Prince Charles and the SPAB...

[Lime]

This is what I question.

SPAB
Only as a practical expedient on a small scale can a case for restoration be argued

The passing of time damages a building's detail and we are left with a shadowy smear of what was once sharp and clear.

I think of the pyramids and sphinx.
Do I wish to see them as maintained sad reflections of what they once were or would I prefer them (if it were possible) in their original glory?
I know my preference, and similarly with old buildings.
If a part can be fabricated as an exact copy of the original structure then I'm all for it.

I want to see what a building or monument looked like when first built, not what time and/or the well-intentioned deem old buildings should be like.

 

[biffvernon]

If you want to see what a building looks like when new, build a new one. Build it with the best materials and design that the 21st century can muster but don't do repro. Same goes for furnuiture. Only chavs buy repro.

That's why I don't do repro windows. (Well, I have occasionally taken careful measurements to reproduce a frame exactly, but only in that 'practical expedient on a small scale' that the SPAB quote suggests.) I prefer to do work that is the best that my materials and skills allow, fit for a new century and the future, but which sit well within the evolving context of historic buildings.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Only chavs buy repro.

I actually can't believe I'm reading this. Surely all furniture design is a reproduction, up to a point, of something that has gone before.
And Smallbone of Devizes, Laura Ashley, Brights of Nettlebed, Grange, Willis and Gambier all for "chavs" is it? That's quite an outrageous claim - you think this sofa from Ikea:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/S39829923

more valid and suited to a Georgian house than this one supposedly modelled on pieces found in National Trust properties?

http://www.duresta.com/html/range.asp?catID=1&rangeID=13&layout=Normal

I'm not sure many interior designers would agree with you there, but maybe they're all chavs too?

 

[JoceAndChris]

If you want to see what a building looks like when new, build a new one. Build it with the best materials and design that the 21st century can muster but don't do repro. Same goes for furnuiture. Only chavs buy repro.

If you like new design, fine- live in a new build. Fill it with modern pieces.

But don't muddle it up with period properties.

Don't put steel and glass gherkins in with the view of St Paul's, don't put modern windows on an old house, don't turn the front garden into a concrete drive. It kills the little history we have left to us.

 

[Hatster]

There's a massive difference between building new buildings near old buildings, and putting a concrete driveway in front of a house.

Sir Christopher Wren would probably be laughing in his grave to hear someone say that you shouldn't build modern styles around his cathedral - he was a man who was entirely prepared to sweep away history to create modern architecture.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Sir Christopher Wren did not have to put up with glass gherkins and upvc. Modern architecture now is nothing like it was then.

 

[biffvernon]

Only chavs buy repro.

I actually can't believe I'm reading this. Surely all furniture design is a reproduction, up to a point, of something that has gone before.

Yeah, so four legs and a flattish bit is not exactly an original idea but I wouldn't count using that as a design starting point 'repro'. What I mean is the sort of brand new 'Georgian' that can be found in any high street.

To be honest I've no idea about what chavs buy, having never met spoken to one, but I know when someone has a sense of humour.

 

[biffvernon]

don't put modern windows on an old house,

What's a modern window? One that was made in the 21st century. There are nice ones and horrid ones but not all nice ones are copies of an earlier design. If you live in a 16th century house I'd wager you don't have 16th century design windows.

 

[ljn]

Prince Charles is out of step and the SPAAB should be respected for standing its principles. An informed champion of architcture and conservation with depth of knowledge can be elected the head of The SPAB, a better solution than having someone who just happened to be born into the role.

When it comes to his own property and making money, Prince Charles doesn't mind chopping up Listed Buildings to make flats, or ripping out the original windows in a whole Georgian terrace, using his inherited position to avoid Planning and Listed Building Consent.
If he is so into conservation and wants to engage in a democratic debate on Planning and Conservation, he should drop the Crown Exemption.

If the Georgians had followed Prince charles' ideas, the style of architecture the Prince loves so much wouldn't even exist.

I mean, someone who thinks something like the Poundbury Fire Station is a good contemporary building should be kept away from buildings. Carbuncle? Indeed! http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/31/prince-charles-fire-station-poundbury

 

[CHRIS]

Don't put steel and glass gherkins in with the view of St Paul's

What on earth would you put there then?

People use steel frame now more on a cost issue than trendy whims, this is due to serious traffic restrictions imposed in central London by a certain EX Mayor and the speed of which a steel frame with concrete deck building can be constructed in tight city centre sites using recycled aggregates and much less Cement as it is a much lighter weight structure - in turn less trucks and mixers - less traffic. The glass curtain walling is used as it can be installed from the inside or out using a tower crane and not have to have stupid long ladders or scaffold!

I cant imagine a procession of horse and carts dragging Portland stone all the way from Dorset blocking up the A303 and imagine the traffic if the City was being dug up for 33 years!!!!!!!! Clancy Docwra get enough flack after 2months on Upper Thames Street fixing the Victorian water main (it is now leaking again for the record!).

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I mean, someone who thinks something like the Poundbury Fire Station is a good contemporary building should be kept away from buildings. Carbuncle? Indeed! http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/31/prince-charles-fire-station-poundbury

That really is appalling. Not because it uses the Classical language, but because it misuses it so badly. Hopelessly pretentious and over the top considering its (relatively) mundane place in the civic heirarchy. And the more decoration a building of that sort employs, the less dignified it becomes. No columns in these two 1960s building, but a completely appropriate dignity for "ordinary" public buildings (police station and library):View attachment 1

 

[JoceAndChris]

Mmmmm. Agree. That library is beautiful.

Don't like Charles fire station much either, though I find it touching. Like Chris in the kitchen.

But I do think that when a town, village or vista has a harmonious, period look about it it's terrible to shove in a mis-matching glass and concrete thing. It's lovely when you go to Stamford and see that they've tried to make the modern buildings fit the prevailing Georgian mood.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Don't put steel and glass gherkins in with the view of St Paul's

What on earth would you put there then?

Something that didn't shriek out hello I'm a pretentious load of modern ****?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Who is advocating "mismatching glass and concrete"? That's the problem with Charlieboy, he seems to think that the only alternative to his brightly coloured, poorly detailed dreamworld is the sort of stuff we haven't built in this country since about 1975- and he refuses to use his eyes as an aid to revising that opinion.

Any strong feelings about these?
View attachment 2View attachment 1
Of course, if you "restored" the middle one in matching materials, to the "original" design, you'd lose its history, particularly its ruination at whatever time that happened.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Well, if you can show me pictures of nice modern stuff going up at the moment I'm only too happy to see them. I may not agree with you though- my palate is not formed to accept offal, or modernity.

I don't need to tell you how I feel about those three: nearly choking on my breakfast here.

Couldn't they just have been restored to match with a little note attached, informing us of the violent history of these buildings?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Well, if you can show me pictures of nice modern stuff going up at the moment I'm only too happy to see them. I may not agree with you though- my palate is not formed to accept offal, or modernity.

I don't need to tell you how I feel about those three: nearly choking on my breakfast here.

Couldn't they just have been restored to match with a little note attached, informing us of the violent history of these buildings?

I'm afraid I find that rather sad. "An architect should be familiar with all styles, and prejudiced in favour of none" - so said the rather good, but little-celebrated Regency architect Thomas Hopper.

Do you think this is a more appropriate restoration of a ruin? (I'm sure Prince Charles would think so, but it certainly doesn't fit his "matching the original" nonsense):
View attachment 1

 

[Pford75]

Prince Charles is out of step and the SPAAB should be respected for standing its principles

I'm not enough of an expert to know who is right SPAB or Prince Charles :wink:

What I do find astonishing is the reactive bile. AIUI, Prince Charles was invited to write a foreword (which he did). None of us knows the content of that foreword, but presumably it was his personal opinion (which is what forewords are supposed to be). He was asked to rewrite the foreword (and I respect the authors for being prepared to make that request)...he declined. End of drama.

He didn't storm off in a huff, or throw toys out of pram...when his period of patronage came to an end, he chose not to renew. Seems to me that the people making a fuss about this are the authors/SPAB....desperate pursuit of publicity for the new book perhaps? They could easily have let this die a death and then find an alternative author for the foreword.

Charles is not completely against all modern buildings - he came to a nearby village to officially open England's first Whiskey distillery. This is very much a modern construction. I was present at the opening and he commented on the wonderful construction.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I'm afraid I find that rather sad. "An architect should be familiar with all styles, and prejudiced in favour of none" - so said the rather good, but little-celebrated Regency architect Thomas Hopper.

Ah, but you are an architect, dear Gareth, as was Hopper, and I am just an ignorant girl in a fierce mood. Prejudices can be chipped away with education; it's difficult to alter taste however.

The restoration of that castle is beautiful, to my eye, though of course loses the picturesque and lovelier romance of the ruin.

I like a ruin, it would be a shame to restore everything.

 

[Cloudscape]

my palate is not formed to accept offal, or modernity.

Woah! What a great line. 8) I'm storing these up to chuck in during dinner parties. :lol: Bring back Noël Coward at once.

There's so much passion about architecture. Personally, I find the best way to cope with the ugliness is to not look, or - if you must - to attempt to feel nothing. In the wider scheme of things, with so much wrong in the world, it shouldn't matter a damn what a building looks like. But it does. What makes me wince most are the missed, or muffed, opportunities. A new build that's just completely crap (especially when I feel that profit or self-indulgence became the prime motivation), a restoration or juxtaposition that seems to have favoured nothing and understood nothing, and a lack of understanding that 'less is more'.

But where is the line between building with more than just a nod to a classical style, and pastiche?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

my palate is not formed to accept offal, or modernity.

Woah! What a great line. 8) I'm storing these up to chuck in during dinner parties. :lol: Bring back Noël Coward at once.

There's so much passion about architecture. Personally, I find the best way to cope with the ugliness is to not look, or - if you must - to attempt to feel nothing. In the wider scheme of things, with so much wrong in the world, it shouldn't matter a damn what a building looks like. But it does. What makes me wince most are the missed, or muffed, opportunities. A new build that's just completely crap (especially when I feel that profit or self-indulgence became the prime motivation), a restoration or juxtaposition that seems to have favoured nothing and understood nothing, and a lack of understanding that 'less is more'.

But where is the line between building with more than just a nod to a classical style, and pastiche?

Nothing wrong with pastiche, just that the Prince can't differentiate between good and bad (it's all good if it's got columns), or indeed between good and bad Modern architecture (it's all bad).