I usually defend Brian Rudman, not because I agree with him (I seldom do), but because he is true to his ‘leftist’ bias in reporting on issues he considers important. But his article “Queens Head horror too awful to destroy” illustrates the danger of his leanings – that he becomes the ‘hand maiden’ (his term) of any protest cause, regardless of its merits.
“Facadism” is worth debating – but we are entitled to expect some investigative journalism if it is to feature in our major daily. From being a “cause” (not without validity), heritage issues are now hopefully receiving more balanced treatment. Age is not the only value to be considered – not everything from the past is that much better than what we do today.
The Queens Head was, in 1986, a façade with a dilapidated timber building behind that had been constantly, and badly, renovated. Perhaps the only thing of historic value was the 1950’s Formica sheet lining to bathrooms – but even that was delaminating through neglect. And while criticizing this and the Jean Batten Building, Rudman ignores such acclaimed buildings a Lloyds Insurance in London which does exactly the same with the old façade.
Facadism has its place in an urban environment where the spaces around buildings are as important as the interiors. And the notion of “palimpsest” with parts or all of existing buildings is an important way of ensuring the dynamism of urban growth is not frozen by blind ideology triumphing over reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment