Amanda Levete's V&A plans attacked by conservationists
New vista of V and A
Source: Amanda Levete ArchitectsAston Webb screen ‘cannot sustain’ proposed changes by architect
Amanda Levete’s £41 million plans to “dramatically alter” the courtyard screen at the Victoria & Albert Museum have been condemned by heritage campaigners.
The Victorian Society has written to the V&A urging it to retain the integrity of the original design by Victorian architect Aston Webb.
“The screen survived the Blitz,” said James Hughes, conservation adviser for the society. “Now its own custodian - the V&A - is about to cause it greater harm. Visually the screen cannot sustain that degree of alteration.
“There is no compelling practical need for punching through all of the openings. The museum has not proved that just removing half of them, rather than every one, would not work as well. The present proposal is the least satisfactory.”
Amanda Levete Architects was appointed by the museum last year to create underground galleries and a new entrance on Exhibition Road.
The practice beat six other proposals, including designs by Heneghan Peng, Snøhetta and Jamie Fobert.
Its scheme was approved by planners earlier this month.
Writing in the Evening Standard this week on the subject of risk, museum director Martin Roth said they would be attempting to use a “yet-to-be-made” type of ceramic tile in the construction of “our grand new entrance”.
“Amanda Levete has created an amazing space that will incorporate cutting-edge ceramic technology, an industry with a very important history in the UK,.” he said.
“By taking this risk we are trying to support and promote the creativity of those in the ceramics industry in the UK.”
The Victorian Society said it accepted the principle behind the change but expressed “deep dissatisfaction” at the detail of the execution.
In a statement the V&A defended the AL_A alterations as a “vital and necessary element of the design”.
“It will result in a beneficial relationship between the cultural hub of Exhibition Road and the heart of the V&A as well as creating a new publicly accessible space and enabling appreciation of the historic façades within the courtyard for the first time,” it said.
The museum appointed historic building specialists Giles Quarme & Associates to work with Levete and said the majority of the war-damaged stone on the rest of the west façade would be retained.
Related Articles
- Stonemason is appointed new director of Victorian Society
4 September 2012
- Levete praises Hadid's work - and girly gossip
30 August 2012
- Should the Olympic Stadium be demolished?
24 August 2012
- Should the V&A alter its Aston Webb screen?
10 August 2012
- Levete's V&A plans ‘threaten’ South Kensington
9 August 2012
- Amanda Levete's V&A plans approved
11 July 2012
- Kengo Kuma submits V&A Dundee plans
11 June 2012
- Amanda Levete triumphs in V&A contest
28 March 2011
- Shortlisted designs for major V&A extension revealed
2 March 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (19)
Seymour - nothing, short of a small thermo-nuclear device, would make Liebskind's design in the least bit attractive.
That's 'Libeskind', of course. Fingers are getting stubby...
Why any of these Architects think there are anywhere near a touch on the V&A is beyond me. The arrogance of these type of Architects is unbelievable, do they really believe their piece of tat thrown up on the side is really worthy of being there, its trash and planners and directors should come to their sences on this before the damage is done.
It's a difficult call is it not? On the one hand, remove a familiar and historic wall that has been there more than a hundred years, and punch gaps through it; on the other hand, open up a space into the street, while retaining the salient architectural elements of the wall. In the end the argument will be won by whichever side the money is on.
Paris is not london (thank god - i've said that before) As for barcelona, the morphology of the city is determined by it's climate and so it functions in a completely different manner to london.
stewie - your churlishness always brightens the day
Zecks, I know! Climate is not an issue in the screen debate though, or is it?
One more point: Aston Webb would have considered the Ionic before the Corinthian order (for the V&A elevations) if he knew his screen was to be proportionally ‘beautified’ in the future.
Such romanticising of classical heritage might become as trendy as the craze was for ‘ruination’ during the picturesque period if the screen proposal is embraced. I wouldn’t call it an alteration per se, but an attempt to ‘rehash’ the beauty of the screen as a solution for greater permeability. A proper alteration would simply entail minimal intervention to retain the beauty of Webb rather than that of Amanda Levete’s. This is a new form of conservation principle that’s not up there with the main five...
If the Webb’s screen must be altered at all, then ‘compromised beauty Vs re-beautification’ should be debated rather than favouring one or the other outright from the outset.
Forgive my nervousness of late. Have a look at ‘Princes Square Glasgow - Google images’ and you’ll see, half way down, the changing face of a classical stone facade that’s been obscured by illuminated iron-ivy. This is at least ‘reversible’, which cannot be said for the Levete proposal. Perhaps the latter is therefore a new derivative of ‘ruination’, unless there’s been a precedent. I think this could be a first. I look forward to hearing about any successfully undertaken, executed, argued, or if not unleashed, previous examples of the approach, to promote debate.
“...Aston Webb would have considered the Ionic before the Corinthian order (for the V&A elevations) if he knew his screen was to be proportionally ‘beautified’ in the future...”
That said, Webb’s colonnade order on the main elevation/s are set proud of the walling as per this image:
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/london/london_building_aw050507_255.jpg
I still contend that Webb would have had alternative ideas for the main facade if he was to produce a screen with ionic proportions.
Therefore Amanda Levete’s screen proposal, arguably, jeopardises the design integrity of the main [Late Victorian] building and not merely the integrity of the screen, or am I wrong?
Yes, the current screen proposal will read more like Webb when it’s viewed side on as a token gesture, especially if pedestrianisation wasn’t to go ahead, which would of course defeat the purpose of the screen’s radical re-interpretation.
A third point, while I’m here: The V&A’s argument that more of the famous court would be seen for the very first time from outside; well, that would still be the case - albeit to a lesser extent - if pedestrianisation was to go ahead as there’d be more vantage points as a result.
I’d like to see ‘integrity’, ‘minimal intervention’ or ‘do nothing’ given greater consideration in the debate. The other 2 conservation principles of ‘reversibility’ & ‘differentiate new from old work’ won’t, but perhaps ought to, apply in the debate.
“...A third point, while I’m here: The V&A’s argument that more of the famous court would be seen for the very first time from outside; well, that would still be the case - albeit to a lesser extent - if pedestrianisation was to go ahead as there’d be more vantage points as a result...”
i.e. if nothing was to be done – intervention-wise – with the screen.
“I’d like to see ‘integrity’, ‘minimal intervention’ or ‘do nothing’ given greater consideration in the debate. The other 2 conservation principles of ‘reversibility’ & ‘differentiate new from old work’ should perhaps also be debated.”
Last paragraph change as written above: sorry, but I must get used to trying to write from within the abyss, i.e. overlooking the very noisy Buchanan Quarter works in Glasgow, apologies.