aisles with weathered plinth, weathered buttresses and gabled porch. Each bay has a 2-light plate tracery aisle window with hoodmoulds and sill band and 2-light Geometrical tracery clerestory windows with continuous hoodmould. Steep roof with coped gables and pierced ridge tiles. West rose window above arcade of pointed lights and arched doorway all flanked by bold weathered and gableted buttresses. 4-bay polygonal chancel with 2-light plate tracery windows in each bay below a series of coped gables. Grotesque gargoyles. The 3 x 1 bay side chapel has a steep hipped roof and similar gables above each bay which interrupt a parapet with pierced quatrefoils. Interior: arcade arches, piers and chancel arches all in banded pink and yellow stone. Well carved foliage capitals. Lofty scissor-braced roof structure springing from angel corbels. Rib-vaulted chancel lavishly gilded. Elaborately carved stone altar and reredos. Good wall paintings, one showing E. W. Pugin with a plan of the church. Timber pews. Stained glass. A notably complete and unspoiled example of E. W. Pugin’s work, said to be his best.
I don’t know if All Saints’ is E. W. Pugin’s best work – I am inclined to think it is St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh – but it certainly ranks well up there with Dadizele Basilica and Gorton Monastery. But readers of this posting may have different opinions on this.
Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find a photo of the interior, but here is another photograph of the exterior:
You may be interested in this old postcard of the interior of the Irwell church
Time Team Special about the restoration of his (AW Pugin) house? Interesting enough although suffered from the usual problem of repeating the same point 4 or 5 times (in case you forget) – which tends to be a real annoyance in documentaries these days
From The Economist
God’s Architect: Pugin and the Building of Romantic Britain
By Rosemary Hill Allen Lane; 416 pages; £30
Gothic’s moral superiority
Aug 9th 2007A marvellous biography of the architect who built glorious cathedrals—and filled Britain with buildings that vaguely resembled medieval monasteries
ONE of Augustus Pugin’s many jobs in his teenage years was to scurry around the rafters at Covent Garden, pulling on ropes to produce the extravagant illusions that the theatre-goers below were so fond of. It was dangerous work, high up in the dark and with heavy flats moving at high speed. There were dangers after the show was over too. In early 19th-century London, prostitutes used the empty boxes for business and the air of licence that came with the theatre appears to have got to anyone who hung around it.
This was not the place for the pampered son of a French artist, whose hazy origins hinted at aristocracy and the guillotine and a well-born mother whose income never quite matched her status. Pugin was headstrong, though, and his parents were too delighted with their son to ban him from the opera house. The attic of their Bloomsbury house was converted into a model theatre, complete with special effects, where Pugin could play at producing dramas in light and shade.
The first three decades of his life were lived at a pace that makes other prodigies look like slouches. He drew his first commission for King George IV, a design for a gothic sideboard for Windsor castle, at the age of 15. While still a teenager, he painted architectural theatre sets and assisted his father in the production of architectural illustrations. With the money he got, he decided to buy a house. His father vetoed this idea, so Pugin bought a boat which he sailed up and down the Thames. By 20 he was married and a father.
Then came the deaths. Anne, Pugin’s wife, died shortly after childbirth. A year later his doting parents, whose support had freed him, were dead too. His inheritances were enough money to build his own house on a plot of land near Salisbury and, more to the point, a gothic imagination that peopled his dreams with ghosts and sleepwalkers, and his waking with strainer arches and coloured glass.
Despite Pugin’s brilliance, this was not an obvious recipe for success. Happily, though, his adulthood coincided with changes in 19th-century Britain that made his peculiar talents fashionable. The flouncy Regency era, symbolised by John Nash’s Brighton pavilion (where, Rosemary Hill writes, “the Prince and his guests sat down, in a building that looked like a giant pudding, to enjoy puddings that looked like little buildings”), was passing away, to be replaced by a more purposeful early Victorian age. The landscape was changing fast too, as people moved from the land to the squalor of the cities. There were many critics who objected to the pace and results of industrialisation and thus were receptive to the feelings of romance, piety and nostalgia that the gothic style produced in its admirers.
Pugin built and built: cathedrals, churches, schools, stations, there was no limit to it. He backed his style with a polemical assault on his architectural foes. To those who thought his gothicism backward, he pointed out that classical architecture was not only older but more foreign than his beloved gothic. Gothic also had a moral claim to superiority. This was not just because it was in vogue before the Reformation, which Pugin, who converted to Catholicism, identified as the beginning of the end. Gothic also invoked the spirit of the medieval monastery where a softer charity had prevailed, unlike the kind in those ghastly new workhouses.
Some of the arguments Pugin made in favour of purity of style and against frippery would be turned on him later by the pioneers of modern architecture, who thought the gothic revival looked ridiculous. His ideas were also taken up by John Ruskin, and used against him. But the decline of Pugin’s reputation was well under way during his own lifetime. Being “architect to one grate or one fireplace is worse than keeping a fish stall,” he complained when commissions for buildings dried up, to be replaced by bits of interior design.
Pugin’s career ended at the age of 40, when he lost his mind. He was admitted to Bethlem hospital in Southwark, opposite one of his greatest buildings, St George’s cathedral, taken home and died within the year. In this excellent book, the author suggests that Pugin had caught syphilis when he was a teenager working in the theatre where he first fell for the light, shade and drama of architecture.Gorton Monastery wins top property honour
By Chris Barry – Editor
THE restoration of Gorton Monastery, the stunning 19th Century former friary in east Manchester, has been named the top North West building project at the property sector’s annual awards.
The Monastery – one of the finest examples of High Victorian Gothic architecture in the world – which has been saved from ruin by a £6.5m restoration, was crowned Project of The Year by judges at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ 2009 awards.Seven other projects were awarded prizes at the awards evening held at the City of Manchester Stadium, where the North West’s most impressive buildings and property schemes were commended.
Widely regarded as the region’s property ‘Oscars’, the awards recognise and celebrate inspirational initiatives and developments in land, property, construction and the environment.
The categories included; building conservation, commercial, community benefit, design and innovation, regeneration, residential, sustainability and tourism and leisure.
Gorton Monastery won the overall Project of the Year accolade – the top-rated award presented to a nominee that excelled across all eight categories and above all other submissions.
The Monastery, once listed as one of the top 100 endangered sites in the world, was awarded the honour for its outstanding entry which scooped the building conservation award. The £6.5m restoration project is now a tourist attraction and also hosts corporate events and weddings.
Other winners on the night were the Liverpool One shopping centre, which won in two categories, and Edge Hill University in Lancashire claimed the award for sustainability. All the winners will be entered into the national RICS awards later this year, where they will compete against building projects from across the UK.
RICS chairman of the judging panel, Andrew Kellaway said: “We have seen some truly inspirational projects this evening, which proves that property professionals across the North West are still showing their innovation, creativity and commitment to sustaining and improving the property landscape.â€
Mr Kellaway concluded: “The awards symbolise excellence in the North West property and construction sector and provide an invaluable opportunity for the region to celebrate and showcase its exceptional projects. There is some fantastic work being done which deserves to be championed and celebrated.â€
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
