4 ms·

If buildings could be more easily repurposed this wouldn't even really be a question that needs to be asked. Throughout most of human history larger buildings w

by Tanoc 2y ago

If buildings could be more easily repurposed this wouldn't even really be a question that needs to be asked. Throughout most of human history larger buildings were repurposed instead of being destroyed, because there wasn't an illusion of limitless materials and labour. The proliferation of specialized buildings after the late 1800s because of that illusion rising, especially for commercial interests, is one half of a problem. The other being regulations written for those specialized buildings that provide little or no possibility of being repurposed. For example old roadside motels from the '50s and '60s could easily be remade into dorm style apartments with micro kitchens supplemented by communal bathrooms, but laws, especially hygiene and fire codes, currently prevent that. Those motels are built of sturdier materials than many modern homes, and only need to be refitted with fire suppression systems and heat pumps to be cheap housing. Making temporary housing is just creating a new problem rather than solving an existing one.

yunohn 2y ago
I really wasn’t focusing on the USA and its red-tape zoning and refurb laws. For example in the EU, lots of cities have 1-3 city halls at this point. The older ones are often repurposed into government offices or museums. But what if they disappeared entirely and we built something new in its place? What if the entire block was completely transformed at some point?
- Keysh 2y ago
  Well, that happened with some European cities as a result of WW2. I remember a celebration in the late 1980s for a retiring British architect/art historian, who reminisced about being an architecture student during the Blitz in London. While he and his pals sheltered underground during the bombing, they shared a (slightly shameful) excitement about the prospect of rebuilding London with "something new" after the war was over. In contrast to some European cities, where the goal was to recreate as much of the pre-war architecture as possible, postwar London was, as I understand it, rebuilt with lots of new architecture. My impression is that most people think a lot of it was pretty terrible.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Interesting, thanks for that history! I can empathize with modern attempts at buildings looking ugly and soulless. But I feel that’s part of the point of transience - the next generation can rebuild it in their style. It’s also the problem with how every city becomes overpacked and unlivable when things change, as nothing is future proof. We shouldn’t continually impose our choices (architectural, zoning, location) on all subsequent generations.
- Tanoc 2y ago
  A building is nothing more than a shell for the most part. It's all the parts that attach inside it that make it specialized. Those extraneous city halls could easily be repurposed, as their layouts share many of the aspects of business offices. Should that not work, they could be remade into commercial storefronts, or redesigned to hold electrical infrastructure by using the building as a facade, or any other number of things. For example in England many of the older pumping stations designed to keep the fens dry were repurposed as voltage stations for electricity, old rail sheds were repurposed to shelter busses, and horse stables were turned into loft-over-shop style homes. Reuse is always better than replace when it comes to something as expensive as architecture, especially architecture using lasting materials like stone. As for building something new... What exactly would need to be new to justify the construction? Density in cities only continues to grow, but that density is solved by verticality rather than replacement. You build up and you build onto rather than build out and build over. If it's to replace architectural styles, that is something that has to be decided on an individual example, as there's things like a city's aesthetic identity, historical significance, and architectural cohesion to consider. Erasing Lancashire's infamous council houses would be decried for decades despite their homogeneity and and connections with poverty, but getting rid of the giant monobloc apartments in Sheffield likely wouldn't be opposed too much because Brutalism's never much been liked and there's plenty of examples.

by Tanoc 2y ago

yunohn 2y ago

I really wasn’t focusing on the USA and its red-tape zoning and refurb laws. For example in the EU, lots of cities have 1-3 city halls at this point. The older ones are often repurposed into government offices or museums. But what if they disappeared entirely and we built something new in its place? What if the entire block was completely transformed at some point?

Keysh 2y ago
Well, that happened with some European cities as a result of WW2. I remember a celebration in the late 1980s for a retiring British architect/art historian, who reminisced about being an architecture student during the Blitz in London. While he and his pals sheltered underground during the bombing, they shared a (slightly shameful) excitement about the prospect of rebuilding London with "something new" after the war was over. In contrast to some European cities, where the goal was to recreate as much of the pre-war architecture as possible, postwar London was, as I understand it, rebuilt with lots of new architecture. My impression is that most people think a lot of it was pretty terrible.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Interesting, thanks for that history! I can empathize with modern attempts at buildings looking ugly and soulless. But I feel that’s part of the point of transience - the next generation can rebuild it in their style. It’s also the problem with how every city becomes overpacked and unlivable when things change, as nothing is future proof. We shouldn’t continually impose our choices (architectural, zoning, location) on all subsequent generations.
Tanoc 2y ago
A building is nothing more than a shell for the most part. It's all the parts that attach inside it that make it specialized. Those extraneous city halls could easily be repurposed, as their layouts share many of the aspects of business offices. Should that not work, they could be remade into commercial storefronts, or redesigned to hold electrical infrastructure by using the building as a facade, or any other number of things. For example in England many of the older pumping stations designed to keep the fens dry were repurposed as voltage stations for electricity, old rail sheds were repurposed to shelter busses, and horse stables were turned into loft-over-shop style homes. Reuse is always better than replace when it comes to something as expensive as architecture, especially architecture using lasting materials like stone. As for building something new... What exactly would need to be new to justify the construction? Density in cities only continues to grow, but that density is solved by verticality rather than replacement. You build up and you build onto rather than build out and build over. If it's to replace architectural styles, that is something that has to be decided on an individual example, as there's things like a city's aesthetic identity, historical significance, and architectural cohesion to consider. Erasing Lancashire's infamous council houses would be decried for decades despite their homogeneity and and connections with poverty, but getting rid of the giant monobloc apartments in Sheffield likely wouldn't be opposed too much because Brutalism's never much been liked and there's plenty of examples.