One reason old buildings seem generally better than new buildings is survivorship bias. We only see the exceptional old buildings that were worth preserving. The franken-buildings in the article won't survive many generations to be laughed at.
In general, the prediction "future generations will laugh at X" rarely comes to pass. Better laugh while you can.
First, architecture followed the same trend as modern art where taste and beauty have given way to being original and conceptual. This results in very mediocre constructions. Paris attracts millions of tourists who come to admire its palaces and tasteful haussmanian style. No such enthusiasm for the modern buildings of Frankfurt. Not to mention the concrete-made brutalist horrors and other modern architectural “creations”.
Second, apart from the said brutalist bunkers, all modern constructions are designed for a very limited life (even infrastructures like bridges). I was visiting the Pantheon in Rome last week, a 2000 years old building which interior made of marble and stone looks almost new (after many renovations I am sure). What will be left of our glass and steel buildings? They are merely more durable than a mongol tent. The only trace historians will have of our civilisation is the selfies we publish on Facebook really.
True, they usually cry rather than laughing. There are plenty of examples of exceptional old building that were worth preserving being destroyed in favor of what are generally agreed to be ugly monstrosities. Penn Station is the premiere example, of course.
I share a similar conviction, if you look at pictures taken of 'old' neighborhoods it is possible to see this in action. A bunch of buildings that no longer exist because, well they weren't worth saving.
That said, I had thought they would be talking about the trend I'm seeing to create offset walls in buildings to make them more "interesting" and then painting the different offsets in different colors. I suspect this will be called out as "early 21st century buildings." And like the faux adobe of the 80's will hopefully fade away into something more interesting.
Architects had been preserving parts of buildings by incorporating them into the new since the bronze age. You can see it all over ancient cities. It was organic.
That has been adopted as a formal (well.. semi-formal) ruleset that basically reads: "slice off the front of the building and stick it on the new one." Someone from the council comes to check you for preservation compliance, supposedly. Job done. Urban beauty preserved.
Meanwhile, it's not like they're sculpting Viennas or Oxfords. Urban planning is a jumble of chaos. I'm OK with getting creative with city planning, but either go for cheap, or beautiful, or practical. This is none of those. It's silly.
Survivorship bias might apply to construction quality but I doubt it applies to architectural aesthetic appeal.
Just look at New York City, or Philadelphia, or Rochester, NY, or any city with old housing stock. It so happens that everything was made out of brick, so none of those buildings are going anywhere anytime soon, except for the ones that were torn down to build condos, or the ones that caught on fire, were left to rot by slumlords, etc. It just so happens that the majority of those old buildings are (or were) handsome and tastefully designed.
Nobody in the USA is tearing down perfectly good buildings solely because they are ugly or because their style is outdated.
He's definitely more concerned with preserving the old ways from being abused than he is with protecting the new ways for me and for you.
My favourite bit of facadism in London is the Lloyd's building. In 1928 Lloyd's of London built a big wedding cake sort of thing for their headquarters:
If you walk along Leadenhall Street from the west, on the south side, you're walking past a number of fairly low-rise buildings of various ages, and you don't really see the modern bit. Until you walk past the Lloyd's facade, and look through the front door, and instead of there being an atrium, receptionist, etc, there's a yard with an oil rig in it.
Lloyds is not at all a good example of postmodern facadism. It's to the contrary of one the worlds greatest examples of modern architecture. This tiny "wedding cake" front has nothing to do with the building itself. It's separated, everyone can see that. This is a pure example of wrongly understood city planning and preservation. But they let it build which is the most important point.
He is one of the architects of the Centre Pompidou in Paris btw.
One funny note is that a similar thing happens all the time in Southern California for a totally different reason - building permit and tax regulations.
In some areas if you leave even the tiniest sliver of the facade (or any wall) in place, the project is considered a "remodel" instead of "new construction". This comes with much cheaper permits and possibly lower taxes.
It's not uncommon to walk past a building site that is entirely dirt except one poor little old wall being propped up desperately waiting for a new building to be constructed around it. I've seen tiny block buildings torn down except for one wall and rebuilt into ultra-trendy indoor/outdoor cafes that managed to hide that original wall somewhere in the new structure.
If the regulatory environment is anything like in SF, it's less about cheaper permits and more about not getting into a years-long battle with the planning commission and NIMBYs. Many people simply give up.
Realistically your only choices are to hack the system or don't touch the property. The only winning move is to not play the game.
Haha, If I had a bone to pick with someone or wanted to threaten them I'd sneak in under the dead of night and remove the sliver. With a ransom note made of newpaper clipped type and everything.
I don't think the article makes any sort of objective point.
The author essentially says "I don't like it, it's cheesy."
Well, I can just as easily say "I like some of these facadist buildings." And I do.
If the author spoke with some more concrete reasoning about why these buildings are such abominations, perhaps I could be convinced. Until then, it's hard not to consider this just another example of every design feature having good and bad executions.
There are timeless Brutalist, Modernist, Classical, and Contemporary buildings just like there are ugly, unremarkable, bad examples. The same is probably true of Facadism.
I think the only argument that comes close (which the author didn't get into enough) might be the destruction of historic buildings as an alternative to full restoration. I wish more effort was taken to quantify this concept. In other words, present a particular example of a building project and demonstrate to the reader with real data why it would have worked better as a restoration project, complete tear-down, or otherwise handle the project differently.
There must often be a functional desire to build a modern building, perhaps one that provides more comfort, natural light, safety, accessibility, flexibility, square footage, etc.
Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private companies and individuals, who generally have a right to do whatever they want to them!
> Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private companies and individuals, and generally have a right to do whatever they want to them!
For better or worse, that's just not true. Since at least the 1800s American cities have used building codes to limit and control construction. Historic zoning rules are far more recent but the courts have been unwilling to draw lines to delineate legitimate from illegitimate public interest policies. The only real limits have been due process-related, so effected owners are at least nominally given notice and can't be singled out. However, courts have been unwilling to even enforce those protections, which is why in major American cities quid pro quo systems (exactions for permits so the city doesn't slow walk your project) have metastasized. And SCOTUS has been hesitant to jump into the fray because even they fear the wrath of NIMBYs flooding the courts with decades of challenges if courts take up the mantle of arbiter from local commissions.
> Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private companies and individuals, who generally have a right to do whatever they want to them!
Err, no. A city can and should decide what the "overall look and feel" is. London fails at that spectacularly. Pretty much all cities that are considered beautiful have building guidelines in place that support that. Like: you can build only to the height of neighboring buildings, windows need to line up, specific styles and mandatory balconies to fit into the environment. Think of Amsterdam or Barcelona.
The overall look of a city is part of the quality of life of its citizens. If you leave it to property developers, well, you get something like London.
EDIT: "The school of Life" made a video that explains that pretty well. [1]
Indeed. I agree with the author that the examples shown are monstrous eyesores. But take a walk around London and you'll be able to find plenty of examples of this "facadism" done well.
>There are timeless Brutalist, Modernist, Classical, and Contemporary buildings just like there are ugly, unremarkable, bad examples. The same is probably true of Facadism.
I think one of the original goals of facadism was to blend a new, contemporary building into its surroundings (which would be older historic buildings). As more facadism gets built, I think they stop blending in as much. Combine this with the likely phenomenon of developers pursuing a hot new trend and now suddenly all of these buildings stick out like a sore thumb.
This kind of tasteless fakery is all over cookie cutter USA suburbia—basically anything builtbafter 2000 or so is totally phony. Faux brick siding in front (look around the sides and back and you’ll see the cheap aluminum siding). Huge, ridiculous arches that don’t structurally support anything. 20 gables on one roof. Tons of Windows in front, with nothing (or oddly placed/sized ones) on the sides and back. Non functional shutters and chimneys. Over optimizing for curb appeal and house flipping.
Aesthetically, people love old buildings. However, people also love modern building code that keeps us safe in things like earthquakes.
Also, preservation laws are wild [1]. If you own an old building, you usually have to agree to the preservation laws that came with it. They usually state you can't mess much with the exterior, but go nuts on in the inside.
In face of all these barriers, facadism is the loophole.
Oh whatever. Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood's cast iron facades are beautiful and historical in their precursorship to the island's pioneering of the skyscraper. When they were erected, they were called out as cheap imitations of stone frontage. Now they're revered.
Another reputable facade job is the Puck Building [1], which had its ass cut off by when Elm Place was widened into Lafayette. Also, I'm not sure if the Hearst Building [2] counts as a facade, but I personally think it's a neat union of old and new.
Yeah, but "facadism," as described in the article, is essentially hollowing out some old, architecturally significant building, and making a different, mismatched building inside the remains.
Why wait for future generations? Some of these seem pretty horrific and worthy of derision in the here and now.
I think the biggest problem I see in looking at this trend is the utter inauthenticity of the resulting building. It fails to preserve the original building and it doesn't allow a new building to express itself.
I see value in preserving or renovating the old, I see value in creating something new. I even think a real fusion of old and new could be great. But from what I see this does none of those things. This seems more akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
But perhaps future generations will come to love the charm of this juxtaposition. Perhaps new construction will create new freestanding facades so that the real building can be swapped out easily without changing the frontage. And at the very least I can find amusement in the building of these abominations.
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.
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-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.
> "Future generations will laugh in horror and derision..."
Is there anything in the past that we laugh at in horror and derision? Future generations will probably understand why we did it, or just tear it down. There is not much reason to mock the architects.
I grew up with this misapprehension (thanks to seeing it aged 6 or so) that Monty Python & The Holy Grail was a historical documentary. If that wasn’t laughing in horror and derision at witch hunts, I don’t know what is.
Limited just to architecture, I seem to recall quite a few derisory laughs at school about how toilets used to be designed, too.
This is happening all over the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle. I don’t know if it’s worse to knock down an interesting building and replace it with a giant soulless cookie-cutter apartment building, or to leave the façade of the original stuck to the outside like a cruel joke...
This is hilariously short-sighted. They are kinda ugly, but future generations will definitely not have the context to “wither in horror”. More likely, it’ll be like the Louvre and architects will bitch and moan until they get old and die, and literally everyone else will either not notice or just think “cool glass pyramid”.
Only utility remains of his three principles of architecture.
Beauty has bastardized into branding. The building is a sculpture that needs to project the values of the patron. That's why most modern buildings look futuristic, because most institutions regard themselves as forward thinking. Or buildings look "fun" or "interesting" or "special", or whatever trait the patron thinks defines his identity.
Robustness isn't required anymore either, since building cost is amortized over the duration during which the typical investor expects a ROI, a generation or so. The practical result is new buildings that are no longer build to last indefinitely.
As with post-modernism (which this is simply a late stage manifestation of) you shouldn't blame the superficial reaction, you should blame the initial problem, which was architectural modernism and an obsession with discarding all the lessons of the past in the name of innovation, so called. Tom Wolf nailed it in "From Bauhaus to Our House":
In this particular area of London I'd rather they knocked down the façade than try to keep it, unless it has particular merit (although there are less listed buildings (600) than I would have thought in the City).
The following isn't facadism, but a different turn on a similar theme: https://goo.gl/maps/doYSK7sUdSR2 (turn the camera to the left to see the giant Shepard Fairey mural, which is probably destined for demolishment or painting over by the look of the scaffolding attached to it)
Everywhere in gentrifying Northeast Philadelphia, there are these horrendous modern buildings going up next to traditional brick and stone rowhomes. They look like a modernist disease attacked a normal building. And they're going for a mil and a half.
View here: https://goo.gl/maps/uxrVykuDmDy and then move forward in the street one inch, and you'll see the earlier plywood skeleton of the modern building on the right. It's so sad. (these are actually the attractive examples)
I’d rather have a neoclassical or neogothic or Art Deco facade with a standard building behind it than totally surrender to the soulless garbage that passes for “modern” architecture in cities.
I have read somewhere that the general public actually prefers the older styles, but that architects prefer modern styles. I’ll see if I can find the source.
Why does this happen? Economy explains most phenomena.
a) Developers want to maximise profit: generally more area means more profit and optimizing the height of the building is the way to get it.
b) City Halls will evoke (sometimes dubious) historical value to block the old building.
c) Developers will finally apply for an extension of the existent. City Hall has a tougher job to justify blocking the extension. After some delays, developers eventually will build it.
Other fact to mix: extensions are probably the most demanding projects. Pragmatic architects (the ones that usually get large projects) are not suitable for it, they will not spend more time than the strictly necessary.
[+] [-] tlb|7 years ago|reply
In general, the prediction "future generations will laugh at X" rarely comes to pass. Better laugh while you can.
[+] [-] cm2187|7 years ago|reply
First, architecture followed the same trend as modern art where taste and beauty have given way to being original and conceptual. This results in very mediocre constructions. Paris attracts millions of tourists who come to admire its palaces and tasteful haussmanian style. No such enthusiasm for the modern buildings of Frankfurt. Not to mention the concrete-made brutalist horrors and other modern architectural “creations”.
Second, apart from the said brutalist bunkers, all modern constructions are designed for a very limited life (even infrastructures like bridges). I was visiting the Pantheon in Rome last week, a 2000 years old building which interior made of marble and stone looks almost new (after many renovations I am sure). What will be left of our glass and steel buildings? They are merely more durable than a mongol tent. The only trace historians will have of our civilisation is the selfies we publish on Facebook really.
[+] [-] cfmcdonald|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|7 years ago|reply
That said, I had thought they would be talking about the trend I'm seeing to create offset walls in buildings to make them more "interesting" and then painting the different offsets in different colors. I suspect this will be called out as "early 21st century buildings." And like the faux adobe of the 80's will hopefully fade away into something more interesting.
[+] [-] dalbasal|7 years ago|reply
Architects had been preserving parts of buildings by incorporating them into the new since the bronze age. You can see it all over ancient cities. It was organic.
That has been adopted as a formal (well.. semi-formal) ruleset that basically reads: "slice off the front of the building and stick it on the new one." Someone from the council comes to check you for preservation compliance, supposedly. Job done. Urban beauty preserved.
Meanwhile, it's not like they're sculpting Viennas or Oxfords. Urban planning is a jumble of chaos. I'm OK with getting creative with city planning, but either go for cheap, or beautiful, or practical. This is none of those. It's silly.
[+] [-] nerdponx|7 years ago|reply
Just look at New York City, or Philadelphia, or Rochester, NY, or any city with old housing stock. It so happens that everything was made out of brick, so none of those buildings are going anywhere anytime soon, except for the ones that were torn down to build condos, or the ones that caught on fire, were left to rot by slumlords, etc. It just so happens that the majority of those old buildings are (or were) handsome and tastefully designed.
Nobody in the USA is tearing down perfectly good buildings solely because they are ugly or because their style is outdated.
[+] [-] twic|7 years ago|reply
http://spitalfieldslife.com/
He's definitely more concerned with preserving the old ways from being abused than he is with protecting the new ways for me and for you.
My favourite bit of facadism in London is the Lloyd's building. In 1928 Lloyd's of London built a big wedding cake sort of thing for their headquarters:
http://archiseek.com/2013/lloyds-leadenhall-st-london/
Then in 1978 smashed it down and built a giant oil rig, thus summoning Margaret Thatcher to our dimension:
https://www.rsh-p.com/projects/lloyds-of-london/
But the wedding cake had a nice bit on the front, so they kept that:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiejones/5738790055
If you walk along Leadenhall Street from the west, on the south side, you're walking past a number of fairly low-rise buildings of various ages, and you don't really see the modern bit. Until you walk past the Lloyd's facade, and look through the front door, and instead of there being an atrium, receptionist, etc, there's a yard with an oil rig in it.
[+] [-] rurban|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VMG|7 years ago|reply
What more can he do?
[+] [-] albertgoeswoof|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ageitgey|7 years ago|reply
In some areas if you leave even the tiniest sliver of the facade (or any wall) in place, the project is considered a "remodel" instead of "new construction". This comes with much cheaper permits and possibly lower taxes.
It's not uncommon to walk past a building site that is entirely dirt except one poor little old wall being propped up desperately waiting for a new building to be constructed around it. I've seen tiny block buildings torn down except for one wall and rebuilt into ultra-trendy indoor/outdoor cafes that managed to hide that original wall somewhere in the new structure.
[+] [-] wahern|7 years ago|reply
Realistically your only choices are to hack the system or don't touch the property. The only winning move is to not play the game.
[+] [-] vinceguidry|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewla|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangus|7 years ago|reply
The author essentially says "I don't like it, it's cheesy."
Well, I can just as easily say "I like some of these facadist buildings." And I do.
If the author spoke with some more concrete reasoning about why these buildings are such abominations, perhaps I could be convinced. Until then, it's hard not to consider this just another example of every design feature having good and bad executions.
There are timeless Brutalist, Modernist, Classical, and Contemporary buildings just like there are ugly, unremarkable, bad examples. The same is probably true of Facadism.
I think the only argument that comes close (which the author didn't get into enough) might be the destruction of historic buildings as an alternative to full restoration. I wish more effort was taken to quantify this concept. In other words, present a particular example of a building project and demonstrate to the reader with real data why it would have worked better as a restoration project, complete tear-down, or otherwise handle the project differently.
There must often be a functional desire to build a modern building, perhaps one that provides more comfort, natural light, safety, accessibility, flexibility, square footage, etc.
Finally, it should be mentioned that buildings are owned by private companies and individuals, who generally have a right to do whatever they want to them!
[+] [-] wahern|7 years ago|reply
For better or worse, that's just not true. Since at least the 1800s American cities have used building codes to limit and control construction. Historic zoning rules are far more recent but the courts have been unwilling to draw lines to delineate legitimate from illegitimate public interest policies. The only real limits have been due process-related, so effected owners are at least nominally given notice and can't be singled out. However, courts have been unwilling to even enforce those protections, which is why in major American cities quid pro quo systems (exactions for permits so the city doesn't slow walk your project) have metastasized. And SCOTUS has been hesitant to jump into the fray because even they fear the wrath of NIMBYs flooding the courts with decades of challenges if courts take up the mantle of arbiter from local commissions.
[+] [-] cleansy|7 years ago|reply
Err, no. A city can and should decide what the "overall look and feel" is. London fails at that spectacularly. Pretty much all cities that are considered beautiful have building guidelines in place that support that. Like: you can build only to the height of neighboring buildings, windows need to line up, specific styles and mandatory balconies to fit into the environment. Think of Amsterdam or Barcelona.
The overall look of a city is part of the quality of life of its citizens. If you leave it to property developers, well, you get something like London.
EDIT: "The school of Life" made a video that explains that pretty well. [1]
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c
[+] [-] SmellyGeekBoy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] so33|7 years ago|reply
I think one of the original goals of facadism was to blend a new, contemporary building into its surroundings (which would be older historic buildings). As more facadism gets built, I think they stop blending in as much. Combine this with the likely phenomenon of developers pursuing a hot new trend and now suddenly all of these buildings stick out like a sore thumb.
[+] [-] ryandrake|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madrox|7 years ago|reply
Also, preservation laws are wild [1]. If you own an old building, you usually have to agree to the preservation laws that came with it. They usually state you can't mess much with the exterior, but go nuts on in the inside.
In face of all these barriers, facadism is the loophole.
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/
[+] [-] onion2k|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
Another reputable facade job is the Puck Building [1], which had its ass cut off by when Elm Place was widened into Lafayette. Also, I'm not sure if the Hearst Building [2] counts as a facade, but I personally think it's a neat union of old and new.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_Building
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Tower_(Manhattan)
[+] [-] emodendroket|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dijit27|7 years ago|reply
I think the biggest problem I see in looking at this trend is the utter inauthenticity of the resulting building. It fails to preserve the original building and it doesn't allow a new building to express itself.
I see value in preserving or renovating the old, I see value in creating something new. I even think a real fusion of old and new could be great. But from what I see this does none of those things. This seems more akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
But perhaps future generations will come to love the charm of this juxtaposition. Perhaps new construction will create new freestanding facades so that the real building can be swapped out easily without changing the frontage. And at the very least I can find amusement in the building of these abominations.
[+] [-] oldcynic|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jseliger|7 years ago|reply
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-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-.... If an owner wants to build a bunch of new housing or offices, great.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] afterburner|7 years ago|reply
Because those are ugly and boring.
[+] [-] pwaivers|7 years ago|reply
Is there anything in the past that we laugh at in horror and derision? Future generations will probably understand why we did it, or just tear it down. There is not much reason to mock the architects.
[+] [-] rpowers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_w|7 years ago|reply
Limited just to architecture, I seem to recall quite a few derisory laughs at school about how toilets used to be designed, too.
[+] [-] Udik|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhpriestley|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaybe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wrs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackconnor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 781|7 years ago|reply
https://i.imgur.com/f6PFnAN.jpg
It's the office of the romanian architects guild.
[+] [-] salawat|7 years ago|reply
You choose readily available materials to build it out of, you try to match the "style" of structure to the environment and culture of the space.
Has modern architecture just thrown Vitruvius out the window?
[+] [-] trgn|7 years ago|reply
Only utility remains of his three principles of architecture.
Beauty has bastardized into branding. The building is a sculpture that needs to project the values of the patron. That's why most modern buildings look futuristic, because most institutions regard themselves as forward thinking. Or buildings look "fun" or "interesting" or "special", or whatever trait the patron thinks defines his identity.
Robustness isn't required anymore either, since building cost is amortized over the duration during which the typical investor expects a ROI, a generation or so. The practical result is new buildings that are no longer build to last indefinitely.
[+] [-] quantumofmalice|7 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-Wolfe/dp/031242...
As badly as these buildings suck, they at least make a gesture at a humane world.
Christopher Alexander tried to warn us.
[+] [-] newman8r|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteri|7 years ago|reply
Even then it looked nothing like this view from 1827 https://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?i=1311 so it's always been an issue.
In this particular area of London I'd rather they knocked down the façade than try to keep it, unless it has particular merit (although there are less listed buildings (600) than I would have thought in the City).
[+] [-] spiralx|7 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/NB5Oz9b84jM
[+] [-] peterwwillis|7 years ago|reply
Everywhere in gentrifying Northeast Philadelphia, there are these horrendous modern buildings going up next to traditional brick and stone rowhomes. They look like a modernist disease attacked a normal building. And they're going for a mil and a half.
View here: https://goo.gl/maps/uxrVykuDmDy and then move forward in the street one inch, and you'll see the earlier plywood skeleton of the modern building on the right. It's so sad. (these are actually the attractive examples)
[+] [-] wildmusings|7 years ago|reply
I have read somewhere that the general public actually prefers the older styles, but that architects prefer modern styles. I’ll see if I can find the source.
[+] [-] galfarragem|7 years ago|reply
a) Developers want to maximise profit: generally more area means more profit and optimizing the height of the building is the way to get it.
b) City Halls will evoke (sometimes dubious) historical value to block the old building.
c) Developers will finally apply for an extension of the existent. City Hall has a tougher job to justify blocking the extension. After some delays, developers eventually will build it.
Other fact to mix: extensions are probably the most demanding projects. Pragmatic architects (the ones that usually get large projects) are not suitable for it, they will not spend more time than the strictly necessary.