I was standing in a building last week and one of the people
there described the building as being “only a vernacular building”.
Now this is a common term which is used to describe some
types of building which were built up to around the 19th Century.
About 20 years ago, when I started working in my first architect’s office,
there were several experienced conservation based architects and technicians,
and one of them had a deep reluctance for this word ‘vernacular’ as he felt it
did not do the buildings justice as he felt it was almost a derogatory term.
Since then I have increasingly sympathised with his opinion,
maybe not as strongly as he believed it, but I do think that the term does not
reflect the craftsmanship and attention to the fine details which many
buildings which could fit into the bracket of “vernacular” show.
The most common belief of the definition of this word for a
building is:
“A building designed
by an amateur without any training in design; the individual will have been
guided by a series of conventions built up in his locality, paying little
attention to what may be fashionable. The function of the building would be the
dominant factor, aesthetic considerations, though present to some small degree,
being quite minimal. Local materials would be used as a matter of course, other
materials being chosen and imported quite exceptionally.”
Now I partially agree with this explanation, relating to
local materials and the function of the building being the dominant factor of
the building. Hundreds of years ago a building would have been a huge
investment and therefore you would want to make the most of this
investment. An important factor of
buildings such as these relate to the building’s location. I work and travel across
many counties in England and it is always interesting to learn and understand
the local palette of materials and styles which relate to that area.
The thing which I struggle within the statement above is the
assumption that because there was no Architect, the builder was guided by the
local conventions and that this does not contain any, or few, aesthetic details
or considerations. In my humble opinion, nothing could be further from the
truth.
In my experience, looking at many buildings over the years, most
buildings seem to have been built by craftsmen who cared about the detail and
appearance of the building. Budget was an obvious hindrance to some buildings,
however more often than not there are still details and refinements which were
not essential but were how the craftsmen wished to express themselves. Sometimes this relates to the fashion of the
day, and sometimes this relates to the use of the building, or status, or trade
of the end user of the building.
These details aren’t just special carvings etc. They are in
almost every aspect of the building, every timber being carved or detailed
where it does not need to be for the function of the building or the structure.
Photos of Lavenham Guildhal, Suffolk
As can be seen in the photo above, if you speak to some
quarters of the heritage building industry this building would be called
vernacular. Now this is barmy, as you only have to see the photo above to see
the details and fashions and status which the building exudes. This building was built when this area of
Suffolk was very wealthy and prosperous due to the production of wool.
Unfortunately today the materials which are used in a
building do not reflect the building’s location and the natural materials
available in the area, resulting in locations losing their identity and
individual character.
I think it is this care and attention to their trade which
makes me so interested in old buildings. Nothing is ever done just because it has to be. There is always, a
sense of ‘wouldn’t it be nice if we did this’ because the craftsman took pride
in their craft. So next time you stand in a vernacular building just stop and
think, is this really a vernacular building?
Many thanks for reading
James
Comments
Post a Comment