What makes a building historically significant?

In this week’s blog we will look at a subject which fascinates me. What makes a building significant?

Recently Historic England announced the listing of post modern buildings, this can be controversial as it is within living memory of many people and the opinions are often split between positive and negative.

China Wharf, post modern building by Piers Gough, now Grade II Listed.

The truth of the matter is that the significance is not always linked to the age of the building. I find this is something which some people sometime struggle with, with the rapidly changing sky line of London and other cities in the UK it makes sense for the protection of buildings which could be viewed in the future as important, the challenge is to make that judgement now.

But let’s start at first principles, what makes a building significant? 

Well there are several factors to look at, these are considered to fit into the following brackets:

1.       Emotional

2.       Cultural

3.       Technological

4.       Historical

5.       It’s Setting

For those new to this it may be interesting to look at what most professionals in this field base their approach on are the ICOMOS Guidelines see the link below for further information:

https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/187-guidelines-for-education-and-training-in-the-conservation-of-monuments-ensembles-and-sites

The five headings above may seem vague but it can be quite applicable to some sites or buildings, I recently worked on a project where the buildings were, mostly, un-remarkable in their construction. Their function and emotional value where incredibly important to the generations of local families who’s fathers and grandfathers worked in very demanding conditions on the site. The buildings which remain on the site are emotionally and culturally significant; this cannot be considered in terms of technological considerations. Historical significance is generated by the emotional and cultural significance of the building.

A good example of this is Chartwell where Winston Churchill lived, it’s a nice house, but without the provenance of the Churchill family and the impact which Winston Churchill Had on the 20^th Century, the house would have moderate significance.

Photo of Chartwell

The most interesting scenario is:

A building was built in the Medieval period by farmer, this was extended by later generations and then later extended and altered by a renowned architects. What is the most significant part of the building?

If the later additions were made by renown Georgian or Victorian Architects, or even 20^th Century Architects. The situation then becomes a game of architectural Top Trumps, of the who’s who in architectural history.

So what happens to the hard work put in by the Saxon/Medieval farmer who built the first phase of the building? If the early building is seen a vernacular (see my other blog on this term: https://jameswood1864.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-is-vernacular-building.html ) then it runs the risk of being marginalised into a common example of vernacular architecture or period, in other words, typical of the period. Therefore the emphasis is sometimes on the big names who worked on the building. With this in mind the buildings recently listed make more sense as they were designed by big names of the time, and maybe this does need to be preserved, personally I am not a fan of the post modernist style but, that should not cloud ones judgement of the significance of the buildings as a period in time which may not return, and therefore should be preserved for future generations.

The most straight forward examples of significance are found when the building was built for someone important in the early Mediaeval period, after the dissolution the building and site was abused and unsympathetically altered by nobody whose name was well known, therefore the significance is clear and the hierarchy of the site is clear on what should be protected and preserved. The interesting dilemma comes when it is discovered that the person who carried out some of the work on the site become recognised for an aspect of architectural history, what should happen then?

I am conscious that this blog has more question marks in it than all the others combined! It is because that there is no generic answer for any of these issues, it really does come down to the individual building and its history.

I have come across churches which are Grade II* listed, and when walking around the building there is nothing which justifies the grade of listing, you then discover that the bell is of exceptional quality. This means that the most significant item is not within the building, the rest of the building could easily be a typical building of the period.

This subject gets really interesting when there is a fire or the need for extensive repairs are required, if the building has had multiple phases of additions and has evolved of many centuries, then what do you reinstate, which age, the way it was before the fire, or the way it was when it was rebuilt in the 18^th Century? Clandon Park was the most public example of this.

Interior photo of the fire damaged Clandon House

I think the thing which fascinates me about significance is that it can boil down to the smallest detail, compared to other sites where it is obvious and plain to see.

I hope you have found this thought provoking, I have not been posting blogs on a weekly basis recently, this is mostly due to holidays and workload, however I intend to try and post more regularly in the coming weeks.

Thanks for reading.

James