When the old and the new share a site
Large redevelopment projects often land on sites that already carry history: a block of older buildings, a former factory, a street grid that predates the surrounding city. Developers, planners and communities then face a choice about how much of that history to keep and in what form. The range of answers runs from keeping whole buildings to leaving only a name or a plaque.
This article looks at the middle ground, where a modern project deliberately carries some trace of what came before.
Ways projects carry the past forward
Keeping whole buildings within a larger scheme
The most substantial option is to retain an old building and build around or beside it. The old structure might become the lobby, a market hall or a community room. This keeps materials, spaces and craftsmanship intact, but it can complicate construction and limit what a new design can do. It often depends on the structure being in decent condition, which is why careful assessment is part of adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
Keeping the street pattern
Sometimes the most valuable survival is not a building but the layout. Old lanes, short blocks and irregular lots create variety and walkability that are hard to design from scratch. Some redevelopments preserve former street lines as pedestrian routes, even where the buildings have changed. By contrast, merging blocks into a single large site can erase a pattern that had developed over centuries. The street network design of a place often outlasts every building on it.
Retaining fragments
A project may keep a wall, a chimney, a gate, rails in a pavement or a surviving doorway. These fragments can be striking, but they can also feel like decoration if they have been stripped of function and meaning. Their value tends to depend on whether they are accompanied by explanation or by ongoing use.
Interpretation and memory
Where little physical evidence remains, projects sometimes use signs, exhibitions, artworks, paving patterns or names to record what was there. Telling the story well means asking whose story it is. A plaque describing the owner of a factory may say nothing about the workers, and a district name borrowed from history may disguise displacement that occurred when the area was cleared. When public art is used for this purpose, communities often want a voice in what is shown.
Facadism
Facadism is the practice of keeping the front wall of an older building while demolishing and rebuilding what is behind it. The result is a modern interior structure with a historic face. It became common in several countries where regulators wanted to retain streetscapes but owners wanted modern floor layouts, parking or larger floor areas.
Why it is used
- The facade is what people see from the street, so retaining it keeps the streetscape intact.
- It can be a compromise when a full building cannot practically be reused.
- It may satisfy planning conditions and ease approval.
Why it is criticized
- Loss of substance. A building is more than its front. Floors, roofs, interior spaces, structure and the way those parts fit together carry much of its historical meaning, and these are lost.
- Awkward junctions. Floor levels and window positions behind the old wall may not line up with the new ones, which can produce odd results from inside and outside.
- Authenticity. Critics describe the result as a mask, a pastiche, or a theme-park version of history.
- Cost and technical difficulty. Holding up a wall during construction can be costly and complicated.
- Precedent. If facadism is accepted easily, it may encourage owners to treat full preservation as unnecessary.
Defenders respond that a retained facade is better than nothing, that it keeps a familiar streetscape for residents, and that in some cases the interior was heavily altered or unsafe. Many conservation specialists regard it as a last resort, appropriate mostly when the facade is the only element of real significance.
Alternatives
Several options sit between full retention and facadism.
- Retain the front rooms or a deeper portion of the building. The old section includes the facade and the first bays, with the new addition behind.
- Build above or behind, not in place of. A new volume is set back or lightweight so that the old building remains readable.
- Reuse materials. Salvaged brick or stone is used in the new building, though this links to memory more weakly than keeping the structure.
- Contemporary design that references the past. The new building echoes proportions, rhythm or materials without copying them.
Questions to ask about any project
- What exactly is being kept, and why does it matter?
- Is the retained element still used, or merely displayed?
- Does the project respect the scale and pattern of the surrounding streets?
- Who decided what history was worth carrying, and who was consulted?
- Are the ground floors open and active, or sealed behind blank walls?
Limits of this approach
Integrating history into new development can add character and public goodwill, but it does not remove the effects of a large project on traffic, housing costs or existing businesses. It can also be used cosmetically to make a controversial project more acceptable. A fair assessment looks at both the design gestures and the wider consequences. Historic elements are best seen as one part of a project’s relationship to a place, not a substitute for engaging with the people already there.