Paul Milburn
Y3 Dissertation
BA (Hons) Interior Architecture & Design 2008
School of Arts and Media
University Of Teesside
Acknowledgements
The Case studies in this project would not have been possible to complete without the information provided by Hartlepool Central Library. A huge thank you goes to Dewjoc Architects, Norton, Hartlepool Borough Council and Manners and Harrison estate agents for their assistance throughout.
Thank you to Richard Sober for all of his help, input and guidance.
Contents Page
Title Page 1
Acknowledgements 2
Contents page 3
Introduction 4-6
Chapter One – The Case in Favour 7-10
Chapter Two – The Case Against 11-15
Chapter Three – Case Studies 16-19
Summary of Facadism 20-22
Conclusion & Afterword 23-24
Bibliography 25-27
Illustrations 28-29
Introduction
Facadism is a practice which enables the regeneration of listed urban areas whilst preserving the character of the streetscape and keeping the surrounding architecture in uniform. It is noted however, heritage groups and conservationists argue that the movement turns beautiful historical buildings into characterless fakes. This somewhat architectural and yet philosophical movement of Facadism first hit the design arena in the mid 1980’s. Surfacing in Britain and spread throughout Western Europe, this method of construction was a contemporary spin off of urban redevelopment following great financial investment. This is considered as an intrusive regeneration method, practicing the renovation of old buildings, leaving the facade intact while demolishing and rebuilding a new interior behind. ‘Facadism’ literally meaning frontage/face, hence changing only the innards is of French origin.
It was not until the 1970’s when Britain made an attempt to conserve architecture; despite William Morris helping to establish the SPAB (The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings) in 1877 promoting the idea for the preservation of ancient structures. As stated by Burke “Until recent years conservation was scarcely recognised as a subject for national government policy. Buildings and ground layout from the past survived fortuitously, largely on their own merits, and chiefly because they could continue to serve useful purposes.” This was an attitude favoured by many.
This dissertation will chiefly investigate Facadism in urban areas across the United Kingdom with various international examples. It will uncover some of the reasons why this movement has developed into the global phenomenon it is today. Challenging the ongoing controversial issues from both perspectives; this exposition will identify and highlight the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the areas of recent and dated disputes, with the aid of case studies, varied opinions, questionnaires and visual aids. Facadism, on a whole, has the ability and substance to make for a motivating and argumentative exposition.
Over the last decade, Britain’s architecture has been subject to severe scrutiny. Critiqued over its morality and validity towards architectural significance, Facadism; according to most heritage and conservation groups is thought to be just a cheap construction method. J.M. Fitch believes that Facadism counteracts conservation and states that it is a “historically inaccurate manipulation of the fabric” here suggesting that buildings are robbed of their heritage and unique original characteristics.
The research methods to be used throughout this study will consist of both Primary and Secondary sources, in order to ensure a high level of accuracy and non-biased works. Books such as ‘Facadism’, ‘The Heritage Industry’ and ‘Conservation of Buildings’ along with newspaper articles will provide the majority of the background information required: whereas, internet pages and primary research including a questionnaire will give an insight to public opinion and grounds for discussion.
For purposes of this dissertation, Chapter One will aim to bring to light the positive aspects of Facadism, taking into account the vast arena of Pro-Facadist groups; primarily from online discussion forums. On the other hand, Chapter Two will aim to envisage the opposition, by demonstrating negative views defended by international case studies. Chapter Three will consist of two local case studies, The CoOp Society Building and The Wesley Chapel both located in Hartlepool. Such case studies will be the dominant focus of the primary research. Due to plans being proposed for ongoing redevelopment, an ideal opportunity to produce a photographic log had arisen. Part one of the CoOp research package will include twenty questionnaires, which will be issued to a selection of people in Hartlepool aged 20 – 80 years. Although the results from these questionnaires cannot be regarded as supporting scientific evidence due to the small number of respondents. This source will be used as anecdotal evidence to assist with any personal memories, information and experiences of the land mark prior to its derelict stage. It will also seek people’s opinions on the changes and intrusive building works undergone.
A letter will also be sent to Tony Collins Developments (the building company involved) and Hartlepool Borough Council, requesting copies of any information they are able to release, such as planning applications, letters of complaint or praise, and reasons why Facadism was the method chosen. It will also consist of an annotated photographic record. The Final section of the research package will include a mini case study analysing, discussing and critiquing the regeneration of the Wesley Chapel, Hartlepool. This study will be examined in great detail with information from books, internet websites, newspaper articles, journals and online discussion forums. It is hoped that from this feedback along with additional research into Facadism and urban regeneration, a detailed conclusion and evaluation can be sought after.
Ongoing debates between property developers who believe that Facadism is better than a complete demolition, have reached a compromise by retaining a buildings character, streetscape and original features by saving the fascia. By often constructing larger modern interiors on the back of the property, property developers feel they are accommodating to people’s needs by providing flexible working and living conditions without having to extend on to green or brown field sites whilst saving its history, culture and environment. This attitude however, is completely rejected by conservationists and heritage groups who believe that it is the whole building, including the interior which denotes the character irrespectively.
Despite being a highly controversial issue continuously denounced by preservationists as vandalism, Facadism is thought to be the ideal solution and the right amount of compromise. There are many breathtaking examples of facades worthy of preservation here in the UK, such as the streetscape of King St, Bristol, due to its original highly detailed stonework and craftsmanship; dominating the area in a similar way as Central Station, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Chapter One – The Case in Favour
This chapter will highlight the benefits of Facadism by defending and emphasising the positive points of this redevelopment method. Facadism has its advantages, which are argued by Pro-Facadist groups, namely property developers.
One thought is that Facadism is a poor excuse for preservation; there are also social, religious, historical and physical perspectives to be considered. Facadism allows buildings to be revamped even in listed or historical areas, maintaining the exterior streetscape during renovation and saving the character of the build. This process not only retains history and heritage whilst putting the building to modern use, it also has a sustainable aspect; using the original building materials as opposed to starting from scratch. These points defend the argument put forward by property developers and those who believe Facadism is a positive way to redevelop our inner city and suburban areas. It is true that Facadism allows property development in grade II listed areas as the fascia and cityscape remains in its original form. It is put forward that Facadism is a saviour to the buildings heritage and historical value, especially in the event of the structure becoming beyond economical repair or structurally unsafe. It is noted however, sometimes where possible, some of the interior features such as ceiling roses, coving, flooring and other items of historical interest can be salvaged and reused too.
Although it is the heritage aspect which is regarded as the most important, other arguments are put forward in defence for Facadism. It was stated by the Prince of Wales that “There is nothing ‘fake’ about building in an established tradition or trying to revive one.” Which confirms to property developers that what they are doing is beneficial to the public; This point is backed up by legislation in the form of the DDA Act 1995 (revised in 2005) Part B - Fire Safety and means of escape and Part M – Disabled Access of the Building Regulations, which states that the building has to be adaptable in order to accommodate people with all disabilities and be wheelchair friendly.
The quotations found below, taken from an online discussion forum praise Facadism. People believe that it is an ideal compromise for Facadism to take place as it ensures that the building works to a maximum potential whist the frontage takes on the role of preservation:
“I think Facadism is great, I don't care much about the inside of a building since I'm hardly ever going to go inside.”
A rather narrow minded but honest statement which to a degree has a point in the way that it is highly unlikely everyone will visit the insides of every regenerated building. Therefore they are probably unaware of what lies behind the façade anyway.
“I pretty much agree. Overall good but if the interior can be kept as well; even better.”
This quote expresses an open mind, it agrees with Facadism on the whole, but believes that the interior would be a bonus, not a necessity.
An attitude adopted by most who favour Facadism, question the integrity behind the reasons for redevelopment. As long as the development work is done in good taste with high quality finishes and respect to the building, they say it does not really matter if the interior is ancient or modern. Not only does Facadism provide a small percentage of good environmental practice, but it is a very subjective, cost effective, popular method of urban renewal. It provides better solutions to more unused historical sites of dilapidated shells in high density locations; whilst erecting substitute cities in the inner suburbs.
“In relation to the use of non sustainable natural resources, the prevention of the complete demolition of historic buildings, by the retention or rebuilding of their facades utilising as much as possible of the original fabric, can be seen as a valuable act of conservation.”
Statistically, the construction industry accounts for 87% of greenhouse gases therefore, in order to reduce this; developers are attempting to make buildings more flexible and adaptable by using an abundance of natural materials. More serious problems would arise with regards to global issues, such as global warming reaching a new time high; should we have to build out into rural areas in order to accommodate for today’s business needs.
Facadism offers the capabilities of a new build to an old build without having to design or redesign the frontage. It is a much easier way of incorporating and accommodating modern technologies, such as air conditioning and computer suites as well as providing a more beneficial use of space.
Figure 1.1 – Madison Building, Detroit, Michigan
Figure 1.2 – HSBC building, Saint John, New Brunswick
Shown in Figure 1.1, is a building located in Detroit, Michigan which is suffering from urban decay. It is of no use and is a potential safety hazard. It serves no purpose and would be considered an eyesore, taking up valuable space, of which could be used to provide something much more beneficial to the community. The question is, would Facadism be acceptable under these circumstances, or would it spoil the buildings ruins? Developers would see potential here but would have to tackle conservationists who would object to any plans or developments, claiming spoilage to the buildings character. Is this conservation…? The structure is in ruins, no effort has been made to preserve this building; so how can heritage groups complain about developers making use of the space and saving what is left of the shell.
Figure 1.2 shows an old building (HSBC) being renovated and put to use amongst the more contemporary buildings in the city. Is this not a more practical way of preservation one would think? Burke states in his book ‘Townscapes’ “Preservation implies static protection, saving from decay keeping things as they are.” The implication here harmonizes with the question in hand.
The building still stands and is maintained whilst being used on a daily basis. If heritage groups continue to confront developers each time an idea is put forward; our streets will begin to look rather unpleasant and the towns and cities will become ghost towns. It has to be noted that conservation clearly implies something more than saving valuable pieces of architecture “Conservation to my mind is correctly treated as a creative approach to change and modernisation- socially and economically viable alternative to indiscriminate demolition and redevelopment.”
It is evident to see and appreciate that Facadism is the most appropriate option to rescue the building in Figure 1.1, without urgent attention it will gradually decay and eventually be nonexistent. Figure 1.2 also shows how the old can work alongside the new and that a building can be adapted to become more suitable without ever having to be destroyed. Tibbald concludes Facadism “is part of a sensitive yet lively process of urban adaptation and renewal whose object is to improve all aspects of the quality of life.”
Chapter Two – The Case Against
Chapter two will analyse the negative attitude and look into the reasons why some members of the public including conservationists, heritage groups and anti-facadists believe that the following disadvantages represent the movement in a negative light.
According to some, when the movement is put into practice; the background history and original character of the building are forever lost. One belief is that older buildings should be handled with more care and respect for sentiment, instead of just tampering with it for quick cheap money-making schemes. Conversationalists say that developers use facadism as a poor excuse for preservation, which can also be regarded as another form of vandalism. Some extremists would go as far to say the historical landmarks are becoming fakes and nondescript in result.
It appears to be under estimated just how strongly and passionately people feel internationally about Facadism, especially today. It is true that many do not really care, just as long as the building looks nice and serves a purpose; however, many believe that there is no justification for Facadism to continue. Should such drastic attitudes be adopted...? Disappointment is often felt by conservationists, who believe that the public and visitors travelling worldwide to examine these ‘theme park cities’ will be amazed at the accurate detail of stonework and style of the original façade but once inside, they will be disappointed with the cheaply refurbished interior, magnolia plasterboard walls, nylon carpets and plywood doors as opposed to the grand staircases, detailed plasterwork and original flooring. “Facadism just turns our cities into fake, theme park cities. They look the part...but scratch the surface and its just sawdust and plasterboard....no substance!”, “It is important that the built fabric behind the facades of many listed buildings is of equal significance architecturally and historically to exterior fabric.”
Other disadvantages of Facadism include the change in the buildings proportions. When building onto a facade there are numerous design limitations encountered, such as ceiling heights, window locations, door sizes, rooflines and geometrical concepts, which may cause problems for the purpose of the extension. Additional problems arise when the interior differs greatly to the exterior.
Preservationists acknowledge what developers are saying about the global issues involved with the expansion and building of new cities, and respond by saying that new builds are just as unnecessary as Facadism, Richards demonstrates this well be stating “Facadism would be an inappropriate approach to conservation” Anti-Facadists ask the reasons why the money put into these projects cannot be used to restore the whole building and adapt it in a way, which does not compromise the buildings creativity.
Many online discussion forums have been launched, where people express their thoughts, feelings and opinions on the subject. Here is a poll along with some quotes taken from www.skyscrapercity.com with the set question “Is Facadism Good or Bad?”
“I think it’s bad....I would much rather the interiors of older buildings to be restored a long with the Facade.”
“Buildings are three dimensional, if they were to have one dimension they would be in a book or magazine and not on our streets”
Many negative comments about Facadism say is that it is true older buildings contain a surprising level of beauty with regards to interior characteristics; most of which would have taken years to create and put into place. As a result, it is devastating to see them torn down in a matter of minutes. Urban planners and property developers should really consider this more and aim to stop opting for the cheapest methods of regeneration and respect culture.
Original fireplaces, flooring and stain glass windows along with the plasterwork and staircases are irreplaceable. They tell a story which dates back to the day of its erection which makes the buildings innards and shell just as important and valuable as the front elevation.
Times are changing as are lifestyles and working environments; therefore some alterations need to be made to buildings to ensure they can cater for their new purpose. So why can’t developers see what they are destroying…? Preservationists feel that architects and interior designers should step back and just take a look at these interiors in order to reach a more appropriate, suitable method to make these structures ideal.
“The problem I have with Facadism is that you are destroying the history of the building....yes the outer shell remains, but buildings are more than just an outer shell.
Any city can construct buildings with an old fashioned outer facade and a modern interior. What makes the UK different is that our buildings have the Exterior, Interior and History to go with them.
An extremely passionate speech which condemns Facadism and its values. Also a very true statement; the UK does offer the whole package and day by day we are disposing or our heritage brick by brick. It is fair to say that modern builds can be constructed in the Victorian or Edwardian style but they will never ever be the real deal.
Our historical buildings should be maintained, highly valued and treat with respect. They have stood for hundreds of years and will stand for another hundred years providing they are well maintained. In the words of Ruskin “Take proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore them.”
If Facadism continues throughout the world it will eventually get to the stage where all buildings globally will be near enough identical. Apparent use of post modern architecture would ultimately result in the destruction and loss of culture and integrity.
Figure 2.1 - 88 Townsend, San Francisco
Figure 2.2 – Presbyterian Church, Dublin
Figure 2.1, located on Second and Townsend streets in San Francisco, used to be a historical landmark which survived the 1906 earthquake. The project known as 88 Townsend is a quite an extreme example of Facadism, which has been a trend in San Francisco since the early 1980’s. It is said that San Francisco is in need of planning that could bring a balanced approach to the city's heritage. In the late 1990’s, developers Rosenberg & Co bought the warehouse and eventually built an additional three stories onto the roof. This is a very poor example of Facadism as no effort has been made at all to keep the extension of the building in the same style as the original structure. Contemporary windows and new bricks have been used, which looks atrocious and ruins the ambience of the building and streetscape.
“A facade isn't always what it seems…… Bad enough the new building at Second and Townsend streets in San Francisco has crude proportions and a ruddy veneer of thin bricks that looks like cheap wallpaper.
Here's the worst part: attached to the 5-story housing complex are two low walls left over from the building it replaced: a small warehouse that survived the 1906 earthquake and is part of a historic district. This isn't preservation, its mockery. And it happens too often.”
Figure 2.2, located around the corner from Charlemont Street, Adelaide Road, Dublin is a prime example of an old Presbyterian Church, which was converted using the facadism method in 2001. Many locals believe this to be an absolute disgrace to the memory and history of the church, not only did the process take over two years to complete, but upon completion looked hideous. This once grand landmark had been turned into a mockery as the adjoining new build which contrasts greatly with the façade has been erected with no sympathy or respect for the original. The general consensus of the local residents is that the landmark has been ruined and can never be rectified.
“Facadism, as it might be called, is another nod to the principle of conservation on the part of the planning authorities, but just a nod, for the technique is a less than honest attempt to cloak the destruction of old buildings.”
The question is - Why are developers continuing to insist on completely destroying our beautiful buildings and heritage? No respect, effort or conservation has been considered whatsoever in this instance, all that has come of this development, is a spoiled historic landmark.
Chapter Three – Case Studies
Case Study – The Wesley Chapel, Hartlepool, North East England
Case studies of Hartlepool have been incorporated into this study in order to provide examples of urban regeneration. These studies will give an insight of the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of local people in an attempt to either demerit or justify the movement. The two chosen sites, The Wesley Chapel and The Co-Op Building portray excellent examples of urban redevelopment over the past couple of decades.
Figure 3.1 – Front elevation
Figure 3.2 – Side Elevation
Figure 3.3 – Interior (as a nightclub)
The Wesley Chapel, 1901 located in the centre of this small seaside town was originally known as the Wesleyan Church, designed by William Hill (1827-1889) of Leeds. This is a typical example of good classical architecture, as well as a building of religious interest. Built in brick with a stone built façade it is one of the towns most recognized landmarks, which is said to be “the most impressive example of non-conformist ecclesiastical architecture in the town.”
Great controversy was expressed when Facadism allowed developers to make a mockery of such a highly respected chapel. The original interior provided seating for a congregation of up to 1,200 and accommodated 600 children in the school room.
After standing derelict for decades and eventually falling into disrepair in Wesley Square, Hartlepool town centre, it was redeveloped in the early 90’s into a very popular two story night club known colloquially as “The Wes” with a cellar bar and health centre to the rear. This was contested by local residents; the opinions expressed were of outrage, disrespect and humility. This outrage was emphasised highly when the nightclub was closed down just several years later due to drugs, violence and underage drinking. The public were appalled at the building being destroyed due to such juvenile antics. To this day, the nightclub remains abandoned. However there have been numerous recent rumours that work is due to begin in order for the Wesley to reopen as a wine bar and restaurant.
Although the original shell and ancient architectural fascia remains, the original interior is nonexistent, all interior features were destroyed during the refurbishment, the classically designed post and lintel fascia masks a minimalist interior and contains a state of the art health suite which has been recently built. This is a typical example of today’s regeneration methods in towns and cities.
“When the lay public complains that churches, post offices, banks and so on no longer look like post offices, banks or whatever, one of the things they are saying is that the expected behaviours are not clear and also that the designers have neglected meaning.”
It has been argued that this change was for the best, if The Wesley Chapel did not undergo this refurbishment, it would have been vandalised further, or due to the severe state of disrepair it had fallen into, eventually collapsed.
Case Study – The Hartlepool Co-op Building, North East England
This building is currently undergoing major regeneration to restore and transform the currently derelict site into fifty luxury apartments and ground floor retail space.
Figure 3.4 – The CoOp Building under current regeneration
Figure 3.5 – The CoOp Building in original condition
The Co-Operative Society Ltd. department store building also located in Hartlepool was designed by Lionel G. Ekins and opened to the public on 23 October 1915. This grand piece of architecture consists of three storeys and an attic; it has an original stone fascia and clock tower on the east elevation. Located on a large corner site in the town centre, it is one of the grandest buildings in the area. The Co-Op ceased trading in the 1980’s and became unused for a number of years, apart from a short period when the ground floor of it was used as a night club called “Passion”. Since the closure of Passion in 1999 the building remained unoccupied and had fallen into disrepair resulting in it being vandalized and becoming an eyesore. Despite numerous planning applications being submitted and rejected for its future development until now. The Co-Op building has now been bought and is currently being redeveloped by Mr. Tony Collins, a local based entrepreneur. He said: "It is a Grade II listed building, very well known - people remember shopping there and working there and it is simply the grandest building in the town."
The MMP Group, based in County Durham, has won the contract to convert this Grade Il listed building into fifty high-specification apartments aimed towards young professionals. The ground floor area will be retained for retail use, including a bar and restaurant with underground car parking facilities. Mr. Owen Graham, Construction Director of the MMP Group immediately highlights the importance of the way in which the building should be handled and the high level of quality finishes to do the landmark justice by quoting:
“This is a fine old building that hails back to the days when the Co-operative Society was king of retailers in the North East. It has an impressive façade and stands at the junction of two of the busiest roads in Hartlepool. The refurbishment work will need to be extremely sympathetic to some of the retained, original features and we will be looking to use our most skilled construction, finishing and joinery craftsmen to ensure that internally the quality mirrors the grandeur of the frontages.”
Iain Wright, Hartlepool MP visited the site to check the progress of the redevelopment and said "I think that this project is incredibly significant for our town on a number of levels. I am extremely pleased that a distinctive and beautiful building is going to be brought back into use, particularly one that visitors to our town see when they come from the A689. You have to ask questions about the ambition, vision and prosperity, both past, present and future of towns when you see derelict buildings, especially in the centre of towns.”
Hartlepool Mayor Stuart Drummond said he was pleased new life was to be breathed back into the building. "This building is without exception the finest building in the town and it is such a shame it has been derelict for so many years. It is very exciting and great news that the building is going to be brought back into use."
Figure 4.1 – Pie Chart with overall results taken from questionnaires, online poll and ‘Facadism’ By Jonathan Richards
As you can see from the chart above, just over two thirds of respondents involved from all three separate studies (referenced in the appendices) believe Facadism to be bad, leaving just under one third to agree with the development process. Unfortunately, due to the limited resources, only 140 respondents participated in the questionnaire, which means they cannot be relied on scientifically. However, the outcome does clearly define a strong correlation between the two opinions. From this information an overall conclusion can be drawn, however, as predicted in the introduction, the hypothesis is inconclusive; meaning it cannot be proven or disproven with 100% accuracy. Therefore a compromise on this particular topic is extremely difficult to reach. Due to the uncertainty and wide range of attitudes and opinions involved.
After uncovering this information, compiling this study and developing knowledge in this area of architectural design, one can be extremely pleased with the outcome. All of the original aims have been covered to a satisfactory level.
The argument was challenged thoroughly from both perspectives by highlighting the pros and cons from primary and secondary resources including the questionnaires, quotes and background research from books and different mediums. Together with the case studies, uncovering the reasons as to why it is such a contentious issue was clarified somewhat.
Facadism has a different meaning for each sub-domain. From a Social perspective, Facadism causes major disruption to communities during development work. Often due to supports and scaffold obstructing pavements, roads and access for pedestrians or motorists. There is also the argument of urban damage from construction machinery and materials such as cracked paving slabs and curbs, which although can easily be rectified, defeats the object of conservation.
Economically speaking, Facadism can be difficult to generalise due to financial constraints, costs and benefits, feasibility and viability studies. Planners must make major cost effective decisions in order to support the financial success of projects and developments.One of the most common criticisms put forward by conversationalists is that the movement divorces the façade of a building from its interior. It is believed that the exterior of a building should always be a natural expression of its interior. It has been said that ‘all great architects are guilty of Facadism, pastiche and replica’ .
As a concept, Facadism emphasises the potential for treating the interior and exterior of a building as separate wholes which opposes the beliefs of Pre-Modernists. Modernists and functionalists represented much more than a stylistic break from the past. From a Post-Modern view Facadism is a process which involves taking elements from the past and applying them to new fabric in the form of decorative features.
Hewison considers that postmodernism betrays ‘an unhealthy dependence on the past’. The postmodern period has witnessed a return of traditional values, context and contradiction to architecture.
Anti-Facadists mainly consist of heritage and conservation group members who take the opposing stance and appear to be the dominant group so far in this study. They feel that historical significance, valuable interiors and the buildings integrity is lost.
Pro-Facadists, namely property developers, defend their views by stating how they believe the façade of the building is worth retaining. The streetscape is rescued and most important aspect of the building remains intact.
Pro-Conservationists aim to protect the townscapes integrity and try to preserve the original build in order to avoid the use of new building materials. They believe there is an alternative method to Facadism, which could be used in order to salvage our full buildings and heritage. However, as a last resort with the only option of demolition, “Facadism is the lesser of the two evils.”
Conclusion
These differences in opinion are what make Facadism so disreputable. Each group is so passionate and adamant for their beliefs, norms and values; no common ground or negotiation takes place on either part, resulting in the constant expansion of this global issue. Although, a solid moral conclusion to the hypothesis could not be drawn, statistically, Facadism is a bad architectural design division, as proven with an 18% overall difference shown in figure 4.1.
Façade retention has rescued many buildings from the threat of demolition, decay or collapse. However, realising that this option of development comes with major penalties; environmentally, financially and socially, despite it being the less popular attitude of the two. It is believed Facadism is a positive construction method so long as the original façade is restored to the highest standards with the utmost respect. Demolition of original interiors should be handled with as little disruption and waste as possible.
A profound realisation occurred, when noticing just how passionate and protective people are when it comes to buildings, architectural design, environmental issues and construction methods. Therefore, the only generic conclusion is to allow people to make their own choices and come to their own decision on Facadism.
If this study was to be performed again in a completely different manner, whether it be on a wider scale by incorporating more questionnaires, case studies, books and other research sources, or by carrying out international interviews; The consensus strongly believes that the exact same conclusion would be reached; due to the subject in question being so widespread in attitudes and opinions. The outcome of this study has confirmed the initial prediction that little compromise is offered where Facadism takes place. This gives extreme confidence and pleasing results from this study.
After studying ‘Facadism’ by Jonathan Richards It came to attention that his approach was very similar to the approach taken in this study. It appears he too found it difficult to find a reliable conclusion. His work and research proved to be extremely beneficial to this study and expanding on his work was a real pleasure. In the words of Jonathan Richards,
“Facadism is an important concept in the context of urban change and economic regeneration in historic areas. One of the most significant points is that it allows greater flexibility in sympathetically incorporating new accommodation within traditional settings of high visual quality than does the conservation of existing fabric.”
Afterword
I hope that in the future people can find some common ground with a suitable solution……….
……….On the other hand, it would be very interesting to see this universal conflict continue over the next decade or two to see if it changes or remains as intense as it is now!
Bibliography
BOOKS
Bullock, O, M The Restoration Manual, New York, 1966
Burke, G, Townscapes, Harmondsworth, 1976
Burns, W New Towns for Old, London, 1963
Ching, Francis, D.K A Visual Dictionary of Architecture, Canada, 1995
Chitty, G Managing Historic Sites and Buildings, London, 1972
Cohen, N, Urban Conservation, The MIT Press, 1999
Fitch, JM, Historic Preservation, University press of Virginia, 1990
Glancy, J New British Architecture, Thames and Hudson, London, 1989
Harvey, J Conservation of Buildings, London, 1972
Heckscher, A, The Public Happiness, New York, 1962
Hewison, R The Heritage Industry, London, 1987
Highfield, D, Rehabilitation and Re-use of Old Buildings, E & F Spon, 1987
HRH The Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain, Doubleday, 1989
Larkham, PJ, Conservation and the City, Routledge, 1996
Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, London, 1972
Muchnick, D,M Urban Renewal in Liverpool, London, 1970
Richards, J Facadism, Routledge, London, 1994
Tschudi-Masden, S, Restoration and Anti-Restoration, Universitetsforlaget, 1976
INTERNET WEBSITES
http://www.ziss.com/stop55/88townsend/88townsend.html - consulted on 12/06/07
http://pamclements.com/ - consulted on 18/06/07
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/dublin/ - consulted on 28/06/07
http://www.monkeyhanger.com/pubs.htm - consulted on 10/07/07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/4898410.stm - consulted on 14/07/07
http://www.scottishironwork.org/datacat.asp?type=bu - consulted on 18/07/07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Kilda_railway_station,_Melbourne - consulted on 09/08/07
http://www.google.co.uk/- consulted on 12/08/07
http://www.francisfrith.com/search/england/cleveland/west+hartlepool/memories/ - consulted on 22/08/07
http://www.mmpgroup.co.uk/news/news33.htm - consulted on 05/09/07
http://www.iainwrightmp.org.uk/archives/109-Iain-Wright-visits-Co-Op-Building.html - consulted on 07/09/07
http://www.urbanphoto.net/blog/2006/10/21/facadectomy-in-the-making/ - consulted on 08/09/07
http://journal.davidbyrne.com/anthropologysociology/index.html - consulted on 10/09/07
http://www.search.com/referenceSaint_John,_New_Brunswick - consulted on 10/09/07
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070116/ - consulted on 10/09/07
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/ - consulted on 11/09/07
JOURNALS/NEWSPAPERS/BROCHURES
‘Planning for Conservation’, RIBA Journal. (August Edition)
The Hartlepool Mail 21/02/2007
The Northern Daily Mail 22/10/1915
Park Tower Brochure, Tony Collins Developments, Manners and Harrison. Hartlepool
Minutes taken from the West Hartlepool Council Minutes
Department of the Environment, List of Buildings of special architectural or Historical interest, Borough of Hartlepool, Cleveland. Ref C720HHA Pages 1,60,66,67
Bricks and Mortar, A Celebration of Architecture in Hartlepool 1834-1984 – Festival of Architecture 1984. Hartlepool Museum Service. Department of Leisure and Amenities. Ref C7209HHA Pages 1, 12, 24
Illustrations
Front Cover - Mount Sinai Hospital, 100 Yorkville, Torronto . built in the 1930s as a maternity and convalescence ward. Taken from http://www.mtsinai.on.ca/(consulted on 22/07/07) p1.
Figure 1.1 – Madison Building suffering from urban decay, Located in Detroit, Michigan
Taken from http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0505/19/C01-186787.htm (consulted on 18/07/07) p10.
Figure 1.2 – HSBC building amongst modern architecture, Located in Saint John, New Brunswick. Taken from http://www.search.com/reference/Saint_John,_New_Brunswick (consulted on 18/07/07) p10.
Figure 2.1 - Project 88 Townsend regeneration project, Located in San Francisco. Taken from http://www.ziss.com/stop55/88townsend/88townsend.html (consulted on 04/08/07) p15.
Figure 2.2 - An old Presbyterian Church, located around the corner from Charlemont Street, Adelaide Road, Dublin. P15. Taken from http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/dublin/ (consulted on 05/09/07)
Figure 3.1 – Front elevation of the Wesley Chapel, Located in Hartlepool. Taken personally in Wesley Square, Hartlepool on 19/10/07p17.
Figure 3.2 – Side Elevation of the Wesley Chapel, Located in Hartlepool . Taken personally in Wesley Square, Hartlepool on 19/10/07 p17.
Figure 3.3 – Interior (as a nightclub) of the Wesley Chapel, Located in Hartlepool. Taken personally in Wesley Square, Hartlepool on 19/10/07 p17.
Figure 3.4 – The CoOp Building under current regeneration, Located in Hartlepool. Taken personally in Wesley Square, Hartlepool on 19/10/07 p19.
Figure 3.5 – The CoOp Building in original condition , Located in Hartlepool.Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/tees/4898410.stm (consulted on 22/07/07) p19.
Figure 4.1 – Pie Chart with overall average results taken from questionnaires, online poll and ‘Facadism’ By Jonathan Richards (See Appendix)(Produced 18/12/07) p21.
No comments:
Post a Comment