There is an assumption amongst a lot of the people that I encounter as well as being a large amount of comment that appears in the press as well as on radio and TV that the historic built environment and new architecture cannot mix. This applies equally to the man in the street, the conservation officer in the local planning officer as it does for many high ranking opinion formers. It is as if anything new will corrupt the old and should be avoid as much as possible.
Before I going any further I should clarify by what I mean by new building. This is work such as extensions to existing structures or completely new buildings in historical environments. It does not include restoration or conservation work to an existing building where it is necessary to match the existing for materials, a particular building style or form, as well as workmanship standards. That is because restoration and conservation needs to be based on proven evidence rather than conjecture, supposition or what would be ‘nice’. Anyway that is enough of that before I start to wonder off into a separate field of thought that can be blog on its own.
Unfortunately all too often new building work is poor quality reproduction or pastiche design because it is considered to be appropriate to blend with the historic building or environment. The designs, at very best might just warrant the title of architecture, is inevitably bland, of awful quality and is often described as ‘Disneyesque’ or ‘Tescolite’. These are buildings and extensions that have as much in common with the historic built environment as plastic has to the natural world.
It would be very easy to put all the blame for poor quality or cheap design on amorphous developers. Unfortunately it all too often comes from the decision makers such as planners and their committees playing safe by opting for the bland and mediocre rather than the new and bold. Many good designers are suppressed by what they are told will be acceptable in order to obtain the necessary development consents because of inadequate design briefs and the quality and boldness of the decision makers.
Classical and contemporary combination
When compared to Europe, the lack of good modern architecture to be seen commonly in towns and villages is noticeable in the UK. It also means that there is no noticeable building style that is or will be identifiable to distinguish the period from the late 1950s or early 60s. In the past we have had a noticeable styles that have identified the major reigns such as Elizabethan, Jacobean, Georgian, Regency, Victorian and Edwardian. From the early 1900s we go by decade or events with the distinctive styles of the twenties through to the fifties with the War Period in between. What do we have from the 60s onwards – nothing of style or distinction.
It is difficult to know what has brought about this reticence or resistance to modern architecture. It might be the brutalism of heavy concrete styles coupled to the mass demolitions and town centre redevelopments that drastically changed the character of many communities in the post war period. Equally it could be the poor quality of building standards and materials that also appeared in the same period and has led to need for much repair and even replacement.
What we need to do is to break the thought pattern that infers that design must always be ‘safe’, not offend, and that only reproductions are acceptable in historical settings. For this to be successful will mean that architectural design standards will need to improve along with materials and standards appropriate to the site / location, which could be easier said than done.
The national historic environment protection bodies such as EH, CADW, HS, etc, have policies that allow for and even encourage the use of good strong modern architectural design in an historic setting, so they should not be seen as part of the reactionary forces. Unfortunately, some officers who implement the policies within these bodies disagree with the thinking of their employers and so do nothing to encourage contemporary design, and have even been known to discourage it.
Good contemporary design when used in an historic setting should not alienate either the historic setting or those who will use it in whatever form. This may impose some constraints, on the selective use of materials and appropriate workmanship together with good detailing. It will also need proper and careful consideration by the planning bodies who will ultimately be asked to approve it.
What this should bring about will be a rejuvenation of the historic built environment. Remember that everything that all those old buildings that we now seek to protect were once new and most probably seen as radical or modern ugly design when compared with what was then the common everyday styles of building.
