The Hill House, built by Charles Rennie Mackintosh, is one of my favourite historical architectural wonders. Luckily I don’t live too far away from it so I can go and see it as much as I want. It is currently caged behind a large box, protecting it from the elements so that it can be preserved for future generations but this has caused much debate to those who love the house and live in the local area. Both falling on either side of the debate, do we keep the eyesore or do we let the house rot away?
This raises a big question for those protecting the world’s history, but also those who have to live with the consequences. Is it worth creating such changes to the landscape to protect heritage, or do we let nature take its course and slowly let historical influencers slowly rot away?
Preserving history, how far is too far?
There is an importance to keeping where we come from alive, it inspires the next generation but also reminds of us mistakes made so we don’t repeat them. I think with Mackintosh’s work it’s particularly important as most of his ideas, and styles, still have influence in some of today’s house builds. It then becomes a question of how far is too far, when we consider how much weight is on the past to build the future. What is the price we are willing to pay to save creativity and how much should that impact the world that we currently live in? My recent visits have got me thinking about this very question.
Mackintosh is, in my opinion, a pioneering force in the world of architectural design in Scotland. His designs almost surround the Scottish city of Glasgow, from the Street School through to the Glasgow School of Art and as you head further out these influences stay in furniture and signage. He has played a massive part in building the city.
So protecting his work as part of national heritage is a no brainer, right? No matter what the impact on the surrounding area might be. This is where I am divided, yes I think there is an importance to protecting some heritage for future generations. However, we need to be conscious of the wider consequences and we should be asking important questions, such as, does the landmark bring much needed investment into the community and will the removal or destruction improve or remove from the local area?
I think, in this particular case, the box increases the local community with a new cafe being introduced and the box giving you new views of not only the house but the surrounding area. This will sound like a cop out, but these things need to be approached on a case-by-case basis. Judging each decision on impact and cost.
The pros and cons of looking after history
Buildings of yesteryear are great to inspire people, I regularly head to the Hill House in particular when I am struggling with thinking about my next design. But because of their dated practices in building quality and also material used some of these older styles of architecture are dangerous and pose a risk not only to the landscape but the health and safety of those visiting. From movement in walls, right through to asbestos in the walls and ceiling.
The Hill House is a building that highlights this well, with the sandstone and cement mixture actively damaging the house as the building is dissolving in the rain. Which is why it now has the big box around it as the National Trust for Scotland figures out how to save it. This has had an impact on those living around the building, with the protective cage now scarring the Helensburgh Hilltop.
The pro here is that we are protecting a well-designed building, created by a man that has a rich connection to the west-coast of Scotland. The cons are also as obvious, in the pursuit of protection, we are potentially making the area surrounding it less enjoyable for the locals.
Looking at the future too, as more and more older buildings are also likely to come to the same fate, particularly the brutalist stylings of the 1960s, we should also be thinking about the sustainability aspect of protecting buildings. Demolishing and rebuilding creates a large amount of waste and carbon emissions, something that in the pursuit of net-zero isn’t the great thing to do.
So, in the grand scheme of things, where do we stand? By preserving the historic buildings and modernising them, are we really scarring a landscape or are we recycling, redesigning, and refurbishing to reduce waste and carbon emissions? We have two great examples in The Hill House and Battersea showcasing how we can make new, eco-friendly, multi-use spaces, out of old buildings to protect our heritage for the future, but also reduce our impact on environments.
Preserving and improving buildings should become the norm, as we look at reducing our impact on the earth and the mining of natural resources. Yes, The Hill House box does maybe annoy some people, but in my opinion what would be much worse is its removal in favour of new-builds which create a much larger scar.