Prince Charles and the SPAB...

[CHRIS]

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 ****?

Instead of bashing whats already been built (and has become somewhat of a tourist icon and brings in a few quid) show me one modern building you do like or are you going to carry on in your fantasy world of Agas and Smug refrigerators!!

Face it things have to and will be built and the Gherkin is a dam sight better than many especially as it used some of the best Civil and Design Engineering talent in the country! It is used as a show piece around the world and we should be proud of such achievements. We could go back to the days of people crammed into dirty old mills dyeing of Tuberculosis and Diphtheria or move on and work in much better and cleaner environments, so ask any of the poor people from India making cheap and some not so cheap goods that we all seem to love and I am sure they would love it in a nice clean safe work place.

 

[Moo]

One important reason why Gareth's three examples of modern infilling are so successful is their sensitivity to the scale of their surroundings, rather like the one at the top of Magdalen Street here in Norwich that he posted here some time back.
I'm sure that Norwich is not the only city that has been blighted by modern buildings that dwarf their most of their neighbours. It's the architectural equivalent of SHOUTING in an ancient church.

 

[Lime]

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.

Exactly my feelings too.

It would seem that Charles brings out the worst in some people because he holds a mirror upto them.

 

[JoceAndChris]

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.

Thanks Cloudscape, I'm not such a fool I don't recognise the fact I've disappeared up my own bottom on this one though! But in general, yes, agree with you, eyes shut tight - there's so much I don't want to see and only a fraction of it is buildings.

Chris - I find this as the first line in Wikipedia defining modern architecture.

"Modern architecture is a set of building styles with similar characteristics, primarily the simplification of form and the elimination of ornament."

I'm struggling already, simplifying form and eliminating ornament? Give me complex ornament, some mullions, some marble, I might be happy. And you know, when you stick these stark things next to gorgeous, ornamented, intricately wrought old buildings the shock is too great to bear. It's like having a dinner party with your finest china, lovingly prepared complex dishes but allowing your guests to drink Fosters from a can.

I don't mind it so much in Kuala Lumpur or New York, I enjoyed those modern cityscapes. But in European cities the mood should be one of antiquity - that's partly why tourists visit- in London it isn't.

 

[biffvernon]

Any strong feelings about these?

Oh yes. I had a coffee in that building a few weeks ago. It is absolutely brilliant, inside and out. There's the most exquisite courtyard garden round the back and the oak furniture in the cafe is the best I have ever seen - every chair and table a different and individual masterpiece.

Do not judge until you've been there and smelt the coffee.

Here's more info about the place, but, sadly, the website does not include pics of the new furniture.
http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/scottish_storytelling_centre.htm

 

[Lime]

The Scottish Storytelling Centre (whatever that story may be) fits well because, although modern, it uses the same proportions as the surrounding buildings.
Not only that, it picks up similarities adjacent to it in design and line as well as having a similar shade of colour.

 

[Roger H]

To at to Lime's comment, the Edinburgh examples respect the tight 'plot widths' typical of the area. A lot of unsuccessful, post war modern stuff combines narrow plots into one big plot, and has a horizontal emphasis at odds with the vertical proportions of a lot of old stuff...

Ultra modern, narrow plot buildings can be seen working well alongside their historic neighbours in many European cities.

 

[JoceAndChris]

The Scottish Storytelling centre looks like something a child let loose with some stone Lego would come up with. No wonder the Scots all turn to drink if that's the level of their inspiring architecture.

Now here's a modern building I have enjoyed, that fits in well with the Taj Mahal.

http://www.amarvilas.com/Hotel/Gallery-Downloads.aspx

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The Scottish Storytelling centre looks like something a child let loose with some stone Lego would come up with. No wonder the Scots all turn to drink if that's the level of their inspiring architecture.

Now here's a modern building I have enjoyed, that fits in well with the Taj Mahal.

http://www.amarvilas.com/Hotel/Gallery-Downloads.aspx

Nooooooooooooo! That's precisely the "modern building trying to outdo its neighbours" syndrome - "one Taj Mahal is great, so two will be twice as good" :evil:

 

[CHRIS]

I don't mind it so much in Kuala Lumpur or New York, I enjoyed those modern cityscapes. But in European cities the mood should be one of antiquity - that's partly why tourists visit- in London it isn't.

People visit London because it a fantastic place to come, it has something for everyone - Young, Old - Black, White - Gay Straight.

My Wifes family love coming from overseas as it has something for everyone and is so diverse - and that includes the Architecture. They even wanted to go to the Barbican!!!!!

Anyway we could have this beast in London!!!

http://www.aboutdubaicity.com/pictures/burj-dubai-tower-01.jpg

 

[JoceAndChris]

Nooooooooooooo! That's precisely the "modern building trying to outdo its neighbours" syndrome - "one Taj Mahal is great, so two will be twice as good" :evil:

Don't agree. The Oberoi is sufficiently far away for it not to seem as though it's competing, you can stay there in sumptuous glory, and enjoy the view.

Would you have them not build palaces anymore? :evil:

 

[CHRIS]

Nooooooooooooo! That's precisely the "modern building trying to outdo its neighbours" syndrome - "one Taj Mahal is great, so two will be twice as good" :evil:

Don't agree. The Oberoi is sufficiently far away for it not to seem as though it's competing, you can stay there in sumptuous glory, and enjoy the view.

Would you have them not build palaces anymore? :evil:

Looks like it is in Las Vegas!

 

[robgil]

i dont see the problem myself. an old building should be appreciated for what it is and not for what is built next to it.
its a bit like parking your EType Jag in tesco's car park and then moaning because there is a ford sierra parked in the bay next to it. speaking of moaning , i think charles needs get a grip to be honest, if i were to restore my cottage to its original state id be sitting in a large shed with no windows , no running water , no heating , no bathroom ,no kitchen ,no electricity ,no floors etc etc etc.
depending on a buildings age ,unless its in a museum it needs to be modernised to accommodate modern life styles.

the only modern building i have a real dislike for are new build barrett type houses, they are really clean, efficient, cheap (to build not to buy) houses but they look crap, they take repro to a whole new level.

someone mentioned repro furniture a bit back , i agree ,most of it is absolute rubbish. long gone are the days of dove tail joints and proper cabinet making skills , now its all glue , dowels and pins. it might look nice but its not made the same way as it was when furniture makers actually took a bit of pride in their work and didn't have to compete with the kind of rubbish churned out by ikea.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Damn, I want to say a whole lot more but have to go to London now.

It's probably for the best- happy arguing!
xxxx

 

[Gervase]

Compare and contrast, as they say.
Building Design has obtained the piece as written by the Prince of Wales.

The special qualities of old houses continue to enchant us and many people dream of owning an historic house, be it a Victorian terraced house, a cruck-framed cottage or, indeed, a castle.

Most repair or refurbishment projects start with the best of intentions, but in all too many projects the ‘upgrading’ of a house can result in the destruction of the very house with which one first fell in love. It is all too easy to strip a building back to its bones, but the inevitable result will be a ‘restored’ building which is only a crude caricature of the original. So much of an old house’s beauty is due to its slowly-acquired patina; to the years of interaction between the materials, the environment and those who have built, inhabited and altered the building. This beauty is a very fragile thing, often only skin deep.

This practical book will help homeowners and builders to give old buildings a new lease of life without destroying what is most precious in them. It sets out common mistakes and how to avoid them. It also contains good solutions and details of appropriate materials and methods of repair, including advice on how to improve energy performance without compromising the longevity or character of an historic building. In many cases the best solutions rely on traditional skills, knowledge and materials very similar to those with which the building was built.

The book also makes reference to the difficult question of how to alter, extend or build next to an historic building. Should a repair, new window or extension be distinct from the original building, or should it draw inspiration from the building or others nearby? To my mind, the best alterations are those which are guided by good manners to the building and its neighbours. ‘Honest’ repairs or ‘frankly modern’ alterations to historic buildings too often diminish them. So, too, the desire to ‘create a contrast with’ or ‘avoid archaeological confusion’ between new and old can have a disastrous outcome for the old building, resulting in a crude and dissonant collision.

I believe that in most cases we should aim to achieve a more subtle contrast between new and old. The use of traditional craft skills and materials in new work, as well as in repairs, is a good place to start and greatly reduces the risk of dissonance between new and old elements. The use of traditional craft skills in new work is also an excellent way to boost the interest of young people in valuing, learning and evolving these traditional skills – and the future of our much-loved historic buildings will only be assured if young people learn and practise these skills. For this reason, the educational work of The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, of which I am proud to be Patron, and of my own Foundation for the Built Environment, is absolutely vital.

And this is what actually appeared, written by SPAB Secretary Philip Venning:

‘If only we’d known before what we started…’ is something we hear all too often at the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. So a warm welcome for this book, which draws on the practical experience of SPAB over the last 130 years. It shows clearly how old houses can be repaired and adapted for the world of today, and indeed tomorrow, without sacrificing those subtle, fragile qualities of age and beauty that characterise our rich variety of historic buildings. The basic message is the same, whether your building is large or small, ancient or more recent. The book’s aim is simple: to help homeowners hand down their houses ‘instructive and venerable to those that come after us’, to quote the Society’s Manifesto written by William Morris in 1877.

The country still has thousands of homes that are 400 years old and more. The best way to ensure that the buildings we value today will still be enjoyed in another 400 years is to recognise the importance of tried and tested materials and craftsmanship; and to adopt the very best design in both their repair and adaptation.

Above all, the book shows in practical terms why the careful and conservative repair of historic fabric, even worn and a bit battered, is more suitable than its needless replacement. Of course, this book can give only general guidance and homeowners will need to do their own research. But with it as a starting point you should avoid some of the most common mistakes, which are often costly and permanently damaging to the building itself. Future generations will thank you.

The book itself states: “Good new design that is honest to its own period can work well alongside an old building and ensures that the two ages are clearly distinguishable,” which is SPAB's own philosophy, and which would appear to be at odds with Charles's comments. Thus it's hardly surprising that the forward as originally submitted was thought to be unsuitable.

SPAB itself has been remarkably gracious about the affair, as one can see from its statement here

 

[Pford75]

I would have thought that most members of this site would agree with 90% of what Prince Charles wrote

1. Old houses are echanting...of whatever type and whatever era
2. Very often, 'upgrading' a house can destroy the things which are most attractive
3. 'Restored' buildings can become caricatures
4. There are some common renovation mistakes which are easily avoided
5. Selection of appropriate materials and methods is key
6. It is possible to improve energy performance without compromising the building
7. Often, the best solutions involve traditional skills and materials
8. The best alterations are guided by the building and its neighbours
9. 'Honest' repairs or 'frankly modern' repairs too often have a negative impact

Points 1-8 have been made on many occasions by most on this site at various times. Point 9 is the area of contention as I see it - I personally believe it is possible to have honest repairs or 'frankly modern' alterations which are positive (as seen by some of the pics posted by Gareth). But equally, I have seen some horrendous 'modern' alterations to period buildings in the name of 'honest' repair. (Particularly in the part of Essex we used to live in where the CO seemed to be on a mission to destroy the architecture of the area.)

As I said before, SPAB could easily have let this die quietly...but instead they seem to have exploited it for publicity. The press release is all very pleasant, but someone released a copy of Prince Charles' draft and SPAB reps didn't have to give the various interviews on the subject.

 

[biffvernon]

Must remember to renew my SPAB membership shortly.

 

[Cloudscape]

good, new design rather than reliance on past styles. This has been the Society’s view since its foundation by William Morris

In 1877, there was some "good, new design", but the Victorians weren't at all shy about using, and indeed mixing, styles that were borrowed from elsewhere in time and space. Many buildings that are looked on now as 'very Victorian' are heavily influenced in one way or another. Plus there was a lot of showmanship going on - bigger, grander, more ornate. So if Morris was advocating non-reliance on "past styles", what was he actually talking about?

Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement have a lot to answer for. The romantic mangling of period styles that the movement fostered has resulted in a lot of very confused history in buildings and furniture.

When Charles says,

Most repair or refurbishment projects start with the best of intentions, but in all too many projects the ‘upgrading’ of a house can result in the destruction of the very house with which one first fell in love. It is all too easy to strip a building back to its bones, but the inevitable result will be a ‘restored’ building which is only a crude caricature of the original. So much of an old house’s beauty is due to its slowly-acquired patina; to the years of interaction between the materials, the environment and those who have built, inhabited and altered the building. This beauty is a very fragile thing, often only skin deep.

this is, to my mind, what a lot of people preach, but do not practise. Most of what I see people doing to their houses makes me cringe. Old houses can be very tatty, and every aspect of them can be 'tidied' in some way. But this can go too far. The essence of the end result is not necessarily anything like the essence of what was there in the first place. I know quite a few houses that feel like spick-and-span barn conversions. The structure is still there to be admired, but it feels like the surface has been scrubbed and brought into sharp focus. Almost sterilised.

When SPAB say,

It shows clearly how old houses can be repaired and adapted for the world of today, and indeed tomorrow, without sacrificing those subtle, fragile qualities of age and beauty that characterise our rich variety of historic buildings.

and

the book shows in practical terms why the careful and conservative repair of historic fabric, even worn and a bit battered, is more suitable than its needless replacement. Of course, this book can give only general guidance and homeowners will need to do their own research. But with it as a starting point you should avoid some of the most common mistakes, which are often costly and permanently damaging to the building itself. Future generations will thank you.

these do not cover or mirror what Charles said. SPAB's version sounds like lip-service to an idea. I feel they glibly dance over the aesthetics and fragility aspects and then give homeowners carte blanche to do what they like, if they can find a way to justify it. Charles almost asks people to have a conscience, while SPAB sound a lot more pragmatic.

I'm aware that there are disparate viewpoints - you can see them all applied on PPUK. I take really seriously the 'feel' of my house. If I had a bigger chequebook, I could do what some of my neighbours have done to their houses. Instead, I'm trying to keep and enhance the shabby old wreck I bought, and to soften some of the intrusive (and damaging) fiddling that has gone on. It's bloomin' hard work, as we all know. It would actually be easier to chuck the baby out with the bath water and scrub the whole place, but what would be lost can never be regained.

 

[skier-hughes]

My membership is by direct debit, and it will continue.
I doubt I'll buy the book now.
I can't see anything wrong with hat Prince Charles has written, it says "In my Mind" and "I believe". A good start to a book, but who reads the forward and just that, believing that it is all there is to know.
I'd read the forward and then the rest of the book, and as I always do when seeking advice, take the portions that I feel are relevant to my way of thinking, my house, my budget etc......

Mountain mole hill as has been said on here a fair few times.

 

[biffvernon]

I doubt I'll buy the book now.

For Heaven's sake, it's only the ruddy forward. Half a page tucked behind the contents list. I never even noticed it till this week. Talk of molehills!

It's a good book - go and buy it.