Irish Arts Review
Conservation at OPW: Policy, Protection, PartnershipAuthor(s): Kevin V. MulliganSource: Irish Arts Review (2002-), Vol. 23, 175th Anniversary of the Office of Public Works(2006), pp. 30-33Published by: Irish Arts ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25503515 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Irish Arts Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish Arts Review(2002-).
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:06:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I CONSERVATION AT OPW - POLICY, PROTECTION, PARTNERSHIP
Conservation at OPW
Policy, Protection, Partnership One of the most
onerous aspects of the
OPW's role as state
architect is to balance
the demands of the
present with those
of posterity, writes
KEVIN V MULLIGAN
The responsibility of custodianship, shared by everyone in possession of
historic buildings, is certainly greater when held in trust for the people.
Conservation plays a key role for the OPW in the management of her
itage properties. One of the most onerous aspects of its role as state archi
tect is to finely balance the demands of the present with those of posterity. There have
been many factors influencing changes in attitude to safeguarding the architectural
patrimony, not least our membership of a greater community where our heritage is
seen and protected as part of a wider European Heritage. The Venice Charter of 1964
still forms the basis of best practice and has influenced the approaches to legislating
for architectural heritage protection. Most significantly for the OPW, the requirement
over the last two decades for state development projects to pass through the same
scrutiny as private projects in the planning process has been important to the devel
opment of policies for best practice. Since 2000 a new Planning and Development Act
introduces statutory protected structures and establishes the criteria for architectural
heritage protection. As an official body, the OPW has a duty 'to be effective advocates
for all the buildings, loved or unloved, which pass through their hands'.1 As many of
the state's historic buildings are recorded protected structures, it is vital that the OPW
3 0 I
OPW 175TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:06:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by exam- ̂ ^I^^^^^^^^^^^H pie. It does so two WB?^^^^^^^^^^^M principal the ^f^ "^^^^H^^^^^^l adaptation and mainte- ?T^ \^^^i^^^BPB nance of buildings for ^x^^^nd?H^^^H^I government and its ^f^5^W(5^j|^^^B agencies - such as ^m3SSo???11?HM^? Leinster House for the
Oireachtas - and in its management of heritage proper
ties accessible to the public -
including Garnish Island
(Fig 10) and Castletown House, William Conolly's 18th
century house in Celbridge (Fig 5). '
For the OPW each new project sets new con
straints. Standard practice will steer works through a
complex course determined by the facts of the building,
with an awareness that best practice guidance may be
rigorously tested, even at times fail. Success in pursuit
of the principles of best practice has been evident in
the last two decades where its work in this area has
been recognised with awards from the RIAI and
Europa Nostra, the most recent recipient being the
restoration of the Palm House in the Botanic Gardens.
In the restoration of the Chapel Royal, Francis
Johnston's delightful Gothic casket in Dublin Castle,
consideration of the original building accounts provid
ed greater appreciation for the high level of craftsman
ship involved in its decoration, whether in Richard
Stewart's wood carvings or Edward and John Smyth's
stucco modelling and stone carving (Figs 2<Sl6). The
importance of the artistic input in the design guided the
process of cleaning the exterior and made a compelling
argument for the recreation of the original painted inte
rior as a trompe Voeil imitating stonework.
Recognising that a full and comprehensive under
standing of a building is key to a successful intervention,
has underpinned much of the OPW's solutions to indi
vidual problems. This often requires collaboration with
other experts. In dealing with a potential diminution of
the structural performance of the grand cantilevered
staircase of 1760 at Castletown, the OPW has been
working closely with the structural modelling facility of
Trinity College, Dublin, to create a model to identify
weaknesses and devise methods for repair. The restora
tion of the Palm House also required an exceptional
technical approach, built on experiences gained through
change will affect the character, present problems; but
in several instances have been successfully overcome.
Recent conservation work at Marsh's Library is indis
cernible: a sophisticated aspirarating system for the
purposes of fire prevention has been installed yet
remains invisible to visitors - a neat example of 'the art
of controlling change' by limiting essential physical
interventions to a practical minimum.3
In Marsh's library the OPW has intervened in a
building outside its ownership, though still a vital
..,m
OPW The Office of Public Works Oiftg na nOibreacha Poibli
>fe?
1 Emo Court, Co Laois
2 Chapel Royal, Dublin Castle
3 Detail of the
architrave and Ionic
columns in the
entrance hall at Fota
4 Conservation at
Fota House
5 Castletown House, Co Kildare
6 Limestone and
plaster head of St
Peter at the Chapel
Royal, Dublin Castle
OPW 175TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION |
3 1
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:06:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ili^iH KJ?????m???^, RW& ..?I -
Me*** ^1T^ < ** '"* *- JK8? f * ̂ mf' WV<fl
One of the strongest issues that arise in conservation practice is whether new additions can be made without detracting from the character of an historic structure
national institution, by sharing its experience and
resources to ensure its survival and protection. This is
a role it has filled on a number of projects and most
recently with the provision of a new building on
Merrion Square, Dublin, for the Irish Architectural
Archive. The structure, a large late 18th-century town
house at the centre of the east side of the square, shows
how far older buildings can lend themselves to new
uses (Fig 8). Here, the historic fabric had survived in
changed circumstances. Alterations made in the 19th
century had converted it into two separate buildings
and may have been part of the narrative of its histori
cal development, but the opportunity to return it to a
single use makes it a more useable building, and closer
to an original intention to function as one building.
One of the strongest issues that arise in conservation
practice is whether new additions can be made without
detracting from the character of an historic structure.
There is no question that by adding to a building the
character is altered; this leads on to the dilemma as to
whether new construction should be designed to be
fully conversant with the vocabulary of the parent build
ing or to stand discrete, completely distinguishable from
it so as to be read as a building of its time. This is posit
ed as the fundamental moral rule in conservation - that
all interventions should display an unambiguous hon
esty to avoid deceit. But here, in the addition to the
archive building, in true modernist spirit, form follows
function in an elegant glass structure with a real aes
thetic cast. Projected as a return in the centre of the rear
elevation it forms a sophisticated appendage that facili
tates a modern lift - giving it a unique modern function
placing it comfortably with the Venice Charter. For the
8
r.p S~ k.
future it might be worth consid
ering how it will present its own
conservation issues when the
reparability of obsolete materi
als present similar challenges to
those associated with lost crafts
skills in older buildings (Figs
4ck9). In all of its approaches to
this building the OPW has ben
efited from the unique qualities of the client as the
national historic buildings record and of its director,
David Griffin, a leading authority on Irish architec
ture. In its involvement here, and at Marsh's library
where Mrs Muriel McCarthy is both librarian and
keeper, the OPW has fully participated in learning from the unique experiences of the client, understand
ing their demands and the nature of the buildings in
their charge. The OPW is keen to foster new levels of
understanding and appreciation where possible.
The importance of the settings of protected struc
tures is now recognised in legislation, and recently
Ireland has signed up to the European Landscape
Convention which sees landscape as 'a basic compo
nent of the European natural and cultural heritage'
and aims to ensure its protection. The result is that
there is a marked shift away from an obsession with
isolated architectural achievement - an example of this
is the Casino at Marino, William Chambers master
piece for Lord Charlemont, which as an extraordinary
national monument, represents the cult of the individ
ual over context. To some extent this building may
speak for itself independently, but to exclude all other
aspects of its meaning will be to deny its place in a sig
nificant designed landscape that once hosted a variety
of other important ornamental buildings. At
Castletown, now that the building has been conserved,
32 OPW 175TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:06:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONSERVATION AT OPW - POLICY, PROTECTION, PARTNERSHIP II
attention is turning to the landscape; the relationship
of the building to landscape is so evident at Castletown
that one needs to enter the landscape to see, some dis
tance from the house, in order to view it properly.
The historic demesne of Castletown is now frag
mented; in fact it has been subjected to greater change
in the last fifty years than at any point in its history. The
OPW now has to engage with a variety of stakeholders
' to ensure its protection, including private landowners
and Coillte. It has also been working closely with
Kildare County Council so that future planning strate
gies in the area recognise the significance of historic
designed landscape values; this applies whether in pre
serving the immediate landscape, planned vistas such as
those between the house and the Conolly Folly, or in
the wider Liffey Valley to take account of the relation
ships with the 'borrowed landscapes' of the neighbour
ing demesne of St Wolstans and Donaghcomper. How
best to achieve this involves drawing on Fin?la O'Kane's
recently published doctoral research.5 Although the
pressures for development are less at Emo Court (Fig 1),
similar fragmentation of the historic landscape is evi
dent and similar measures will be necessary to ensure
its protection.
The financial costs associated with conservation
means that there are often expectations that historic
buildings should pay their way. Dublin Castle and the
Royal Hospital Kilmainham are partially operated as
commercial facilities while most heritage buildings in
OPW care, like Castletown, charge for access, though
this is largely to subsidise the guide services. Other
buildings are clearly less adaptable: although only very
occasionally used for services, the Chapel Royal is for
tunate that it lies safely within an important architec
tural complex and may be viewed as part of a tour of
the State Apartments in Dublin Castle. The question
remains however, without regular use, is it sufficient to
open it simply as an architectural showcase? When this
happens there is a danger that an historic building
becomes mothballed to become an 'outsized exhibit'.
In Fota this issue is to the fore (Figs 3ck7). The
house, devoid of its historical contents, is presented
largely as an architectural composition while also being
used for revenue generating functions. The way in
which we view buildings such as Fota has been drawn
into the polemics of art and architecture. In 2005, as
part of the European Capital of Culture events, Daniel
Liebeskind's 'Eighteen Turns' pavilion, was set up on
John Cahill John Cahill qualified at the School of Architecture in UCD in
1979, and worked in the office of Patrick Shaffrey and
Associates before joining the OPW in 1981. His training in the
conservation of Historic Buildings included courses with ICCROM in
Austria and Rome, the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies
in York, and six months with English Heritage in London.
John Cahill was appointed as Senior Architect with special
responsibility for Conservation by the OPW in 1999. Since then he
has worked on a wide variety of projects in Ireland and abroad,
including the Irish College in Paris (Centre Culturel Irlandais);
Louvain Institute for Ireland in Europe; the
Pontifical College, Roma; and St Isidore's
Franciscan College in Rome.
He says: 'We look after a mixture of build
ings: important historical properties which are
open to the public, from the Chapel Royal,
Dublin Castle to Castietown House, Emo Court
and Fota House, which are gems in their own
right. But our workload also includes more
mundane work. We are currently cleaning all the
statues in O'Conneli Street, and are working on Thomas Davis at the
moment. So there are oddities as well, which are fun because they are
a different challenge. Working buildings, like the Four Courts or the
Treasury block, present a different set of problems.'
Conservation architecture is a fast-developing area of study, and
John Cahill is also involved in communicating the latest discoveries to
the academic world: 'Because we are working with taxpayers' money
on the best of buildings, where there is an educational benefit, we try
to get that into the public realm, through teaching on specialist
courses, or arranging site visits for students.'
John is currently responsible for restoration projects at Castietown,
Emo Court, and the former Bishop's Palace in Kilkenny.
the lawn in front of the house and allowed us to chal
lenge the relevance of historic buildings and consider
their relationships with modern architecture. This
arresting structure in reflective aluminum was, not inap
propriately, compared to a classical folly by the architect.
That this structure has vanished while Fota remains may
in itself be symbolic to some, reflecting the endurance of
particular building types in landscape and conscious
ness, as well in physical durability, ensuring that the vital
role of developing conservation within modern building
practices is central to the role of the OPW.
Kevin V Mulligan is currently working on the South-Ulster
volume of The Buildings of Ireland series, published by Yale
University Press.
7 Detail of the
plasterwork in the
stair hall at Fota
House, Co Cork
8 Irish Architectural
Archive, Merrion
Square, Dublin; rear
elevation showing the new central
glass and steel lift
structure
9 Conservation at
Fota House
10 Garnish Island, Co Cork
1 John Earl, Building Conservation
Philosophy, 3rd ed., Dorset 2001, p. 140
2 Alan Murdoch, 'A Glittering Legacy' Irish Arts Review, Autumn 2004, pp.
130-5
3 Earl, op. cit.., p.94. 4 Maurice Craig and The Knight of Glin,
'Castletown, Co. Kildare -I' in Country
Life, vol. CXLV, March 27, 1969,
p. 722.
5 Fin?la O'Kane, Landscape Design in
Eighteenth Century Ireland, Cork 2004.
OPW 175TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION |
3 3
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:06:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
