Following on from my previous thread where I laid out my thoughts on the future of the Mackintosh building at Glasgow School of Art it might be useful to address some of the points raised in the various discussions that have taken place surrounding it
The previous thread was only ever intended as my initial reaction to MackFire2, in absence of anything more substantial than the shared shock and grief. It inadvertently became a wider look at historic building management, development practices & statutory body responsibilities
Keep in mind it was a stream of thought expressed in the moment (& from a tablet…), I hope to articulate those thoughts a little more comprehensively here. I have no news on the Mack that you won’t already have access to, so I don’t think it will be much of a scoop I’m afraid.
That said, its worth looking at where we are with the Mack today. Given the scale of the fire its something of a wonder that anything of the building is still standing at all. Testament to the design, quality of work & materials. 
Thats the good news. The leaning and bulging walls are obvious immediate issues, the heat shattered stonework indicating the entire wall section (& not just facing stone) is compromised & will prove equally troublesome. These walls will have to come down in order to move forward.
The safety of anyone working on a site is paramount, whether emergency services or construction/demolition crews. No building is worth dying for. The coming days & weeks will tell how much of the building might actually survive.
That next step will be to ultimately determine the future of the remains of the Mack & how best to approach the site. There seems no question that the site should remain in the hands of GSoA, some options that might be considered are:
* Archaeological reconstruction from scratch but entirely faithful to Mackintosh’s design & specifications, like for like. Minimal alterations or changes in materials. Traditional techniques of material production, crafting and construction.
* Reconstruction of the original design but with a less prescriptive methodology in respect to material choices and construction/engineering techniques. Only material changes being where building regulations require it or where original sources arent available, e.g. the sandstone
* Conservation approach. Much as outlined in reconstruction, but with as much of the original fabric retained as possible and rebuilt to the original design. New external elements & modern interventions potentially allowed & clearly delineated in their materiality.
* Façade retention plus. Retention if viable, or reconstruction of the shell of the building, key spaces (library etc) & elements. Relatively free hand given to modify the rest of the internal spaces of the building. Possible use of different materials to denote new vs retained.
* New building in the ‘spirit’ of the original design. Freedom to retain as much or as little of the existing structure & layout as desired. Not something completely original but with some key Mack elements adopted. Material choices would be sympathetic but unrestricted.
* Complete new build to an entirely new design.
This short list is by no means comprehensive, there will be many more variations on all of those themes being considered. I’m not even entirely sure where my own opinion falls in that spectrum of options I’ve just painted!
One thing that is certain is that whatever can be saved from the remains of the Mack will be readily incorporated into any rebuild, this sort of thing is not new or unique. Anything that is unsafe will be made safe, safely. Theres no real safety concerns in that area.
We have laser scanning data, plans, drawings and images to utilise in any reconstruction attempt, I don’t think theres a significant detail of the building that hasn’t been recorded. Entire European city centres have been rebuilt from less.
What might the cost be? I’ve seen £100-£200 million figures bandied about, the truth is we won’t know until the dust has settled, the site is made good, the damage properly surveyed, all factors taken into account, and the options fully appraised.
I am curious as to whether clearing the site entirely and reconstructing the Mack would actually exempt the project from VAT? In that scenario might the VAT only apply to salvaged materials? Can we take 20% off the cost immediately? If anyone knows the answer, please share.
Conservation and façade retention approaches will incur VAT but are more in line with the current consensus (dare I say traditional…) approach. They can be costly & time consuming, but there is a lot of experience in delivering such projects.
The last two options would not incur VAT as new builds and would be the cheapest and quickest option. Which has its attraction. But is that what we really want, what the site deserves? It smacks of value engineering. Some things are about more than a bottom line.
Even if the budget for a new design was infinite, there would be no guarantee of an architectural set-piece equally - or more - significant in the history of art and architecture. Theres also no guarantee of a Scottish architect for those musing over that idea.
I have tried not to be too unkind to Holl’s Reid Building opposite the Mack as, in all honesty, if the building were anywhere else or not have the Mack to live up to I think I might love it. But it did not live up to my expectations.
The Reid Building cost £50m, a Mack at £100m isn’t bad value at all. We know how successful a piece of architecture – and school of art – the Mack is. Is it worth the gamble?
The sourcing of traditional materials and skills has been raised and they are excellent points. Our traditional crafts have evolved into quite specialist services in the modern construction market. Which means relatively there are few practitioners & thus expensive.
What better way to support the growth of our traditional skills base than through a project like rebuilding the Mack? Such a project would take more time than a new design to construct, meaning employment for our crafts people & growth of their business.
I don’t have a number for how many people such a project might employ nor for how long, but conceivable we are talking hundreds of people employed over 2-5 years. How many of those people might be apprentices whose learning & employment are supported by a rebuilding project…
Ive read many artists, people who worked, studied, or just played at the Mack talk about their deep affection & connection to the place. Imagine being a young apprentice learning your craft on building it. Id have given a lung & a kidney, – both kidneys – for such an opportunity!
Theres also the issue of building materials, Scotland has few active quarries, them all having closed over the course of the 20th c as use of the materials declined. Many other sources exist elsewhere for sandstone & slate tho, so materials of similar specifications are available
A singular building project like the Mack is not big enough to support an entire industry in Scotland, alas, but what sort of impact might an ongoing largescale project have on the availability of traditional materials and skills? Is there demand that warrants our attention here?
The Scottish Stone Liaison Group’s 2006 report highlighted the challenges – & shortfalls – in the industry projected over 20 years. The report was the outcome of a survey of 230 of the estimated 24,000+ traditional buildings in Glasgow to assess what repairs would be needed.
The findings are quite startling. In 2006 it was estimated that to carry out 60% of the total amount of work required by Glasgows stone built heritage in that year alone would require the work of 181 stone masons. There were 65 stone masons working in Scotland that year.
Projecting forward 10 years to 2016, it was estimated that the number of stone masons in Scotland would rise from 65 to 650 (as a result of new training & apprenticeships) against a requirement of 1,806 masons to undertake just 60% of the work required in Glasgow alone.
The projections for 20 years is truly frightening. An estimated 1,300 stone masons would be available for work projected to require 3,609. And again that’s only to carry out 60% of the work projected to be required.
Quite where we’re at with these estimates now, I don’t know. But I’m guessing there is still a significant shortfall in the available skills. And this projected work is vital if we want to keep our traditional building stock.
Large swathes of surviving tenements were all built at the same time. Building components only last so long & eventually need replaced. Entire streets and districts could all start failing at the same time, and scarily at any moment.
The 2006 report concluded that over the course of the next 20 years the majority of Glasgow’s traditional building stock would require some level of remedial work or intervention. We’re right in the middle of that period now. When was the last time you had the gutters cleaned?
Historic Scotland (as it was) research was also cited in the report highlighting that work to existing buildings accounted for £3.1 billion of the £6.7 billion annual construction spend in Scotland. That’s an astounding figure when you think about it.
I would be interested to know if these figures have been updated as a result of new skills intakes a surveys of such nature. One thing is clear is that we can’t afford to sit around agreeing how worrying it is. I dont have up to date info here so wont go much further into it
I know there has been amazing work done through apprenticeships since 2006 and that our heritage sector in Scotland is amongst the most active and respected in the world so I have every confidence the situation outlined is being managed. But can we do more?
I think part of the answer lies in our approach to tragedies such as MackFire2 and how we approach place-making and new architecture. If we support the use of traditional skills, materials and stylistic approaches to architecture it could create something of a virtuous circle.
Buidings will be improved, heritage saved, homes secured for another 100 years in our weather. In turn jobs in craft and material production will be sustained, we could potentially see the return to commercial viability of the likes of Ballachulish slate. Demand opens quarries.
A heritage sector bolstered by an increased craft skills base and the increased availability & range of traditional materials. Potentially cheaper repairs for the rest of us too – the more people involved the more competitive the market.
I see this working with the legislation and suggested delivery vehicle for conservation/rebuilding/new building projects outlined in my previous Mack thread. Directed investment into our skills base by creating work for them in new projects.
The softly softly, slow and steady approach will not keep our heritage standing.
In terms of precedent for such rebuilds, I spoke of Dresden & the Frauenkirche, largely because that church blows my mind,in that “howdy folks, we restored this to how it looked over FIFTY Year Agooo!” “No, surely not, no!? *shocked amazement*” Eddie Izzard sketchy kinda way…
I could have chosen from several places all over Europe really. The Guedelon Castle project in France is an amazing example of extreme experimental archaeology. Like seriously, everything from the treadwheel cranes to the skiddy shirt tails for underwear.Castle built from scratch
At what point does a castle stop being a castle and instead become pastiche? Disneyland springs immediately, obviously, to mind. But did you know Eilan Donan Castle was reconstructed less than a century ago? If not, how do you feel about the building now? Deceived? Love it more?
You know the old joke about the janitor who had the same broom for 40 years… When does Glasgow Cathedral stop being Glasgow Cathedral? Its entire roof, a vast amount of stonework & almost the entire west front were replaced in the 19th c
Pastiche a terrible term, lazily & dismissively bandied about. Its all a matter of opinion & taste. Architecture is like tapas, I like a little bit of everything. The juxtaposition of old & new can be beautiful & theres no shame in appreciating or building in a traditional style.
There’s certainly nothing dishonest about it either, as long as its done with sincerity – and done well – who cares when it was built. I don’t look at the local church & think “lying b*…” just because it was built in the 19th instead of the 14th c…
The Grosvenor hotel at Great Western Road walks the line though. It’s a complete rebuild after a devastating fir in 1978 with the façade replicated in precast concrete panels, nothing original of it survives. Those with a #JoinersEye will be able to spot he joins in the panels.
More recently, fires at Park Terrace & Lilybank Terrace left these buildings gutted. The facades were saved and restored along with all exterior detailing, interiors are a mix of reinstatement and modern alterations. There are countless examples of this sort of thing.
So two different response to the same sort of disastrous fire. How do you feel about the Grosvenor now, do you think that a mistake was made and that they should have replaced the burn out shell of the hotel with a new design? Or was the concrete replica the right response?
Taking things a bit further, this building on Lynedoch Street was entirely demolished and rebuilt to the original design. I believe some alterations were made to the internal layout but it is still, in effect, the exact same design with the same notable features.
Or further still, this terrace of houses on Highburgh Rd was only completed in the last few years after a century of hiatus. Is that dishonest? Pastiche? An insult to architecture? Has anyone been cheated out of anything? Has anyone any reason to be offended? Did anyone object?
I’m going to put myself out there and say no, no to all of that. I love it. I encourage anyone who has ever dreamed of building something in a traditional style to do it. I encourage architects not to be afraid of it. Use all of the tools in your toolkit.
This fear and loathing by some architects of anything that isn’t entirely new/contemporary is so played out too. Its elitist snobbery. The language of style and ornament of pre WWII architecture only developed over the course of all human history, what could we possibly learn…
It should be just as acceptable to build – or rebuild - something in a classical style as it is something that follows the pattern set in the post-war era. Who cares if the architectural language used in a building was inspired by something 100 or 50 years ago?
Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of the language or style it is built in. Its about more than being an academic exercise, its about creating a functional space for people to utilise in a manner that brings joy.
It's why our predecessors went to such lengths as to move entire buildings such as Langside Halls which was formerly a bank on Queen St. Or St John's in Pollok, formerly in Pollokshields
There’s zero guarantee of that being the outcome of an entirely new design for the Mack, to even consider it entirely ignores the significance of the Mack as a piece of architecture and as a place that has delighted & inspired generations of artists.
I’ve had several comments saying how inspiring it is that we are even having these conversations here in Glasgow about this building. How inspiring would it be to those who live in Glasgow – in Scotland – if we were to rebuild the Mack. Are we not worth it?
Todays Guardian article gives a good overview of three different viewpoints. One in favour of rebuild, one in favour of façade retention and minimal interior, the other in favour of a completely new design
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2…
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2…
The argument for a new design is the same argument wheeled out by the same architect in 2014 against restoration of the Mack. The argument for a minimalist approach seems predicated on the fire being recorded as an event in the architecture.
Sort of neglects the fact that the event of the fire would also be recorded in a rebuild – by virtue of the fact it had been rebuilt! Its not like we’d be trying to keep it a secret or dupe anyone! I don’t want to compare it to Segrada Familia, but…
I also don’t want to compare it to the Sistine Chapel, but without its frescoes it not really much more than a big ole god-box. A Mack without its interior would be a building without a soul. What would be the point.
So, what would I like to see out of all of this? As I hope I’ve explained (please just ask if Ive missed or garbled anything) theres a number of things I’d like to see in respect to the Mack and our approach to heritage & architecture in general:
1. I want to see the Mackintosh building rebuilt faithfully and in full
2. GSoA to expand into the south site & develop it sensitively as visitor/interpretation/museum facilities.
3. A continued increase in our traditional craft skills base and material sources.
2. GSoA to expand into the south site & develop it sensitively as visitor/interpretation/museum facilities.
3. A continued increase in our traditional craft skills base and material sources.
4. A new framework of statutory obligations for historic building owners & Local Authorities.
5 .A local or nation body set up to finance, manage & deliver targeted development projects & assist meeting the aims of statutory framework & winder planning concerns.
5 .A local or nation body set up to finance, manage & deliver targeted development projects & assist meeting the aims of statutory framework & winder planning concerns.
6. A new approach to heritage & traditional architecture that isn’t shy to reinstate what has been lost.
7. The safe guarding of our built heritage
What to do you think?
7. The safe guarding of our built heritage
What to do you think?
One final point to all stakeholders such as GSoA, GCC, HES, etc...
The less you communicate the more people will speculate. Most will appreciate we're at the very early stages of assessing the damage at the Mack let alone what to do next.
To the future of the Mack 🍻
The less you communicate the more people will speculate. Most will appreciate we're at the very early stages of assessing the damage at the Mack let alone what to do next.
To the future of the Mack 🍻
Addendum: A photographic exploration of the reconstructed Altstadt of Frankfurt
