I actually appreciate this. Glass and steel are nice from a distance, but when's the last time on the sidewalk you actually took a pause and leaned on one for a break? These new textures are cold and distant, pristine and fragile. You're not supposed to touch them.
Concrete, stone and brick are the opposite. They're timeless and welcoming. You can touch them without having to worry about leaving a print. They feel like they take care of you, rather than the other way around.
And aesthetically, IMO, there's nothing more incredibly boring than just sheets of untouchable glass straight down the street. There's no texture and no character.
A good compromise is to allow the warmer facades of old buildings to continue to exist, and leave the new ones to the skyline, so long as they continue to be isolating.
I'd rather they put in a building that actually uses the facade they sit behind, in keeping with the architecture they supposedly want to preserve. The examples where it's just a wall with new style building sat behind look awful, and the windows don't even line up - so probably very inconsistent light, times of deep shadow and limited views from inside.
Looks more like the sort of thing your neighbour might do if they were a builder and you'd really upset them. :)
Like most architecture, there are good and bad examples.
Planning/regulation can't really do much about the subjective, and the nature of these tends to make permissions a central player. "Facadism" is becoming a "best practice" compromise between preservation, modernity, commercials & such. The danger there is box ticking tokenism and the ugly architecture that comes from that.
Some bad architecture will always exist regardless but a lot of the bad examples in this style come from this "designed for planners" tokenism.
BS. Regulation can do whatever it wants. Facadism is not a best practice, and the result proves that. Doing what's done on most of those photos is a pure crime against the culture, heritage and architecture. Old and ancient buildings should be preserved. If you wan to build yet another gray box then build it somewhere else. There's enough place around city.
It's a very basic and simple architecture so it looks ok. What's in London is a different thing. Buildings there are much more exquisite and what's being built behind is much more uglier.
To go to such extreme measures to avoid the glass-and-steel look... do you think architects will take the hint and switch to a different style?
Ha ha, of course not! They will invent some contrived justification for why people are wrong to dislike it. (Also everything is subjective, but you're still wrong to dislike it.)
Another thing is the intersection of the building and the pavement. All over London, this part of the building that pedestrians actually notice the most as they go past is botched and hammered-in. Turns many a mediocre building into a very poor one.
I wonder how much the difficulty in bringing these building up to modern standards plays into these decisions. Over the years these building would have been fitted with a variety of different heating systems; perhaps starting with open hearth fires when they were built with large brick chimney stacks to provide thermal mass. Over the years they probably got coal gas put in, or perhaps a back boiler hot water system operating on a thermal syphon, eventually being replaced by an early gas or oil boiler central boiler.
Each of these steps leaves another complex layer of hacks, fixes and dead pipes behind making it a long and challenging job to strip out and replace.
Similarly, when built it probably had no electrical supply at all, eventually being attached to the grid and wired with mineral insulated cable and re-wirable fuses. Over the years electricians have probably updated bits of this leaving old wires in place behind walls and ceilings.
Then you have the walls which would initially be lath and lime based plasters, with horse hair for strength and arsenic to stop the rats eating it. As these buildings got more sealed up, windows improved and fireplaces boarded up the condition of the plaster deteriorated. In places the plaster is patched with modern gypsum based plasters which aren't really compatible with the naturally porous building materials.
Even if all that is fixed and updated there is little or no insulation in the construction of the building. Adding it internally can cause issues with condensation buildup in the fabric of the building and is all but impossible to achieve without fairly large cold bridges due to the existing construction. Adding it externally can't be done without significantly altering the appearance of the building.
If that is all dealt with you probably have accessibility issues with steps and narrow door ways. Possibly fire safety issues etc.
Yeah, in the cases of refurbishing very old buildings I've heard (is Lisbon), they often tear everything down - including the floors - except the structural brick walls, then rebuild from those. From that to full rebuild is just a small step.
That said, they generally integrate the facade with the building, not just leave it as a screen in front!
I dealt with all this back when I worked construction (in the Northeast US). You tear it all out and leave the base structure, ensure the outside is weather-tight, install new windows, run new electrical and plumbing to modern standards and slap modern insulation and drywall up. Accessibility except in the most extreme cases can generally screw off unless it's a commercial building or going to be occupied by tenants in which case widening door ways and moving staircases really isn't a big deal when the place is gutted. In practice this means that most inspectors will not bust out the tape measure for a single family dwelling unless things are obviously pushing the limits of reasonableness or it is a totally new structure.
This approach is usually cheaper than new construction since you don't need to construct a new structure (if your roof/siding/windows are good you can also save money by keeping those). This approach also can side step a lot of permitting requirements since your keeping the original structure.
A full rebuild tends to not make financial sense when the property is going to be commercial (and the existing structure is not sufficient) or rental in which case knocking down and building as much square footage as you can justify is the way to go. For a single family home or commercial structure already of adequate form factor a full rebuild often makes sense. Like anything else you've gotta run the numbers for your specific situation.
The pitfalls you are mentioning are only of consequence when you have particularly micro-managerial regulation specifying you must retain outdated materials and interior systems (as the guy from Ireland describes in a different comment).
Thank you for a well-informed comment that points out that old buildings are at best a labrynthine nightmare of hacks and at worst a potential death trap.
Too few people moaning about what's happening to these buildings are willing to pony up the cash to actually pay for it. Tell me, if _you_ had the choice between paying 500k for a new, insulated, safe, building or 500k + much higher insurance for an old, cold, dirty, impossible to work on building, which would you pick? The former, of course, which is why "protecting" a building is basically stealing a home from its owners (and why old listed structures can be a dirt cheap adventure if you like a challenge)
I own and live in a protected structure (thatched cottage in Ireland). Here's some of the issues.
1) The previous owner had "protection" foisted on them against their will. This made their house and its land (aka "curtilage" basically worthless. I paid next to nothing for it.
2) It's massively inefficient, and I need (difficult to get) planning permission to upgrade the heating system. Imagine needing planning permission to replace your boiler with a heat pump!!! I may be able to do a wood pellet stove, but would really prefer heat pump (0 carbon). Right now it's an ancient POS oil stove (looks neat, though I've grown to loathe it) - bit like http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-tw... . I also am forbidden from using double-glazed windows, etc.
3) In the most technical, literal reading of the law, I literally cannot hang a picture on the wall without planning permission (using a nail or drilling a hole alters the original material, after all!) - of course nobody does this, so instead everybody just has to guess what their council's particular heritage officer cares about (some are damn-near gestapo like) and hope they don't find themselves on their bad side.
3) I am not allowed to add windows or make them bigger. This is a problem because only one of the windows is big enough to crawl out of, and there is one door. In a fire we may well die
4) Not ONLY do I have to keep a "plaything for the rich" thatched roof, I have to keep it _specifically_ in oaten straw, a material that decays quickly. It's about 20k for a roof on this tiny, ~550 square foot house that will last, oh, 10 or 15 years. Thatch offers literally no advantage whatsoever over a modern roof. At one time, it was what you used if you were poor and couldn't afford anything else, because straw was a waste material, but now with combine harvesters instead of traditional threshing and short-straw oat varieties you can't use straw from normal oats, so you specifically grow oats to make straw for roofs. In the UK I understand water reed is more commonly allowed, and it can last several decades, but Ireland forbids it (in the midlands at lest).
5) House insurance is about 5X as expensive as it would be.
I knew all of these things before I bought the house, which is how I have a place on a few acres a 15 minute bike ride through a nature preserve from a train station rthat has commuter service to Dublin for under €70,000, but the ONLY way this place makes sense is because I have an assumed resale value of 0 and can pretty much toss it in the bin and still come out ahead compared to paying rent.
For the previous owner, "protection" was a complete disaster. Sadly the only reason it got protected was because the last owner was too poor to upgrade it before the law changed, and they could've benefited most of all from increasing home values.
My house was built in the 1870s so I'm quite familiar with most of the things I mentioned above! Thankfully it's not in a conservation area though. I certainly think there needs to be a balance between the needs of modern occupants of a building and the desire to preserve the heritage of traditional buildings. If there isn't an acknowledgement of the need to modernise these buildings they fall into near museum status. I don't think that is good for modern day occupants or for those who would wish the home to be maintained into the future.
It definitely isn't - protection is often the first step to a building falling in to decay. That way you can get it delisted, hopefully.
This dilapidated mill was in horrible shape in street view 8 years ago, and since then has rotted even further. It's dangerous and hideous, but it's "protected" so it remains a huge burden on the town.
It's illegal to tear it down. You'd be a moron to put any money in to instead of just building something else. But the heritage fetishists won't delist it so it remains, an eyesore and attractive nuisance, which does wonders for liability insurance no doubt.
Hell, imagine if we had protected status for codebases. "You could rewrite this from scratch but dammit you're going to keep this in jQuery because that's our heritage!
I’m in a historic district too (mid Cambridge). I feel for you, as having sat through hearings to get my windows upgraded (in a non descript 40s brick building)..
Someone literally said after someone’s small addition was approved (on the second month asking for approval) the “ even though the building change wasn’t visible from the street, the fact they knew it would be there bothered him”
Helps explain why we just elected a more building friendly city council. Here’s hoping..
The ones where the old and new windows don't line up always seem a bit dumb. Must be a horrible experience for the people inside the new buildings, looking out of their windows onto a brick wall a few centimeters away. Both cited examples of this (Artillery Lane and Caledonian Road) are student accommodation, so I wonder if building at ultra-low cost has something to do with it.
Many of the others I don't have a particular problem with to be honest. There's actually one (not cited in the article) on the adjacent street to where I live, but they're building the new house to match up with the old facade so the nice Victorian era terrace isn't really disturbed. I'd much rather that than what they've done on another adjacent street - some overseas developer has bought one in the middle of a row of identical terraces, torn it down, built an iceberg basement, and a big new "modern" building that looms threateningly over the other buildings in the street like a largely windowless slaughterhouse with odd disproportionately large misshapen windows in improbable locations. I don't want to sound like Prince Charles with his "monstrous carbuncles", and I accept that perhaps there may be some people that somehow find that sort of "modern" building somehow aesthetically appealing, but I can't see how anyone would possibly think it was in keeping with the rest of the terrace either side, and have absolutely no idea how they got planning permission in such a strict conservation area.
These should only be legal if that facade is integrated into the new building, not just a mask in front it. Yes, it's more work for the architects but otherwise it defeats the whole point of the exercise.
As a Londoner, I agree. Generally, I don't have any problem with historic facades being integrated into modern buildings so long as it's done well.
Some of these examples, where the building was built behind the historic facade with no attempt to integrate it at all, are apppaling and should never have been allowed. The developers of these projects took advantage of loopholes in planning laws.
In other examples from the article, like the College East, Wentworth Street (Spitalfields E1) example, the historic facade has now been perfectly integrated into the new development. In fact, it is a huge improvement on what it looked like before:
Funny. They did this with a building on Broadway in Seattle, but set it back far enough that the section from the facade to the building is a patio. Ended up making it really cool and they get light (when it isn't raining) that makes some interesting shadows. Feel like if they use the facade as more than just "we have to keep it so put the new behind it" look then it's fine.
Better resourced example of nothing matching up: the Bank of America Meryll Lynch London HQ on Kind Edward Street. The building itself is largely fine, but the King Edward Street facade is unconvincing and a little depressing.
The King Edward St side of the building is more than just a facade. Some of the original stairs and rooms are preserved, and are connected to the early 2000s Merrill Lynch Financial Centre building. I've worked in a lot of offices in the Square Mile and the Wharf, and MLFC is one of the best.
I can see how that would be true for building regs (though not sure why - in general the standards for commercial buildings are higher, not lower, than those for residential buildings if anything in my limited experience).
But isn't 'look' more a matter for planning permission/listing/conservation area rules? Why would those be any different? Speculating, perhaps this is more a case of large developers having the resources to get their schemes in front of higher level decision makers who are more able and willing to make exceptions?
Student housing doesn’t officially classify as housing. It falls into the murky category of “sui generis” (Latin for “of its own kind”). As it falls outside a specific use class, it doesn’t have to adhere to the usual standards associated with dwellings (class C3). Local authorities differ in the their approaches, but student accommodation is usually either treated as a hotel (C1) or residential institution (C2), the same category as care homes, hospitals and boarding schools. Due to their limited occupation, these building types are immune from many of the codes that govern residential dwellings – from space standards to daylight and acoustics.
Daylight is the relevant thing here. This building would be too dark inside to meet housing standards, but it's okay for student accommodation.
You got it. Plus the developers have access to more and more expensive lawyers than council planning departments so with enough pressure they can get it called in and do pretty much whatever they like. As in this case.
Pressure washing a house is very American, and any building inspector, residential or commercial, will suggest that it is something that shouldn’t be done.
I saw that gallery of Manchester the other day, that's pretty amazing. But yeah, brick / stone walls shouldn't be pressure washed too often; if they're historical, they should be restored and / or carefully cleaned instead.
That one at least keeps the houses looking similar. For a lot of the ones in the article I don't see how you are keeping thing aesthetically similar when you put a huge monster building behind the facade.
In Norway, the government protects heritage building's facade but allows for the internals to be rebuilt to modern standards.
Sometimes this makes sense as the old buildings were extraordinarily energy inefficient and preservation rules make it near impossible to insulate using modern materials.
Some buildings are uninhabitable or cannot meet modern standards for environmental control yet are protected from demolition for historic reasons.
Unfortunately, the loop holes are exploited to the maximum, making a mockery of culture heritage preservation intentions. The government is responsible for many of the re-development decisions, causing the arbitrariness of architectural styles in some parts of the cities.
We've seen several buildings, in choice locations, be destroyed by "accidental" fires because of cultural heritage preservation rules.
I live in Oslo and I am genuinely shocked at the quality of construction here - so many corners are cut it is insane. They are not cheap either - we're talking 15k to 25k NOK per month.
My offices are in a beautiful modern well known office district / tourist hotspot and just yesterday one of the doorframes fell off the wall in the kitchen.
My own apartment is 90sqm, modern and in a well known central "expensive" part of town, was built only a few years ago, and the floor is so noticeably slanted that my bedroom cupboard door will slide open on its own from time to time.
The floorboards (whilst stunning) feel like they are built on-top of roots and boulders - the cement was clearly not levelled properly before the boards were placed.
I put a level on the kitchen counter and the bubble is obviously not centered.
On more than one occasion I have viewed apartments in Oslo where the master bedroom is so small that the property owners have to put a door on either side of the bed so you don't have to step over the bed to get out of the room. These apartments were also in the 20k NOK range.
1 in 10 apartments have ceiling lights. Apparently Norwegians really like standing lamps?
I have no ceiling lights in my house except for the kitchen and bathroom. Free standing lights give me a lot more flexibility and a powerful uplighter gives much better shadowless light than any ceiling light I have ever had.
I don't live in Oslo though, I don't think I could afford it. And though I work for StatNett at the moment I work remotely and only have to go in once a week or so for meetings so I don't have to deal with rush hour trains every day. But if you can put up with commuting you can find much cheaper, much bigger, places to live within quite easy commuting distance of Oslo.
This is horrible. Those photos are pure examples of architectural laziness. There were so many ways to integrate those facades in a real modern building - instead of keeping them outside as a pointless wall, prone to degradation.
At this point it would have been better to destroy everything.
Mixing old and new is an art... you need harmony between the two. And this harmony is missing in those pics. Perhaps in other countries they are better at it (italy? france? hungary?)
'Facadism' is also getting popular in germany and I think there are some really nice examples here. If done well, i think it really achieves the best of both worlds. The buildings fit in and preserve the atmosphere and character of the city while also being modern, livable and built for their real purpose on the inside. There are some examples where it's hard to tell that in fact only the facade survived and the entire back got replaced, others archive a good harmony between the old and the new. I think it's a great idea! But, as always, poor executions can always be found (some examples can be found in the article).
The buildings fit in and preserve the atmosphere and character of the city
That's the questionable bit. I don't think they do, it's disjointed and jarring. It has all the hallmarks of design by committee for me - everyone gets their box ticked, but the overall picture is a shocking mess.
But then this is all subjective, so I guess you can't please everyone.
The examples in the article are disjointed and jarring, but there are many buildings that get this approach right so you barely notice it's a new building with an old facade.
Obviously the perpetrators of #2 and #4 in the article should never be allowed to design a building ever again.
> But then this is all subjective, so I guess you can't please everyone.
Of course. To elaborate a bit on my thoughts: many cities have a distinct historical style reflecting the unique development of the city. If we replace every building that's unfit for purpose with an completely new building (i think) we will converge to an indifferent mess, where every city starts to look the same. The globalisation of architectural style, if you will. Preserving the facade means allowing some part of the history to continue and preserve a bit of the character of the neighbourhood. It's all generalised, of course. It doesn't always make sense, it doesn't always look good and it doesn't always preserve something in a meaningful sense. But there are quite a few examples here that I think are nicely done. Some executions are done in a styl where you don't even realise that only the facade is old and everything else got replaced!
> I don't think they do, it's disjointed and jarring.
This might be one of the things where we just disagree. I often really enjoy the contrast when of old vs new. There are some interesting buildings that playfully combine old structures with new. Not in the article though. But this contrast is not well received by everyone, here's an example that I think does this very well, but others hate it: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/dbxnyj/new_library_...
Facadism in this sense is nothing new at all. Our entire urban centers were build mostly from industrially produced, ready-made components as neo-classicist, neo-baroque, other historistic and art nouveau facades in front of simple base constructions from 1870-1914, with only a short period of real innovation with expressionist and reform/Bauhaus facades post-war/post-monarchy in 1920-1930. What you describe as athmosphere really always was intended to signal prestige and social status, now and then.
I expected samples how new is incorporated into old but this free standing facade is just plain ugly. Most of the houses seem to be built so at X moment they can just tear the facade down, because it now looks ugly.
I personally would prefer incorporating new with old. Keep the old facade, but it should be part of the house and working with the overall architecture.
Thes "spotted dog" pub one looked interesting to me and quite nice in a mix of old-new but it follows on to what you said about incorporated vs the freestanding pointless stuff that doesnt match up and has a gap to the new building. It looks horrendous.
This surprised me too. Toronto does a lot of integration with older buildings. People like it—at least better than just demolishing some beautiful or historic architecture. That’s what I expected until the first photograph.
I hate the new trend of preserving tacky neon signs. The Sam The Record Man sign is just ugly. So was the Honest Eds sign (although that one is a bit nicer).
Outside of the most well-executed instances, facadism does one of two things. It either highlights how terrible the new building behind it is, or it highlights how terrible the old facade is in front of the new building. I think the true legacy of Facadism will be that it illuminates the ridiculousness of indiscriminate preservationism, much in the same way that Brutalism and International Style illuminated the ridiculousness of trend chasing.
You can take any survey of the most beautiful cities in the world and they will all have something in common: they were beautiful long before urban planning, historical preservation committees, or design review boards existed. Their beauty is of one of evolution...the slow process of tearing old ugly things down and building new things in their place, some of which may also be ugly, but others which will become iconic to the point where nobody wants to tear them down. Democratic ideals shoved into beautification and preservation processes will only ever result in the preservation of things that shouldn't be preserved, and the construction of the lowest common denominator of putrid architecture.
Images 2 and 4 are the worst - where they are trying to squeeze an extra floor in so the new facade windows dont align with the old facade windows.
Images 6 and 7 are postmodern additions - maybe its not your style but they aren't without architectural thought
The others are all standalone facades unclear what their final outcome will be. Perhaps they were never of a good standard, were beyond repair at the time or were taken away during construction. In any case just keeping the facade is probably better than 50 years ago when theyd just demolish the whole thing.
The mismatch in floor heights is something I also find jarring. The changes in standards mean that floor heights are reducing, leading to this. It'd have cost them more to build matching floor heights and they might have had to have one storey less to get planning permission.
Something similar happened near where I lived in London. Developers got permission to build an apartment block on condition that it looked the same as its older neighbour. The result was an odd looking mini version, about 2 metres shorter than the original.
For #2 and #4 it's not just the floor height, it's that they built a new building while pretending the old facade wasn't there. It's just a random wall standing in front of a completely unrelated building.
From the street, number 6 (Stamford Street) looks worse than the photo. To me it looks a bit like how I imagine a Las Vegas hotel. Whatever the building had before is lost anyway.
This is… _sad_. I mean, if there is no other choice because restoration of the building is no longer technically feasible, fine. But just to throw up something bigger and newer? For shame.
> I can't believe they build new buildings behind the façade where the windows don't line up.
That surprised me also.
Here (germany) we got the trend of "facadism" too. But usually they try to properly integrate the old facade with the new structure.
I have the impression at this point that it is "Spite House" style Mallicious Compliance from owners fed up with trying to actually use the building for something useful and facing all of those constraints so they make it functional and in the laws while ugly as possible in protest to discourage future meddling.
Looks pretty awful. I see a lot of old buildings that can be modernized and saved but the costs are probably higher. Extending the old building with new constructions can definitely be done better than this. At least make use of all outer walls and the roof.
Taxes, incentives, and regulations don't directly achieve the goal. If the real goal is a shift in company cultures across an industry, then there also needs to be well-informed communication. Incentive structures can be part of that communication[1]. But people don't obey incentives unless they keep those incentives in conscious thought. If incentives were all it took for organisations to pay the cost of changing priorities, then there would have been no value in naming a bug "Heartbleed".
But you assume the alternative is to keep the whole building. If the alternative is to keep nothing, then this is great. (Although some of the examples work better than others, of course.)
Much of the feeling of the streets is about the first few stories of the buildings facing them. And big new buildings tend to be terrible at this, and are widely hated for it. Better to have strange hybrids than a whole city frozen in time by preservation.
Context which might be missing is that the buildings shown here are some grade of "listed buildings," where demolition prohibited under law for cultural or historical reasons.
Whilst some of these examples are particularly ugly, it strikes an interesting balance between maintaining the historically important aspects of the building, whilst modernizing it (or at worst, preventing a safety risk).
What's fascinating is when the aesthetics of the past don't align with the economics or building regulations today. Large windows and high-ceilings are both energy in-efficient and waste a lot of potential square-metreage.
I"m assuming that they need to keep the facade because of historic value or something but why not attach it to the new building? Some are saying it is laziness but it seems like it would take a lot of work to make sure this freestanding wall is structurally sound. Not to mention all the extra work having to clean two walls instead of just one (I guess it would actually be 3 different surfaces, the front and back of the facade and the front of the new building). Of course, the architect won't be the one cleaning it...
So are they like this because someone thinks this looks good???
Most times 'facadism' is not an architectural choice, is the only way to get a permit to renovate a building. In case of doubt, 'gatekeepers' will always leave it as it is.
And 'facadism' is not that new. In some English cities, around 1800, it was common to get a land plot with an already built facade. It worked fairly well as a way to keep unity while allowing fragmented private iniciative.
Some of these designs are great and others show the laziness and focus on cost-cutting in much of modern architecture. Just putting a new building behind an old facade is not architecture, it's copy and pasting. The true architects are those who manage to reuse the facade and fuse new and old into something that blends and flows together.
When I think about the delays to Crossrail, I feel compelled to defend laziness, copy and pasting, and focus on cost-cutting.
It was originally scheduled to open in 2018[1] and is now not going to be finished until well into 2021. Why? A large part of that is the work they need to do in order to "manage to reuse the facade and fuse new and old into something that blends and flows together"[2]
For any non-Brits looking for a glimpse into the (multi-million pound) challenges of converting London buildings into modern homes, check out Grand Designs:
We've got some buildings like this in Amsterdam too. Sometimes it's done really well, and I'm happy they managed to preserve a beautiful ancient facade while updating the insides to modern standards for non-collapsing structures. And sometimes it's an atrocity.
Many of these examples seem dangerous, like a place for water inclusion and freezing/melting and rot. The examples where the buildings tie together well aren't so bad. But the ones where the windows don't even line up?! Throw that builder in the sea.
That one on Stamford Street was there for decades as a very grand frontage to a car park! It was quite weird walking past it. The new building behind it doesn't 'work' with it at all, really.
I like old buildings, a lot, and I also understand that growth requires new construction sometimes replace old buildings, but this is kind of the worst possible outcome. It still destroys the old building, and puts an incoherent one in its place. Some mergers of old and new are interesting and cohesive, but it seems like there isn't even an attempt to make them work together in a lot of cases.
There's also at least a potential aesthetic problem where the new building behind the facade is taller than the facade, especially if it extends above by a significant amount. That's very common indeed.
It varies in how well it’s done - much as with windows, some are very sympathetic and others not. It’s also particularly noticeable for people who occupy higher floors in other nearby buildings and I’m not sure this is often considered in the planning process.
Concrete, stone and brick are the opposite. They're timeless and welcoming. You can touch them without having to worry about leaving a print. They feel like they take care of you, rather than the other way around.
And aesthetically, IMO, there's nothing more incredibly boring than just sheets of untouchable glass straight down the street. There's no texture and no character.
A good compromise is to allow the warmer facades of old buildings to continue to exist, and leave the new ones to the skyline, so long as they continue to be isolating.
Looks more like the sort of thing your neighbour might do if they were a builder and you'd really upset them. :)
Planning/regulation can't really do much about the subjective, and the nature of these tends to make permissions a central player. "Facadism" is becoming a "best practice" compromise between preservation, modernity, commercials & such. The danger there is box ticking tokenism and the ugly architecture that comes from that.
Some bad architecture will always exist regardless but a lot of the bad examples in this style come from this "designed for planners" tokenism.
https://marvelarchitects.com/work/st-ann-s-warehouse/110
Ha ha, of course not! They will invent some contrived justification for why people are wrong to dislike it. (Also everything is subjective, but you're still wrong to dislike it.)
Each of these steps leaves another complex layer of hacks, fixes and dead pipes behind making it a long and challenging job to strip out and replace.
Similarly, when built it probably had no electrical supply at all, eventually being attached to the grid and wired with mineral insulated cable and re-wirable fuses. Over the years electricians have probably updated bits of this leaving old wires in place behind walls and ceilings.
Then you have the walls which would initially be lath and lime based plasters, with horse hair for strength and arsenic to stop the rats eating it. As these buildings got more sealed up, windows improved and fireplaces boarded up the condition of the plaster deteriorated. In places the plaster is patched with modern gypsum based plasters which aren't really compatible with the naturally porous building materials.
Even if all that is fixed and updated there is little or no insulation in the construction of the building. Adding it internally can cause issues with condensation buildup in the fabric of the building and is all but impossible to achieve without fairly large cold bridges due to the existing construction. Adding it externally can't be done without significantly altering the appearance of the building.
If that is all dealt with you probably have accessibility issues with steps and narrow door ways. Possibly fire safety issues etc.
That said, they generally integrate the facade with the building, not just leave it as a screen in front!
This approach is usually cheaper than new construction since you don't need to construct a new structure (if your roof/siding/windows are good you can also save money by keeping those). This approach also can side step a lot of permitting requirements since your keeping the original structure.
A full rebuild tends to not make financial sense when the property is going to be commercial (and the existing structure is not sufficient) or rental in which case knocking down and building as much square footage as you can justify is the way to go. For a single family home or commercial structure already of adequate form factor a full rebuild often makes sense. Like anything else you've gotta run the numbers for your specific situation.
The pitfalls you are mentioning are only of consequence when you have particularly micro-managerial regulation specifying you must retain outdated materials and interior systems (as the guy from Ireland describes in a different comment).
Too few people moaning about what's happening to these buildings are willing to pony up the cash to actually pay for it. Tell me, if _you_ had the choice between paying 500k for a new, insulated, safe, building or 500k + much higher insurance for an old, cold, dirty, impossible to work on building, which would you pick? The former, of course, which is why "protecting" a building is basically stealing a home from its owners (and why old listed structures can be a dirt cheap adventure if you like a challenge)
I own and live in a protected structure (thatched cottage in Ireland). Here's some of the issues.
1) The previous owner had "protection" foisted on them against their will. This made their house and its land (aka "curtilage" basically worthless. I paid next to nothing for it.
2) It's massively inefficient, and I need (difficult to get) planning permission to upgrade the heating system. Imagine needing planning permission to replace your boiler with a heat pump!!! I may be able to do a wood pellet stove, but would really prefer heat pump (0 carbon). Right now it's an ancient POS oil stove (looks neat, though I've grown to loathe it) - bit like http://www.handfenterprises.ie/products/details/wellstood-tw... . I also am forbidden from using double-glazed windows, etc.
3) In the most technical, literal reading of the law, I literally cannot hang a picture on the wall without planning permission (using a nail or drilling a hole alters the original material, after all!) - of course nobody does this, so instead everybody just has to guess what their council's particular heritage officer cares about (some are damn-near gestapo like) and hope they don't find themselves on their bad side.
3) I am not allowed to add windows or make them bigger. This is a problem because only one of the windows is big enough to crawl out of, and there is one door. In a fire we may well die
4) Not ONLY do I have to keep a "plaything for the rich" thatched roof, I have to keep it _specifically_ in oaten straw, a material that decays quickly. It's about 20k for a roof on this tiny, ~550 square foot house that will last, oh, 10 or 15 years. Thatch offers literally no advantage whatsoever over a modern roof. At one time, it was what you used if you were poor and couldn't afford anything else, because straw was a waste material, but now with combine harvesters instead of traditional threshing and short-straw oat varieties you can't use straw from normal oats, so you specifically grow oats to make straw for roofs. In the UK I understand water reed is more commonly allowed, and it can last several decades, but Ireland forbids it (in the midlands at lest).
5) House insurance is about 5X as expensive as it would be.
I knew all of these things before I bought the house, which is how I have a place on a few acres a 15 minute bike ride through a nature preserve from a train station rthat has commuter service to Dublin for under €70,000, but the ONLY way this place makes sense is because I have an assumed resale value of 0 and can pretty much toss it in the bin and still come out ahead compared to paying rent.
For the previous owner, "protection" was a complete disaster. Sadly the only reason it got protected was because the last owner was too poor to upgrade it before the law changed, and they could've benefited most of all from increasing home values.
This dilapidated mill was in horrible shape in street view 8 years ago, and since then has rotted even further. It's dangerous and hideous, but it's "protected" so it remains a huge burden on the town.
It's illegal to tear it down. You'd be a moron to put any money in to instead of just building something else. But the heritage fetishists won't delist it so it remains, an eyesore and attractive nuisance, which does wonders for liability insurance no doubt.
https://goo.gl/maps/r2STVqbRMLmbhDY3A
Hell, imagine if we had protected status for codebases. "You could rewrite this from scratch but dammit you're going to keep this in jQuery because that's our heritage!
Someone literally said after someone’s small addition was approved (on the second month asking for approval) the “ even though the building change wasn’t visible from the street, the fact they knew it would be there bothered him”
Helps explain why we just elected a more building friendly city council. Here’s hoping..
Many of the others I don't have a particular problem with to be honest. There's actually one (not cited in the article) on the adjacent street to where I live, but they're building the new house to match up with the old facade so the nice Victorian era terrace isn't really disturbed. I'd much rather that than what they've done on another adjacent street - some overseas developer has bought one in the middle of a row of identical terraces, torn it down, built an iceberg basement, and a big new "modern" building that looms threateningly over the other buildings in the street like a largely windowless slaughterhouse with odd disproportionately large misshapen windows in improbable locations. I don't want to sound like Prince Charles with his "monstrous carbuncles", and I accept that perhaps there may be some people that somehow find that sort of "modern" building somehow aesthetically appealing, but I can't see how anyone would possibly think it was in keeping with the rest of the terrace either side, and have absolutely no idea how they got planning permission in such a strict conservation area.
ah yes - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbunc...
Some of these examples, where the building was built behind the historic facade with no attempt to integrate it at all, are apppaling and should never have been allowed. The developers of these projects took advantage of loopholes in planning laws.
In other examples from the article, like the College East, Wentworth Street (Spitalfields E1) example, the historic facade has now been perfectly integrated into the new development. In fact, it is a huge improvement on what it looked like before:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5170618,-0.0722792,3a,75y,13...
(I cycle along this street every day!)
But isn't 'look' more a matter for planning permission/listing/conservation area rules? Why would those be any different? Speculating, perhaps this is more a case of large developers having the resources to get their schemes in front of higher level decision makers who are more able and willing to make exceptions?
Student housing doesn’t officially classify as housing. It falls into the murky category of “sui generis” (Latin for “of its own kind”). As it falls outside a specific use class, it doesn’t have to adhere to the usual standards associated with dwellings (class C3). Local authorities differ in the their approaches, but student accommodation is usually either treated as a hotel (C1) or residential institution (C2), the same category as care homes, hospitals and boarding schools. Due to their limited occupation, these building types are immune from many of the codes that govern residential dwellings – from space standards to daylight and acoustics.
Daylight is the relevant thing here. This building would be too dark inside to meet housing standards, but it's okay for student accommodation.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbunc...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17883481
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/gallery/bla...
I also stumbled upon this discussion on cleaning London buildings in a Lords sitting in 1964 which was quite fun to read.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1964/nov/12...
http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-fake-houses-at-23-and-24-lei...
That one at least keeps the houses looking similar. For a lot of the ones in the article I don't see how you are keeping thing aesthetically similar when you put a huge monster building behind the facade.
Sometimes this makes sense as the old buildings were extraordinarily energy inefficient and preservation rules make it near impossible to insulate using modern materials. Some buildings are uninhabitable or cannot meet modern standards for environmental control yet are protected from demolition for historic reasons.
Unfortunately, the loop holes are exploited to the maximum, making a mockery of culture heritage preservation intentions. The government is responsible for many of the re-development decisions, causing the arbitrariness of architectural styles in some parts of the cities.
We've seen several buildings, in choice locations, be destroyed by "accidental" fires because of cultural heritage preservation rules.
My offices are in a beautiful modern well known office district / tourist hotspot and just yesterday one of the doorframes fell off the wall in the kitchen.
My own apartment is 90sqm, modern and in a well known central "expensive" part of town, was built only a few years ago, and the floor is so noticeably slanted that my bedroom cupboard door will slide open on its own from time to time.
The floorboards (whilst stunning) feel like they are built on-top of roots and boulders - the cement was clearly not levelled properly before the boards were placed.
I put a level on the kitchen counter and the bubble is obviously not centered.
On more than one occasion I have viewed apartments in Oslo where the master bedroom is so small that the property owners have to put a door on either side of the bed so you don't have to step over the bed to get out of the room. These apartments were also in the 20k NOK range.
1 in 10 apartments have ceiling lights. Apparently Norwegians really like standing lamps?
I don't live in Oslo though, I don't think I could afford it. And though I work for StatNett at the moment I work remotely and only have to go in once a week or so for meetings so I don't have to deal with rush hour trains every day. But if you can put up with commuting you can find much cheaper, much bigger, places to live within quite easy commuting distance of Oslo.
At this point it would have been better to destroy everything.
Mixing old and new is an art... you need harmony between the two. And this harmony is missing in those pics. Perhaps in other countries they are better at it (italy? france? hungary?)
That's the questionable bit. I don't think they do, it's disjointed and jarring. It has all the hallmarks of design by committee for me - everyone gets their box ticked, but the overall picture is a shocking mess.
But then this is all subjective, so I guess you can't please everyone.
Obviously the perpetrators of #2 and #4 in the article should never be allowed to design a building ever again.
Of course. To elaborate a bit on my thoughts: many cities have a distinct historical style reflecting the unique development of the city. If we replace every building that's unfit for purpose with an completely new building (i think) we will converge to an indifferent mess, where every city starts to look the same. The globalisation of architectural style, if you will. Preserving the facade means allowing some part of the history to continue and preserve a bit of the character of the neighbourhood. It's all generalised, of course. It doesn't always make sense, it doesn't always look good and it doesn't always preserve something in a meaningful sense. But there are quite a few examples here that I think are nicely done. Some executions are done in a styl where you don't even realise that only the facade is old and everything else got replaced!
> I don't think they do, it's disjointed and jarring. This might be one of the things where we just disagree. I often really enjoy the contrast when of old vs new. There are some interesting buildings that playfully combine old structures with new. Not in the article though. But this contrast is not well received by everyone, here's an example that I think does this very well, but others hate it: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/dbxnyj/new_library_...
Sometimes can be pleasing entering an "old facade" but inside everything is brand new and modern.
I expected samples how new is incorporated into old but this free standing facade is just plain ugly. Most of the houses seem to be built so at X moment they can just tear the facade down, because it now looks ugly.
I personally would prefer incorporating new with old. Keep the old facade, but it should be part of the house and working with the overall architecture.
You can take any survey of the most beautiful cities in the world and they will all have something in common: they were beautiful long before urban planning, historical preservation committees, or design review boards existed. Their beauty is of one of evolution...the slow process of tearing old ugly things down and building new things in their place, some of which may also be ugly, but others which will become iconic to the point where nobody wants to tear them down. Democratic ideals shoved into beautification and preservation processes will only ever result in the preservation of things that shouldn't be preserved, and the construction of the lowest common denominator of putrid architecture.
Images 6 and 7 are postmodern additions - maybe its not your style but they aren't without architectural thought
The others are all standalone facades unclear what their final outcome will be. Perhaps they were never of a good standard, were beyond repair at the time or were taken away during construction. In any case just keeping the facade is probably better than 50 years ago when theyd just demolish the whole thing.
Something similar happened near where I lived in London. Developers got permission to build an apartment block on condition that it looked the same as its older neighbour. The result was an odd looking mini version, about 2 metres shorter than the original.
London's bigger problem is the shoddy quality (at all stages) of new construction, in the unbound race for profit.
That surprised me also. Here (germany) we got the trend of "facadism" too. But usually they try to properly integrate the old facade with the new structure.
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/04/09/what-heartbleed-can-tea...
Much of the feeling of the streets is about the first few stories of the buildings facing them. And big new buildings tend to be terrible at this, and are widely hated for it. Better to have strange hybrids than a whole city frozen in time by preservation.
Whilst some of these examples are particularly ugly, it strikes an interesting balance between maintaining the historically important aspects of the building, whilst modernizing it (or at worst, preventing a safety risk).
What's fascinating is when the aesthetics of the past don't align with the economics or building regulations today. Large windows and high-ceilings are both energy in-efficient and waste a lot of potential square-metreage.
So are they like this because someone thinks this looks good???
And 'facadism' is not that new. In some English cities, around 1800, it was common to get a land plot with an already built facade. It worked fairly well as a way to keep unity while allowing fragmented private iniciative.
It was originally scheduled to open in 2018[1] and is now not going to be finished until well into 2021. Why? A large part of that is the work they need to do in order to "manage to reuse the facade and fuse new and old into something that blends and flows together"[2]
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50345344
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qi046Xn6lA
https://www.netflix.com/title/80160755
The Kennington water-tower conversion is a nice example (S10,E5).
To think it never occurred to anybody in the decision chain that this might be a bad idea.
Opposite, inbetween some terraces, I suspect as a result of WW2 bombing, was a council block. 5 floors in the same space as the 4.
So it goes.
At least it gives the public some vague sense of what it was like when architecture wasn't adversarial.
I like old buildings, a lot, and I also understand that growth requires new construction sometimes replace old buildings, but this is kind of the worst possible outcome. It still destroys the old building, and puts an incoherent one in its place. Some mergers of old and new are interesting and cohesive, but it seems like there isn't even an attempt to make them work together in a lot of cases.
The ugly part is when they don't line up the windows. Otherwise, it's fine.
But I can see how tastes differ.