Madam, – I refer to an article by Frank McDonald relating to an exhibition of contemporary Irish architecture currently on show at the Irish College, Louvain/Leuven, Belgium, (Life Features, May 30th).
While rejoicing both in the recognition of the quality of the best of Irish architecture in Belgium and elsewhere, and in the pivotal cultural role of the (former) Irish College, as a gateway to continental Europe, I wish to comment on Mr McDonald’s reference to the former chapel.
In commenting on the chronology of latter-day interventions in the College, Mr McDonald singled out the former chapel for special mention noting “more recently the 17th-century building was renovated by Murray O’Laoire Architects, who are no longer trading. Some of their interventions were surprisingly insensitive, the old chapel was savagely secularised for use as a lecture theatre, stripped of its altar and other fittings, though curiously not the holy water fonts”.
This is but one element of a substantial restoration, conservation and expansion project, which represents the culmination of years of endeavour by the Franciscan Order (who donated the college for the future benefit of Irish people, North and South, of all creeds and none), unsung private donors, the OPW, and the Irish and British governments,
I was honoured as a director of Murray O’Laoire Architects (in liquidation) together with our Belgian partners, Architektenburo Ro Berteloot, to head the design team charged with the realisation of the vision of the Louvain Institute for Ireland in Europe. While I can appreciate that space and journalistic priorities may have constrained Mr McDonald from fuller comment on this recent incarnation of the Irish College, I am proud and honoured to be associated with the outcome.
1. We as architects, did not, nor were we empowered to, decide on a use for the chapel. The foundation understandably recognised its potential for events requiring a large floor plate and volume, and the chapel had been used for recitals for years before the commencement of the recent works. 2. The space has been deconsecrated and the altar had been removed prior to my involvement. 3. Details of every aspect of the project were subject to the approval of the Monument and Sites Department of the City of Leuven Council. 4. Notwithstanding Mr McDonald’s comments and his reservations about its secular usage, it is important to be aware that our overriding role was to ensure that a basic tenet of good conservation practice was observed, ie,reversibility. The state of the chapel as found, with all extant detail can be readily reverted to, should some future administration so decide.
I am no stranger to the cut and thrust of robust criticism and I hugely respect Mr McDonald’s contribution to the debate in Ireland. However, in this instance, the foregoing facts are offered to counterpoint his implication that I, as architect, was the perpetrator of what he found distasteful in the (former) chapel.
Most of all I am concerned that the public perception of what is Irish and British taxpayers’ contribution to the vibrancy of Ireland’s connection with continental Europe may be negatively influenced by Mr McDonald’s subjective focus on a small element of a project, which hopefully will provide a beacon of hope and a special place for study, engagement and collaboration, and reinforcement of Ireland’s connection to European culture, for centuries to come. – Yours, etc,