Drawing Diversity October 4, 2013Posted by jennibarrett in Uncategorized.
Tags: aesthetics, architecture, drawing, landscape, UCLan
1 comment so far
By hand or using technology tools, they make representations of a world they propose. Architects are also embracing site, context and landscape as essential parts of the architectural palette. Yet, despite artistic skills, well-honed in architecture school, there remains a divide between representation of buildings and the spaces that connect them. I remain unconvinced by out-of-scale, acid-green trees set in deeper-green, grass floor blankets.Grand Central Terminal, New York (Foster&Partners)
There is an ancient skill of deriving understanding of the natural world through artistic endeavour and we may be in danger of losing it. The great scientific contributions of Linnaeus and Darwin would not have been possible without drawing.
Source: Design Squish
It’s through the art of diagram that we understand the temporal and dynamic relationships between flora and their ecosystems.Phylogenetic Tree
A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopaedia of bacteria and archaea
And the spiritual and aesthetic human relationships with their built environment has been a repetitive theme in the literal and figurative fine arts for centuries.Wanluan Thatched Hall, Dong Qichang, 1597
Source: Wikipedia Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia, Claude Lorrain, 1682
Source: Wikipedia Commons Cityscape I (Landscape No.1), Richard Diebenkorn, 1963
Source: Wikipedia Commons
How do we define our relationship with the natural world, today? This is a daily question in architectural discussion, but there is little evidence of interrogating it through pen, pencil or mouse.
Masters students in architecture at UCLan, however, are interrogating landscape – looking at ways that architecture can understand the natural world a little better and engage with it in a little more depth. Their work will be exhibited next week and I’ll aim to pin up some inspiring images…….
Preston Bus Station: Ethics not aesthetics March 4, 2013Posted by jennibarrett in Uncategorized.
Tags: aesthetics, brutalism, ethics, Preston Bus Station, value
It is, by now, a widely accepted premise that Preston Bus Station is a building of architectural significance (see current article in RIBA Journal). The consensus on its significance is given further weight by the support given by Angela Brady PRIBA and the RIBA President Elect, Stephen Hodder and the recommendations of the 20th Century Society. Whether it is indeed aesthetically beautiful or not is a separate and more philosophical discussion – possibly one for a future post.
But its beauty and architectural significance is only one facet of the issue.
There’s the question of value. What is it that we value in our city and how do we assess this?
Do we truly value our buildings of architectural significance, our contemporary architectural heritage? Do we value them enough to prioritise their conservation more highly than the crude outcome of a profit and loss calculation?
Are we comfortable with this commodification of our heritage?
There are many fabulous buildings in Preston. Let’s look at another. This building was built in a style which caused much consternation at the time of its construction. It was built in a Gothic Revival style. The term ‘gothic,’ originally described a building that was crude, barbaric – ‘brutal.’ Despite the architectural adjective being a term of derision, it eventually took its place in our stylistic vocabulary.
This Gothic building, despite being disliked by some, was originally built to signify city confidence and social progress. But now, it’s going to cost over £1million to renovate and it doesn’t even produce any revenue.
The building I’m referring to is the Grade 1 Listed St. Walburge’s Church, less than a mile from Preston Bus Station. Its story echoes the plight of the ‘Brutalist’ bus station, another monument described by an architectural adjective that incorrectly infers something fearful and unsympathetic. I’ve never never met anyone who would dare to suggest getting rid of the bus station’s gothic neighbour & those trusted with its care seek creative approaches to investment and widely promote its renovation to its former glory. It’s value that transcends any fiscal analysis and this is confirmed by those who use it as well as those who admire it from afar.
Source: Paul Melling/Blog Preston
Urban value also embraces the spaces between the buildings. Do we value our public spaces, our streetlife? Preston Bus Station is in public ownership; is used by the public and a unique and people-centric activity happens within it (however socially unacceptable this can sometimes be!). In a sense, then, it’s not a building at all. It’s a public space. It’s a street that happens to have a structure built around it.
If we were debating whether to build on one of Preston’s key public spaces – the Market Square or Miller Park – spaces which require expensive maintenance; are unlikely to generate much in the way of revenue, yet significant in Preston’s urban life, it would be acknowledged that something is being taken away from the people of Preston – certainly, not without launching some kind of competition to see how the spaces could be improved or to discover a more creative, forward thinking business model.
But this is what’s proposed here. One of the main ‘streets’ in Preston, one which is iconic, renowned, busy and vibrant is proposed to be condensed, converted and downgraded to something that will be, well, catastrophically ordinary.
So, back to the subject of value. To use the procurement terminology, is it ‘best value’ to remove something that is perceived to be successful in every other way, except monetarily, without measuring the value of its less tangible assets via full transparent discussion or meaningful consultation with those who use it, or appreciate it from further afield? Is that even ethical? And until a full, collaborative, rigorous, creative and forward thinking decision making process has been seen through – and Gate 81 is a brilliant example of that – then ethically speaking, a decision can’t be made.
Brutalism refers not to the imposing form of this style of building, but rather to the resulting aesthetic linked to a béton brut, a particular way of using and finishing raw concrete which was adopted by a group of architects from a particular social and ethical standpoint, who used the béton brut as tool for their structural expressionism. And then the term also kind of stuck, thanks primarily to the publication of Reyner Banham’s 1966 book, “The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?” Brutalism is an architectural style from recent history. We may not like it now, but perhaps we will miss it in the future.
The debate about the future:death of Preston Bus Station, however, is not a question of whether the building is subjectively beautiful or not, but whether we truly value Preston’s future heritage and how we transparently assess this without getting hung up on its financial commoditisation. In that sense, this is a replay of 1966 (“they think it’s all over?”). No, not football. I’m referring again to Reyner Banham’s significant work. This decision is a one of ethics, not aesthetics.