Reconstruction of historic buildings/facades

[woody]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

As Woody will tell you himself, cameras weren't invented back then, that's why.

Cheers my boy, yes the box brownie had yet to be invented, but Joe I was at the opening of the castle, and recorded the happy event in cave paintings which sadly disappeared when the original Cavern was destroyed

[4737carlin]

The hydroulic tower at the docks is one of my favorite buildings in Birkenhead, will be fantasic to see it one day back in use.

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

I think you can have both though, and it can be aspirational if only as a statement of rebirth. There are whole blocks and squares that were lost to Hitler and the so called march of progress, yet I can think of very little of note that replaced some real quality in the 50's-70's.... and it needn't be made of marble or even stone, very little was. There was also some really historic stuff in amongst it making it as deserving as many German towns. Look for instance what replaced Park Lane and Pitt street and Grt George Square, Grt George St..... not to mention the West side of Lime street and the Precinct etc. There are whole areas that were replaced by cheap tat and sometimes nothing at all (islington, Byrom St). Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating the wholesale recreation of pre-war Liverpool because not all of it was worthy, I just think that there are some individual gems and some ensembles that could have the Dresden treatment, our Georgian quarter is only a fraction of its former self. I also think the blank canvas that is Liverpool waters and various other bombsites around town should more than satisfy the need for the contemporary.

rebuilding individual gems is quite acceptible, to me and my ego, but not redrafting whole districts. I do hate the fact though that a, the original Casartelli building was allowed to decay to such an extent that it fell down, then, b. that a twat, twee replica was built.

Somebody should have gone to jail for the original crime of losing the real asset and then we should ahve just built something contemporary on the beautifully expressed site.

[the golden vision]

The "Georgian" terrace at the top of Duke st.....naff in the extreme.

[Evertonian]

They're new build though aren't they. Whereas whats being proposed here is that OLD buildings are preserved and borught back into use, even if it is a relatively new build with just the fascades retained.

Grovesnor did an excellent job on this with a few of the buildings retained for Liverpool one.

[Tony Sebo]

both facadism/restoration and newbuild replicas are being discussed.


Nothing wrong with restoration, facadism can be good, but it can also be bloody awful... nearly all rebuild or 'in-keeping' ends up like the shit that GV has just posted up.

[Toadboy]

I hate new build made to look like heritage. It's an insult to the age we live and architects and designers.

Rentention of good street frontage and facade as well as renovation and rescue of good stock (plenty around Duke Street still to save) is well worthy.

[the golden vision]

There are different issues involved with this. First there's the facade retention of existing buildings that are deemed worth preserving but have decayed or been altered so much that only frontage can be saved. The likes of Seymour terrace(facade only) and it's becoming more common in Liverpool, it's a last resort in my opiinion,sometimes there's so little original fabric in the building demolition is better . Then we have the so called re-build, were a building is taken down to trhe ground and re-built with supposedly the original bricks and stone( farcical) these buildings are obstensibly copies, the "GEORGIAN" terrace i've pictured above is an example,supposedly rebuilt with original material, probably no more than 5% is original and just to take the piss altogether the architect has added some of his own little "touches" I would personally be against any major rebuilds such as the Custom's House,or any building pre 1900. A lot of the charm of older buildings is the fact they built more by craftsman using the tools and technology of the time....i get pangs of loss at times and think a rebuilt Custom House would be great but...it wouldn't be the custom house in any way or form. A no from me o this one.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

There are different issues involved with this. First there's the facade retention of existing buildings that are deemed worth preserving but have decayed or been altered so much that only frontage can be saved. The likes of Seymour terrace(facade only) and it's becoming more common in Liverpool, it's a last resort in my opiinion,sometimes there's so little original fabric in the building demolition is better . Then we have the so called re-build, were a building is taken down to trhe ground and re-built with supposedly the original bricks and stone( farcical) these buildings are obstensibly copies, the "GEORGIAN" terrace i've pictured above is an example,supposedly rebuilt with original material, probably no more than 5% is original and just to take the piss altogether the architect has added some of his own little "touches" I would personally be against any major rebuilds such as the Custom's House,or any building pre 1900. A lot of the charm of older buildings is the fact they built more by craftsman using the tools and technology of the time....i get pangs of loss at times and think a rebuilt Custom House would be great but...it wouldn't be the custom house in any way or form. A no from me o this one.

I can understand people's rejection of twee, pastiche or mock or retro-gone-bad, I agree..... however, faithfull reproduction of real facades that really existed in similar materials is a slightly different thing I think..... and I think the dresden thread illustrates its potential. The thing is that many of these buildings were taken/lost to the city due to the destruction of war and some diabolical planning blunders in the decades that followed that no-one would replicate now despite them being exalted in the 60's, in a way it's like righting a needless wrong, and lets face it they got a lot wrong. While I agree that the people responsible for allowing the casartelli building to decay should be held responsible, I don't believe it was wrong to reinstate it in it's own right and as a valuable element in group of buildings.... regardless of material retention.

[JohnnyLeigh]

Thanks Joe, that was fantastic!

I know its small but that would be incredible if it hadn't be torn down, but then on the other hand certain loons would probably go overboard about it and not allow anything tall to be built near it.

[buggedboy]

I like those terraces. In it's place a copy of previous buildings or style is fine. Georgian is after all now a style, not an era. If for example I had squillions of pounds, I'd want to rebuild the Georgian Terraces on Seel Street that Frenson bulldozed, or at least the facades.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

The "Georgian" terrace at the top of Duke st.....naff in the extreme.

naff in the extreme is putting bungalows backing on to Byrom Street, or box house walled estates backing onto Park lane on a main frontage only yards away from L1, or small 2-3 storey houses flats off Marybone right next to the business district.... these terraces are barely naff (ish) in comparison, and I'd rather have them in all those locations than what's there, although I could think of better. I suppose what I'm saying, and what the thread is about is that sometimes reinstating the old stuff is a safer bet (and can even make economic sense), and in some areas that have completely lost this type of building they can provide a focal point that should never have been lost in the first place eg. Grt George Sqr. I can also barely remember my family's old house in Rose place, Everton that was part of a georgian terrace..... the area was full of these in between the tenements and back to back stuff.... again replaced by tat, most of which has had to be replaced again or left unoccupied.... false economy? These areas now have no character and in some places no fabric, nor connection with the past or the areas around them. They are practically blank canvases, and while the vast majority should rightly be filled with 'quality' contemporary architecture that connection with the past can really pull them together, help break up the homogenous and averts the need to replace every 30-40yrs (How old's the precinct/concourse house?). (How old the piggeries?)..... yes, I'm stretching the analogy but hopefully, you'll know what I mean.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by buggedboy

I like those terraces. In it's place a copy of previous buildings or style is fine. Georgian is after all now a style, not an era. If for example I had squillions of pounds, I'd want to rebuild the Georgian Terraces on Seel Street that Frenson bulldozed, or at least the facades.

This is the point.... after all, St George's Hall is not a real Greek temple, should it be demolished for being a fraud? Of course if you don't like that style I can understand the reservations....

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

naff in the extreme is putting bungalows backing on to Byrom Street, or box house walled estates backing onto Park lane on a main frontage only yards away from L1, or small 2-3 storey houses flats off Marybone right next to the business district.... these terraces are barely naff (ish) in comparison, and I'd rather have them in all those locations than what's there, although I could think of better. I suppose what I'm saying, and what the thread is about is that sometimes reinstating the old stuff is a safer bet (and can even make economic sense), and in some areas that have completely lost this type of building they can provide a focal point that should never have been lost in the first place eg. Grt George Sqr. I can also barely remember my family's old house in Rose place, Everton that was part of a georgian terrace..... the area was full of these in between the tenements and back to back stuff.... again replaced by tat, most of which has had to be replaced again or left unoccupied.... false economy? These areas now have no character and in some places no fabric, nor connection with the past or the areas around them. They are practically blank canvases, and while the vast majority should rightly be filled with 'quality' contemporary architecture that connection with the past can really pull them together, help break up the homogenous and averts the need to replace every 30-40yrs (How old's the precinct/concourse house?). (How old the piggeries?)..... yes, I'm stretching the analogy but hopefully, you'll know what I mean.

Agree with most of that but the issue is replicating historic buildings. The bungalows are not trying to deceive anyone. The problem with replication not pastiche is that they are purporting to be original. Interestingly some rebuilds,such as on Shaw st have lost their listed status and i predict in time most of what was rebuilt on Shaw st will be de-listed.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

This is the point.... after all, St George's Hall is not a real Greek temple, should it be demolished for being a fraud? Of course if you don't like that style I can understand the reservations....

it's a building of its time.

[Babaloo]

There is however a difference between good and bad use of Georgian inspired architecture. The one posted above by GV is an all too common example of how to get it wrong (sadly Liverpool is full of such examples). The whole point of Georgian terraced architecture is that the facades are correctly proportioned and true to the original - there are plenty of good examples of decent Georgian architecture to be drawn on for any architects / developers who might be struggling to comprehend the whole point of it. In Berry Street and Mount Pleasant there are examples of Georgian architecture that have been restored without embellishment or reinterpretation. This is how it should be done.

I don't have a problem with 'facadism' providing it's true to the original. I like the 'Casartelli' building and I'm glad it was 'reborn' without unnecessary embellishment. I wouldn't say no the the demolished Greenberg building coming back in the same way! To illustrate this point further. I live in a Georgian house that looks perfect in every way but it's largely an illusion - all the window frames, windows, slates, front door, external piping, some of the steps, railings etc have been replaced at some point in the last 50 years. The back of the house was extended during Victorian times and internally some of the rooms have been knocked through, whatever. In other words properties evolve - they're not museum pieces.

If the house next to mine burnt down, I wouldn't welcome the arrival of a lego like structure with offset fenestration and tinted glass in its place any more than I would welcome a section of atonal music in a piece by Mozart. It might be amusing and vibrant for a while but the novelty would wear off and ultimately what would remain would jar and spoil something that was close to being as good as it gets.

I'm not sure about recreating lost buildings though just for the sake of it. For example, what would the Custom House be used for now? (Another hotel? Student accommodation?) On the other hand I would prefer to see it where the office buildings are in Princes Dock than what currently exists. For me the stress is on saving what we have left and ensuring that any new buildings add to what exists rather than subtract from it rather than recreating what has been lost*









*Greenbergs building excepted (joke)

[the golden vision]

Agree the main issue facing the city as regards its built environment is retaining what we aleady have. The city has lost some magnificent buildings but still has an architectural legacy to proud of. Now will somebody get down to Stanley Dock and do some remedial work to the roofs of the warehouses, probably a foot of snow on the top floor as i write

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

it's a building of its time.

Who's to say retro-georgian isn't the new neo-classical or mock tudor and thus of the modern era....? not that I'm necessarily advocating that per se. It's interesting that some people can feel the need to reinstate the likes of Greenbergs yet not the custom House........ could it be because they saw Greenbergs and have an attachment 'due to experience'.... whereas you don't miss what you've never had and therefore perhaps the Custom house is less 'wanted'. As far as a useage..... office space, exhibition space, event space, retail, hotel,..... even customs? Government building? Whatever? The space was huge!

The point is the sense of place and grandeur it would evoke, just as the example posted. Liverpool was historically a place with great civic type architecture, that is the main one that was lost in Liverpool and though a distant memory it is criminal that it was allowed to go, probably to the tune of about 100 casartelli buildings.

[Dreamer]

Facading is a great thing, if its the last option for a building, which is in such a poor state or the interior is unfit for use in modern times. However I do think streets/buildings should be reinstated, e.g Park Road had beautiful town houses and shops, and some grand villas at the Aigburth Road end, all sadly destroyed. Some still remain and could be saved, and added to with new buildings. They dont have to be built in the Victorian or Georgian style in perticular, but something that fits in/works with and is of decent quality. This would give these streets their character back and help the regenerate those areas. The Oxford Pub could have town houses rebuild around it, to reinstate the lost neighbourhood and put back a lively urban residential area. There are many areas in Liverpool where this could be done.

[Babaloo]

Park Road is having a bit of a comparative renaissance. In terms of rebuilding / re-energising the city reconstituting the former 'high streets' that used to stretch from Black Bull / Stanley Road to Aigburth Vale with very little interruption and eastwards, too, is essential if the aspiration is to give the city a full set of urban teeth. Hopefully our Shane MacGowan days will soon be a thing of the past. In order to support this we need the required urban density than can sustain more than a Lidl, a chippy, a betting shop and an offy. No more bungalows or low density urban architecture within the area bounded by Queens Drive!

I think when the city is knitted back together again and functioning like a modern major European city we can then think about resurrecting dead architectural friends as the icing in the cake.