6 ms·

I've never understood the point of this. Why keep the often beautiful Edwardian or Victorian facade if what you construct behind it doesn't respect anything of

I've never understood the point of this. Why keep the often beautiful Edwardian or Victorian facade if what you construct behind it doesn't respect anything of the original you went to such lengths to keep? Bolt a standard office or apartment complex to the back and pay so little regard that the floors don't even line up with the old frontage or match in any major respect. Just build a cheap office block and be done. At least that's honest. Then again I suppose that would reveal the Emperor's New Clothes. Modern architecture simply can't do public buildings, balance, aesthetics or anything that isn't either a standard curtain wall box or a £15bn signature tower block. We didn't learn from all the Victorian buildings pulled down in the sixties that many now regret losing.

afterburner 8y ago
> Why... ? Just build a cheap office block and be done. Because those are ugly and boring.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  So is the result of just about every facade preservation. Some fine examples here: https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-laziest-and-most-unsatisfying-form-of-preservation-is-causing-irreparable-damage-to-spitalfields-and-to-london/ https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-laziest-an...
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  That's not a good argument for ugly and agitating.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jseliger 8y ago
I've never understood the point of this Because the point is about economics, not aesthetics or utility. There are many homeowner NIMBYs in the United States, who work hard to protect the value of their houses by limiting the growth of the housing supply: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109437/how-nimbyism-is-holding-back-silicon-valley-and-the-american-economy https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109437/how-nimbyism-is-holdin.... One commonly-cited specious argument is regarding "neighborhood character" and the supposed ugliness or sterility of modern buildings. So facadism is a way of addressing that argument. The argument itself is somewhat bogus. So we get a bogus solution to a bogus argument. The logical thing to do is let landowners build what they want to on their land: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-.... If an owner wants to build a bunch of new housing or offices, great.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  It would be cheaper to fully demolish and rebuild with a typical bland curtain wall box. So where's the economic case? There doesn't appear to be one. If it's a means of evading some regulation I'd have expected a regulatory response to such piss taking since this trend started in the 90s. Most people who aren't architects seem to dislike modern buildings and facadism seems a way of evading rather than addressing the argument.

afterburner 8y ago

> Why... ? Just build a cheap office block and be done. Because those are ugly and boring.

oldcynic 8y ago
So is the result of just about every facade preservation. Some fine examples here: https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-laziest-and-most-unsatisfying-form-of-preservation-is-causing-irreparable-damage-to-spitalfields-and-to-london/ https://inspiringcity.com/2016/02/14/facadism-the-laziest-an...
anigbrowl 8y ago
That's not a good argument for ugly and agitating.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jseliger 8y ago

I've never understood the point of this Because the point is about economics, not aesthetics or utility. There are many homeowner NIMBYs in the United States, who work hard to protect the value of their houses by limiting the growth of the housing supply: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109437/how-nimbyism-is-holding-back-silicon-valley-and-the-american-economy https://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109437/how-nimbyism-is-holdin.... One commonly-cited specious argument is regarding "neighborhood character" and the supposed ugliness or sterility of modern buildings. So facadism is a way of addressing that argument. The argument itself is somewhat bogus. So we get a bogus solution to a bogus argument. The logical thing to do is let landowners build what they want to on their land: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-.... If an owner wants to build a bunch of new housing or offices, great.

oldcynic 8y ago
It would be cheaper to fully demolish and rebuild with a typical bland curtain wall box. So where's the economic case? There doesn't appear to be one. If it's a means of evading some regulation I'd have expected a regulatory response to such piss taking since this trend started in the 90s. Most people who aren't architects seem to dislike modern buildings and facadism seems a way of evading rather than addressing the argument.