The perception and response to the notion of what constitutes historic.

Bursledon Brickworks is listed grade II* and so therefore is subsequently classified as a heritage site. Consequently this places it in the same category as many ancient medieval churches and grand country homes.

This situation therefore raises the fundamental question what do we perceive as historic and most importantly how is anything subsequently treated once acquiring this distinction?

In response to this proposition my synopsis and provisional thesis research aims to elucidate to some extent what we currently express through the notion of historic and we have come to perceive many existing buildings as such.

The term historic itself has only acquired its current associations of attributing a physical object with value because of its age or association with a previous age over the last century. Previous perceived associations with previous context therefore constitute the value and meaning of what we currently understand to be historic and not the monetary value or workmanship embody within the physical object itself, which was the case in previous contexts.

Arguably it is the narrative and stories, the uniqueness of instances themselves that buildings embody as physical shells representative of former contexts and ages that actually constitutes our perception of them as historic. Architecture itself is therefore in fact merely a template for past narratives and as such presents negative reliefs of past social structures and dialogues.

The conservation and restoration discourse as a discipline is primarily concerned with layering and addition as its main device of intervention. However these objective processes, although perhaps enviable as a pragmatic response within the current context, are arguably primarily concerned with historic buildings as aesthetic, empty and static artefacts that are more akin to paintings and museum pieces than living and evolving accommodators of society.

It is this initial engagement and pre-occupation with many existing buildings as objects that informs how we then engage with them. This is as appose to what perhaps should in fact inform engagement; namely the continued accommodation of function and narrative relative to contemporary society.

Of course this is not to argue against the layering processes of conservation and consolidation that are currently prescribed where historical buildings are concerned. Rather that greater consideration needs to given what factors inform the continuing change within the buildings as objects in themselves, namely the social activities and functions that take place within them.

We read this change in building, arguably understanding a sense of our place chronologically

within history and perhaps understandably seek to preserve it, whilst at the same inadvertently preventing any further evolution to take place.

Intervention is needed in many cases in order to incorporate new narratives and uses, as arguably many existing buildings are allowed to decay due to a fixation with the building as a historical object that needs to preserved.

However it is also important that this intervention must be articulated sensitively in order not to destroy previous dialogues. Furthermore the articulation must also be exercised physically, through materiality and tectonics, layering new elements over and into old to facilitate the accommodation of new narratives. Simply establishing empty analogies through form for instance is not enough in itself, as arguably buildings must physically embody change and adaptation in their fabric in order to remain relevant.