Bursledon Brickworks.

Bursledon Brickworks.

Bursledon Brickworks.

In addition to a response to the existing structures an engagement with their surrounding situation and setting should also require specific attention as part of the overall whole.

The setting for the brickworks has been much fragmented and reduced from its original format at the height of its manufacturing capabilities, however it still retains an established and strong narrative of movement in regards to how it is currently used that relates directly to its original function.

To elucidate, the clay was originally dug from adjacent pits to the east of the site before moving in a linear process through the works themselves, moving from formation to drying and then finally firing before being moved to the river for transportation; primarily to Southampton.

By re-establishing and strengthening this narrative new functions and activities will sit far more comfortably within the building. This is as appose to occupying the structures in a fragmented and unassociated way; as is the case at present.

Visitors currently enter at the eastern extreme of the site before moving west towards the works. However at this point their movement and journey around the sites and buildings becomes disjointed and confusing.

The below concept therefore attempts to re-establish the clear route from the land to the rivers edge and furthermore references the gradual stratification of the site, caused by clay extraction, through the intervention of north to south installations that protrude from the ground and form a physical framework along the primary east to west route.

Onto this framework new activities can attach themselves which are subsequently accommodated within the structures of the brickworks itself and within new structures, which will possibly include accommodation, education, retreat and business facilities.

Bursledon Brickworks.

Concept collages exploring the idea of accommodating new narratives and uses amongst the existing.

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.

Bursledon Brickworks.

Design development for BBW extracted from sketchbooks.

Synopsis 01.

As a fundamental objective buildings provide shelter and a practical sense of protection for humanity.This is architecture at its most primordial, providing for humanities well being through the provision of a consolidating and strengthening framework. In this most primeval of necessities buildings provide a medieval sense of comfort through strength.[1]

An essential component of this sense of fortification and strengthening of humanity comprises a sense of familiarity and of the identifiable. [2]

This engagement with buildings is articulated through multi-sensory perception, for example through the feel of materials, the sound within a space or the specific associations and feelings that buildings provoke. Importantly it is these perceptions and relations that ultimately define the very nature of experiencing a building. [3]

Of course it can be argued that all of this multi-sensory perception is ultimately being processed by our psychological capacity, depending on whether one accepts the ocular- based philosophy of Kant or the more corporal approach of Merleau-Ponty for instance. Regardless of this however buildings form the corporeal framework with which we engage within a daily ‘reality’.

Perhaps then this offers some explanation as to why buildings that are now classed as ‘historic’ are normally so highly regarded. They are surviving, tangible connections to our past. Through experiencing these structures, through an initial physical experience and then subsequently through perceptive association, it is possible to establish a connection and a sense of place within a historical, social and demographic context. [4]

This however poses a predicament, one that has become increasingly prevalent over the last century. Namely how these historic buildings continue to serve their intended purpose or furthermore adapt to fulfill an alternative rationale when they are increasingly consigned to the realm of artificial preservation?

Truly authentic buildings, it can be argued, should remain relevant and essential within society. When they cease to perform their intended pragmatic function or fail to adapt in order to address an alternative, they become artifacts. This state is more analogous to a museum piece than the practical and indeed essential framework within which we base the very reality of our existence.

Generally speaking this approach to historical architecture has only transpired relatively recently. A gradual progression from a Renaissance notion of interpreting the past, where an objectifying ancient architecture was freely re-articulated in a creative present, including both existing and new buildings, to the current Romantic idea of historical architecture has come into existence.

The Romantic, in contrast to the former Renaissance model of intellectual re-articulation, results in our treatment of historical buildings being now largely consigned to preservation and nostalgia. We often treat them as archeological objects rather than something living and transient. Furthermore these interpretations are often consigned an aesthetic and historical, analytical approach. [5] Is architecture art? Should it be understood and preserved as a static and fixed relic, one that is often representative of superseded social values?

It is perhaps interesting to speculate that the prevalence of the preservation movement of the nineteenth century to the present has run in parallel with the acceleration of technological advances since the advent of the industrial revolution in the mid eighteenth century. An explosion of new building technology and a standardization of regionalism had a direct impact upon the rate of evolution within architecture. We therefore now feel our historic buildings are increasingly vulnerable[6] and with them a sense of our relative position within history as well as a tangible connection with our past and even present milieu. [7]

However, as previously articulated, buildings, no matter how historic, need to physically accommodate change and so this raises the question what is the right approach? Do we distinctly add or replace elements of buildings with the contemporary to establish a dialogue of contrast? Alternatively do we attempt to maintain a sense of continuality through imitation?

What if both were achievable as parts of a new whole, a cohesive dialogue and outcome that draws from both contemporary and from existing elements? [8]

On the other hand are all of these considerations ultimately inconsequential? Much of architectural development is an intuitive and subjective process. Whilst objective processes define it there is arguably only one objective reality. This is that buildings continue to provide a relevant and valuable framework for their contemporary context.

It can also be fundamentally proposed that it is the processes inherent within and the subsequent perception of these buildings, in other words their phenomenological presence, that bestows the associations and reactions that they evoke.

Despite this however, ultimately, at a practical level, architecture is what we perceive and experience as a tangible and real object. It can be argued that our subsequent perceptions and interpretations are actually only derived after this tectonic framework has first been installed. Something must first ‘exist’ for us to then bestow a sense of value and association. [9]

Thus the question can be proposed how can this physical framework, which so strongly influences our sense of perception regarding who, what and where we are, be most successfully derived and manifested in the case of new interventions and changes to existing building fabric.

[1] W. Rybczynski: ‘Home’ Pages 20-22

[2] J. Ruskin: ‘The Poetry of Architecture’ Pages 1-6

[3] J. Pallasma: ‘The Eyes of the Skin’ Pages 31-32

[4] J. Strike: ‘Architecture in Conservation’ Page 22-25

[5] J. Jokilehto: ‘A History of Architectural Conservation’ Foreword: P.Philipott

[6] C.Amery and D. Cruickshank: ‘The Rape of Britain’ Pages 10-14

[7] J. Strike: ‘Architecture in Conservation’ Pages 14-18

[8] R. Venturi: ‘Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture’ Page 88-90

[9] P. Zumthor: ‘Thinking Architecture’ Page 83