Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Victoriana VandalisedAuthor(s): Michael McDowellSource: Fortnight, No. 101 (Mar. 21, 1975), pp. 10-11Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25545392 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 22:25

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 support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.69 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:25:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10/FORTNIGHT -:-,

Michael McDowell takes a C'tical look at the building

polices of Queen's University.

The Queen's University area of Belfast is one of the richest sources of Victorian architecture in Ireland. How long that boast can be made is seriously in question due to the

haphazard development-planning of the academic commu

nity. Belfast people?particularly South Belfast residents? know only too well the reputation Queen's enjoys of

swallowing up vast numbers of houses it lays vacant for demolition or conversion.

In recent years the university authorities have adopted a more "sensitive" method of carrying out their buildings policy and for that we have to thank the Ulster Architectural

Heritage Society. The Society was set up in late 1967 to combat the extraordinarily destructive attitude to Victoriana

?a mode of building regarded as "monstrous, ugly and distasteful*'. The Phillistine attitude of the Queen's Build

ings Committee resulted in the pulling down of the

magnificent Queen*s Elms, built to complement the splendid red-brick facade of Sir Charles Lanyon's Old Queen's College. Next on the QUB blacklist were the Botanic Gardens gatelodge, the Deaf and Dumb Institute (1843), and in recent years the College Gardens Terrace which made its

way for the Staff Club, Royal Terrace where the Russell Court towers, and Chlorine Place on Malone Road where

only a few months ago the university stealthily demolished

(by starting at the rear) three fine houses, to erect some modern glass menagerie.

The UAHS was instrumental in persuading the university administrators to confine their construction/destruction activities within a bounded area or precinct and this has been

generally applied. The society produced a detailed list of the area?its first publication?which would serve to guide the authorities in future planning ventures. To give credit where it is due. Queen's accepted the advice given in many instances

but in some, disregarded it completely. The latest revised and

updated list, well illustrated and annotated with a flair and humour which Bernard Shaw would be proud of, points out that with the exception of Mount Charles and University Street, none ofthe major areas or open spaces have remained

untouched.

Queen's has not, of course, been its only enemy. The

University district with its collegiate atmosphere has been the victim of terrorist bombs as well as anti-Victorian attitudes. Some might add that the bombs were planted with a purpose, however unpleasant, while the arranged removals and

alterations had no overall stratagem, none at least that is obvious to the outsider. At a recent meeting ofthe UAHS to launch the new Queen's list by Hugh Dixon and David

Evans, one could see the annoyance ofthe academic moguls with people such as Charles Brett who thrust advice on them so willingly.

The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Arthur Vick, made a particularly sensitive speech pleading poverty over building schemes and

arguing, with justification, that QUB had a duty to its students to provide better facilities and modern buildings for future years. He admitted that Queen's had no overall

planning policy until recently. Even now that policy is not what one would call organised. The Buildings Committee has no qualified architect among its members?an astonishing omission for such a body. It is little wonder that the Old

Library building is in danger. This building is one of Belfast's most outstanding examples of the architecture of William

Henry Lynn, who designed Belfast Castle. It is Ruskinian influence (compare Keble College, Oxford) and a visit to the first tloor shows one of Ireland's richest High Victorian interiors. Brooding in anticipation over the Old Library is the

unremarkable book stack ofthe New Library. Yet because of

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.69 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:25:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FRIDAY 21st MARCH 1975/11

the QUB distaste for anything post-1800, this building is under threat of demolition to make way for another ghastly book stack. It is listed, but the university authorities could

quite easily appeal for planning permission to demolish it. This astonishing view of destroying it must be fairly unique in

university planning circles?at least one hopes so. It is akin to

Trinity deciding to pull down the Campanile in Front

Square, or Cambridge opting for the removal of King's College Chapel, but such is the attitude one comes up against.

What does Queen's hope to put in place of its "Victorian monstrosities"? The best answer is to examine the buildings they have commissioned in the past. The record is hardly inspiring.

One of the delights of the Queen's campus is the Botanic Gardens retreat but the vista ot this once-pleasant arbour has

been impaired by unsightly modern buildings thrusting from all sides onto the green spaces. Ideally the park could have been used as a sweeping green belt leading to the Lagan. Alas, the gargantuan grey Golia h of the physical recreation centre sprawls like a convenient acrylic fibre plant cutting off the view towards the river. Beside it spreads a vast tarmac car

park swallowing up the green grass. No doubt the "gym** has

many exciting things going on inside?outside it is incredibly dull and unoriginal. Part of the reason for such unsympa thetic architecture is the choice of foreign architects (from outside Ulster). The Buildings Committee seems to rejoice in

finding one or two firms which have done what they are told to do in the past and continues to re-employ them. For a red-brick university surely it is not too much to ask for red-brick matching architecture.

Wind your way behind the main Queen's buildings to the

applied maths/computer complex. It is not signposted (is this some clever way of escaping notice?) which is fortunate

given its familiar "Omo" design, like so many other QUB erections. Glaring white boxes, like sophisticated Portaka bins with black bands greet the rear perspective of the

campus. In the main quad now stands the huge administration building by Cruickshank and Seward of

Manchester. A few marks for red brick but why not try to get a matching sort? The fenestration brings on double vision. Each window is bounded by brilliant white pillars, meant no doubt to echo the colonnade of the innocuous social science block and the cloisters of the Lanyon tour de force, but this does not come off. The red-brick operation at the staff common room, by Cruickshank and Seward again, squats

squarely beside Methody and is no substitute for the fine terrace it superceded. Worst of all is the Students Union

facing the Lanyon frontage. The brickwork is appropriate, concrete is used, balconies project to no apparent purpose and sad to say, the trees which shielded the view were struck

by Dutch Elm disease and had to go. One wonders why the Buildings Committee cannot put its

projects out to competition, as the Ulster Museum did, with such excellent results. If it did, alien and unsympathetic architecture might not be so evident. There is a wealth of excellent local architects. And Queen's has its own architecture department (albeit with hardly any links to

planning policy) whose talents are sadly wasted in this area. The character of Queen's as an "academic borghetto" (to

quote Hugh Dixon and David Evans) is dependant on a

re-appraisal of the university's long-term planning policy. Is there any chance that the University will respond to the

appeal from the UAHS list: "the university should make an effort to eschew piecemeal and uncoordinated developments and should accept this survey as a genuine venture into the field of constructive criticism." I hope so.

r^^mm^^.:^:i:z,^^^s&,:. ._^?^_ . .-. .?,- -4 I

-hQueen's Kims: DEMOLISHED_

^^^^^*^^&&&* *l*?mmmmmmmmmm^&^mmm^&mmmmmmmm + Deaf and Dumb Institute: DEMOLISHED

-r Botanic Gardens Ciate Lodge; DEMOLISHED

W H Lynn's Old Library?THREATENED!

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.69 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:25:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions