I agree with the importance of the building and it is really sad that it has been destroyed. But that is the point: it’s just a shell. If the Mona Lisa was burnt to a crisp would you pay somebody millions to repaint it?
Imnotverygood
They still have (I would think) architectural drawings for the Mac and probably thousands of photos so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be constructed as true to the original as possible and in doing so maintain a similar overall impression. A building is not quite as personal/ subtle as a painting I think. Plus from what I can make out a good degree of the facades remain intact, so more than worth it I would say.
andykirk, I admire your connection with the building, but if it is a shell for the second time in a few short years, how authentic would another rebuild be? A clone copy to tell us what Rennie Mac style was like, rather than the original is not the same.
One thing I really like about Glasgow architecture is its willingness to be a bit different. Edinburgh traditionally keeps with a particular style that throttles good design. Most contemporary architecture in Edinburgh is something that would pass as a Standard Life office with skateboard facilities. Perhaps it is time to move on with something new, but with a doff of the cap towards Macintosh.
Ninfan - engineers don't design buildings, they design the structure for buildings designed by an architect. Add this to your reading list:
- Who's Who in Building Construction
From a *purely objective* point of view I'm finding it hard to disagree with ninfan's points. It is, after all, just stuff. Nobody died. I do wonder how some people survive in the real world if they get so regularly upset by semi-anonymous posters on an online forum to the point where there seems to be a competition to see who can come up with the most patronising, condescending riposte. And deleting the offending post? Assuming there was no doxxing, no personal insults and nothing that could leave STW at a sticky wicket legally, if ninfan is coming across unpleasant then let the evidence stand for all to read. It helps those who don't know form an opinion. Deleting stuff for being at odds with the enlightened majority just makes it out as though this place is vying to be a safe space for the easily offended.
Having said that, none of us is ever really completely objective. I appreciate both the art and the architecture of Mackintosh - I designed the wife's engagement and wedding rings in the Mackintosh style - and the loss of this building and its contents is a huge shame. Thankfully it wasn't the only example of his architecture nor the sole repository for his art. I'm torn between whether it should be rebuilt as was or not; there's clearly something to be said for not using highly flammable materials and creating spaces that lend themselves to the rapid spread of fire. But as another poster said, rebuilding it wouldn't detract from its beauty or importance as Mackintosh is unlikely to have been there with a hammer/saw/paintbrush/etc. the first time round - it would still be The Mackintosh Building. Maybe rebuild to original plans but with modern materials?
Some colleagues were involved in the rebuild, it's been a proper labour of love, it's a project that's touched a lot of people- I'd no idea about the Mac really, I'd been in it for some events but didn't know the bigger picture til after the last fire... Really sad to (probably) lose the O2 as well, Glasgow (in fact central scotland in general) isn't well equipped with venues of that size. IIRC the owners had applied to demolish it to build student halls, so I can't see much likelihood of it being rebuilt.
Ninfan's got no expertise to add to this thread and apparently no understanding, attachment or empathy either so let's not let him make the thread all about him.
Perhaps it is time to move on with something new, but with a doff of the cap towards Macintosh.
I think Macintosh would view it as an opportunity.
I will humbly defer and try to heed the words of The Flying Ox and Northwind as voices of reason.
Insurance will cover the cost of the rebuild won't it?
Looking at the state of it I'd be leaning towards a new design, new building.
what are we all supposed to do
Could you link that artist ninfan, the honeycomb piece. It is exquisite! Provided no one died making it or was made homeless in housing it of course. Ta!
The resident edgelord weirdigans are out in force tonight.
id laugh if their houses burnt down with their life’s work inside. Its only a building and stuff after all.
They wouldn't be allowed to rebuild it in the same way as they did originally, but they would try to hide the non-original parts so as not to detract from the original design. Let's face it, replica or not, it would still be a beautiful building and I seriously doubt any present day architect could design anything better. I mean look at the college building opposite the Mac - hardly ground breaking is it.
Look at 'House For An Art Lover' also in Glasgow. Built maybe 30 odd years ago to a Mackintosh design. Not 'authentic' in the true sense but I would say it works pretty well.
On Monday morning a lot of tradesmen and women along with company owners who are working on the renovation will turn up too work wondering what happens next, redundancy, the sack , liquidation, all because the building they work on has been destroyed by a fire, and they dont know if theyll get paid, all their tools and equipment has been destroyed all installed stock has most probably gone after being burnt.
Then there are the staff at the other buildings that got destroyed its going to be a horrible weekend for them all, going to take a long time to sort out their problems.
Thankfully buildings have no feelings or emotions like some of you think
Its about people and community, that building was a hub for the creative community of Glasgow. Over the years I've been to dozens of gigs and club nights in the Art School (and the O2/ABC next door) This is also a serious blow to Glasgow’s nighttime economy - all the ABC staff from Box Office to the techs, gig and club promoters, people who put up the posters, taxis, nearby bars, food spots etc etc.
If you can't understand just how vibrant and alive that place was I feel sorry that you don't get that it is ultimately about people, not bricks and mortar. The Mac was as beautiful as a building can get IMHO, a real zenith of form and function.
It should never been allowed to catch fire once, nevermind twice and im angry that it wasn't properly cast iron protected being a working University and A-Listed building.
Im sad that a piece of our heritage has gone forever, but I don't necessarily think it should be restored... perhaps it's time to rebuild with new ideas. I am genuinely sad and if you can't understand that then you don't know Glasgow.
Good post Dumbbot.
I would usually be the first to say that if an old building was destroyed then a modern one should be built in its place.
But not the Mac.
Dumbbot posts well regarding the building as an intellectual/artistic hub, however I feel you may be doing modern architects a disservice andy. Give someone a shot a doing something with the space. There must be loads architects that are inspired by the building that could give it a go, and do it well.
Yeah maybe.... but honestly I think there is maybe a 5% chance of a present day architect doing something remotely as good, and that is the reason I would rather see it recreated. You just have to look at the international coverage of the fire to see just how important this building was.
As an architect who both designs new and works with historic structures I think that to slavishly recreate the Mac would be wrong.
There should be a new design that uses and references the now destroyed building but looks to the future. There will (or at least should be) enough digital information to create an accessible version that retains the memory but the replacement should be new. (and I'm not a fan of the Stephen Holl over the road).
It is enormously saddening that the building is lost, but, Phoenix do rise from the ashes and that should, in my mind, be what happens.
Given a lot of the shite that springs up in Glasgow it would be a serious ask to expect anything as iconic as the Mac. Nothing would ever live up to it.
Then again, they said that when it was first built so who knows?
And Ninfan, kindly stop with the bin lorry gag, not sure if you're genuinely trying to be a dick but that's seriously poor taste if you are.
squirrelking, not being an expert, but what shite are you speaking of? I am genuinely in awe when I head through to Glasgow of much of the buildings. Had a great day last week at Pacific Quay and Kelvingrove. If only Edinburgh had that architectural range and honesty about its buildings in such a small area.
Anyone who cares for beauty and craft should be saddened by this news. I had the pleasure of visiting a few years ago, it looks as though I won't be able to do so again.
Scottish Power building, crap across the road, the GSA new building. To be honest Pacific Quay isn't all that, load of glass sheds that could be in any office park with only the Armadillo and Science Centre that stand out. It's the old buildings that shine in Glasgow and sadly they are mostly being left to rot and eventually combust, I'm honestly surprised the Egyptian Halls haven't been torched yet.
Don't get me wrong, there are bold designs out there but so much is just thrown up with little creativity (IMO).
I like the Hydro and the Armadillo next door. The Transport Museum is an eye catching building, and the skyline with the Finnieston Crane and the Squinty Bridge is really impressive. I agree about glass sheds. The BBC building leaves a lot to be desired.
<p>Oops, forgot the Riverside museum. Crap though the internal layout is the outside is impressive.</p><p>Can't help thinking the old granary at Whiteinch would have been worth saving instead of the crap they built instead.</p>
Through a gradual evolutionary change all buildings change in style or design , due to the location, current thinking on new build or materials, trades available, curently angular glass wall construction appears to be in a few years ago brutalist concrete, before that art deco and , add in modernist, brick and glass or pre cast slab, buildings change over time,
at the time of testaments, and slum housing in glasgow, the RM building was built, wonder what the local thought of it then, when they didnt have inside toilets or cars for the mases.
I have long admired the Art School. I would pass it every day when I worked in the city centre and always look up and marvel at it. When they built the new building opposite, I was and continued to be baffled that the custodians of such an iconic building as the Mac came up with such a poor offering in contrast. I've been in it several times and as a working space, I genuinely preferred the old building in terms of the light that came into the rooms and the external design. Don't get me wrong, it was ugly but I would have thought that they come up with something better than a light blue box.
i would much rather see the building restored than replaced with some architectural pastiche that claims to capture the spirit of the old with the promise of the new that looks forward. Glasgow has a very poor history with such things. For example, the Odeon Cinema in Renfield Street is a pale shadow of what it once was while the completion of Park Circus is another great example of turd polishing. Sometimes it is ok to acknowledge that newer isn't always better.
The Mac isn't a building to mess around with and replace. It, quite rightly, holds a unique and special appeal not just here in the city but around the world. It would be folly to replace it in the same way that if the Arc De Triomphe or Eifel Tower burned down tomorrow, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
If it is replaced, it will just become another building in a sea of glass, concrete and steel. The heritage, history and usp of GoSA will be diminished and may never recover.
As another poster said, The House of an Art Lover works despite being a modern build. It was a design that was never built and is now open to all to enjoy. I have no doubt that the Mac could be rebuilt to a similar standard and maintain the legacy.
As for the ABC, that is a real kick in the teeth. I used to go there a lot when it was a cinema. The main screen was a fantastic place to be. I was sad when it closed but it was good that the building was maintained as a really rather excellent live venue. I hope it too is saved.
It will be interesting to see if the source of the fire can be pinpointed. I can't imagine the main contractor is going to be resting easy for a while.
I never got to see the interior, but even the exterior made it an iconic, world class building. It is very sad to see it destroyed.
I think the previous restoration was a good idea when the original structure was still largely intact. If it is now beyond repair, I'm not sure that recreating it from the ground up is the best solution. Would it not be better to build something that meets modern standards for safety, usability and accessibility? There's an opportunity to create something new that combines the best of the original with the best of new design, materials and building techniques. As someone else pointed out, Mackintosh was at the cutting edge in his lifetime. Would he have wanted to slavishly reproduce the original building in this situation?
KCR - A rebuild would have to meet modern standards wherever realistically feasible. And even if the external walls need to be demolished the building is still not 'beyond repair' - all the external walls can be surveyed and taken down stone by stone and rebuilt as they were.
Sanny - I think you have hit the nail on the head here - in my opinion the Mack is one of the most important buildings in Scotland, and for that reason a rebuild should be done. I read today that they previously completed a digital survey of the whole building so the information is available for an accurate rebuild should this be the chosen path.
I heard today (all be it a rumour) that it was a policeman who first discovered the fire. I find this a bit odd, considering the amount of detectors and presumably security staff that I would think would have been in place on an active building site. Foul play? We will see.
Its about people and community, that building was a hub for the creative community of Glasgow.
I think thats the key to the emotional reaction people have had to both fires. Glasgow has an incredible rate of graduate retention - people come to Glasgow because of the art school and then stay.
If I think back to my year group at the artschool I graduated from - to my knowledge out of the 60 or so who graduated alongside me I don't know of any who are still living and working there. But Glasgow graduates just seem to stay put and become part of an ever growing professional community. And the school itself keeps long relationships with its graduates too. My GF's mum just turned 80 - she's a GSA graduate and she still makes a 70 mile round trip to the the GSA library every week.
And a big part of the attachment those people feel for the building comes from the sheer about of time they would spend in there. Unlike other kinds of course - where you might occasionally sit in the same seat a few times during lectures at art schools a bit of the building is yours - all day, all week, and you pretty much spend all your waking time in it.
I heard today (all be it a rumour) that it was a policeman who first discovered the fire.
The fire pretty much started (or was discovered) at stumbling from pub to club time on Sauchiehall Street. Theres a pretty concerted effort at the moment to make sure those revellers are (and feel) safe at night as the street plan round there kind of lends itself to sexual assault. Theres quite a bit of 'visible policing' at that time of night - quite reasonable that a copper might have been the first to notice something, or the first person to be informed by anyone else who did.
I don't know 'The Mac' I've never been to Glasgow other than to the airport there. But i do know very well how devastating it can be to the people who worked, studied, restored etc..... so to say 'Meh, it was just a building and no-one died' misses the point completely.
My experience - I was married here, and I cried the night it happened and have cried since when visiting it with my wife while it was open to be looked at.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34935181
But also relevant to the Art School discussion is the salvaging / rebuild, where they are restoring the shell and culturally significant aspects (eg: Marble Hall) but rebuilding the rest into a 21st century 'fit for purpose' space
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/clandon-park
I can't wait to visit the new house and I'd hope something similar is considered here.
I feel so lucky to have visited the Art School just before the first fire. My wife and I (she is an artist) love the architecture of that period and have been lots of places to seek out the best examples. I'm probably not as keen as her but when I walked into the Library at the Art School I was just speechless. There was simply no amount of pictures that could prepare you for how amazing it was, pure unfiltered design genius. How much it would cost to replicate must be mind boggling, but even if the re-creation loses half of the impact that it had on me when I saw it it would still be head and shoulders above anything else of its kind.
martymac - Am i the only one who finds it slightly odd that both times it caught fire were on a Friday night?
correct me if I’m wrong of course.
The original fire was reported to SFRS "At 12:27 on Friday the 23rd of May 2014" (For the avoidance of doubt that time is in 24h clock so lunchtime not "night".
project - One thing is for sure due to the desimation of the fire service it want be the last major building to be lost.
Are you suggesting that the fire service response was inadequate and that 10% more fire fighters would have been able to save it?
Are you suggesting that the fire service response was inadequate and that 10% more fire fighters would have been able to save it?
Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?
Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?
Are you suggesting that he should prove a negative?
Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?
That is a hell of a leap of logic from what I wrote. FWIW I am sure that sometimes cuts to public service budgets can be achieved without an impact on the service delivery.
However, project quite clearly seems to link a "decimation" of the fire service to the loss of the building. I'm wondering where that link comes from. AFAIK the nearest fire station to the building is still the same one, so not clear if the initial response would have been any quicker ten years ago, nor have I seen anything in the media suggesting that the response was inadequate.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not particularly keen on cuts to emergency services (although sometimes it can force overdue modernisation), but I do much prefer evidence based decision making rather than knee jerk blaming government (either Westminster or Holyrood) for a building fire.
I’m still suspicious of foul play. But, i am a cynical old fart 😂😂
Careful now, cynical old farts are the most flammable.
😁😁😁
not to mention foul
Poly,If you reduce the number of fire engines and pumps to actually pump water onto a fire along with skilled people to operate them, then a fire is going to get bigger before resources from other areas arrive, fire engines and staff that may be dealing with other fires, our local fire station had 3 pumps and a hydraulic platform it now has a pump and a paramedic car based there.
Project - that is (at least in simple terms**) true. However you are implying that there was some lack of resources on Friday night/Sat morning. Your local fire station may have less resource, but SFRS deployed 120 firefighters and 20 vehicles to the scene*; with the closest fire stations still the same as ten yrs ago. So explain how the cuts are linked to the severity of the fire/loss of the building.
*id need to go and look it up but I think that is more than to the previous fire at the same building.
**its somewhat simplistic because it assumes that the type of fires, equipment and resources needed to tackle them remains constant - which it doesn’t; until 1980s Glasgow had a separate Salvage Corps but as large wharehouses (and therefore wharehouse fires) became less common the need for that diminished.
"SFRS deployed 120 firefighters and 20 vehicles to the scene"
Including vehicles and crews from as far as Perth. Obviously I can't say whether that distance made a difference (though it seems fair to assume that if they'd arrived after 10 minutes instead of 45 that could have helped, as Project says) but it certainly shows why you have to be careful talking about the resources deployed.
That is a hell of a leap of logic from what I wrote.
No it isn't, it simply reversed the emphasis of your question in order to highlight how silly it was.
But those local fire stations may have less engines less staff to attend so resources have to be dragged in from further away, which takes time, time allows a fire to develop even further, perhaps if the alarm was raised earlier the fire may not have spread so massively taking out more than one building,
as a SFRS employee, I couldn't possibly comment on the above, however I'll just watch from the sidelines
