Facadism - Conservation, Compromise or Contradiction by Beth Lodge

Facadism: Conservation, Compromise or Contradiction

Bethany Lodge

Facadism: Conservation, Compromise or Contradiction ARC556: Dissertation Final Submission Bethany Lodge: 180208221 Word Count: 6597

Supervisor: Russell Light Sheffield School of Architecture The University of Sheffield

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Russell Light, for his support and guidance during this academic project.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Establishing the Context

Defining Facadism Developing a Typology Motivations of Facadism

8 11 17

3. Conservation and Facadism

Conservation as a Value-Based Approach Facadism and Conservation Value Facadism and the Authorised Heritage Discourse

20 25 33

4. The Role of Policy

Historic England The Designation of Assets Past and Current Heritage Policy

36 39 41

5. Case Studies

Case Study 1 - 465 Caledonian Road, Islington Case Study 2 - Empire Warehouse, London

47 59

6. Conclusion

7. Bibliography

1. Introduction Since the 19th century there has been a conscious effort within the UK and internationally to protect our built heritage, enforced with varying levels of expert guidance and legislative protection. This concern for the conservation of our historic environment demonstrates the immense value placed on heritage and its ability to ‘’shape our identities, our cultures and our sense of place’’ (Gordon, 2018). At the heart of the contemporary conversations that revolve around heritage protection is the question of how we conserve heritage whilst promoting urban development and growth. The impacts of these ‘’conflicting imperatives can be traced in every city through its existing built environment’’ (Wood, 2012) irrespective of which agenda prevailed. However, this is not to say that one agenda is entirely discounted in favour of another and a middle ground which addresses multiple aims is often the ultimate goal, with strategies such as facadism employed to retain heritage assets whilst promoting development.

The controversy of facadism, in a contemporary context, stems from the opinion that it is commonly used as a compromise allowing representation of legislative, economic and conservation agendas within a singular architectural project. Compromise indicates that concessions are inevitable and when examining facadism from a conservation standpoint it is often argued that these concessions result in inadequate levels of conservation, a position that has been well documented in both current and past literature. Critiques of the technique are many, describing the results of facadism as ‘’scarcely literate; neither acceptable architecture nor responsible conservation’’(Darley 2015). The language used in these discussions only exacerbates questions of its suitability with descriptions such as mask and illusion dominating the discussion. This language is taken further by authors such as Lewi, describing facadism as ‘urban taxidermy’ (Lewi & Murray 2014), all of which evoke questions of authenticity, a matter at the core of most heritage theory.

As a technique facadism is often assessed and damned regarding the amount of fabric retained, inferring that fabric and significance are relative. However, the suitableness of this strategy should be established on the value-based approach in which it is contextualised. This approach to heritage, in which value is relative to significance, is continually shifting as ‘’the direct result of the broadening of the values that are considered to have cultural significance (Torre 2013, p.155). Unlike other investigations of facadism this study hopes to assess the technique in direct relation to the expanding reality of conservation value and question if a technique that priorities aesthetic and historic value can still be considered conservation within a more inclusive heritage context. Despite the criticism of facadism from within the conservation paradigm its usage within practice shows no indication of slowing. This dissertation seeks to understand why, if facadism does not support the multifaceted reality of conservation value, does it continue to be used within practice as a legitimate act of conservation. Through the use of desktop research and policy analysis it will ask if the problem is greater than a singular technique and is a consequence of outdated policy and a ‘’dominant representation of heritage’’ derived from ‘’a symbolic accumulation of certain values and cultural norms’’ (Waterton 2010, p. 207). *Within this study the term conservation refers to built heritage conservation. *Some of the content within this dissertation formed part of preliminary submission for this study. Content featured within the preliminary submission, when used within this dissertation, has been referenced accordingly.

The utilisation of case studies will allow the study to ascertain whether assumptions from theoretical ideas explored in the thematic chapters are reflected within the implementation of facadism. The exploration of the physical manifestation of these ideas will broaden the study, ensuring the topic has been investigated at a variety of scales, providing the opportunity to offer recommendations of how facadism, if its inclusion within practice is inevitable, can be utilised or adapted alongside consideration for changes to both practice and policy ensuring adequate retention of ‘‘the multiplicity of conservation values that as a society we now recognise whilst simultaneously fulfilling development aspirations that are inherent within the majority of architectural projects today’’ (Lodge 2019b).

Figure 1 - Facadism in progress. Gracechurch Street, London.

2. Establishing the Context Defining Facadism Despite the notoriety that facadism has acquired there is no explicit definition of what constitutes the term and the wide variety of definitions present within literature only serves to enhance the level of ambiguity around facadism. Regularly defined as a leading text on the subject, ‘Facadism’ by Jonathan Richards (1994) identifies almost immediately that ‘’there is no universal agreement’’ (Richards 1994, p.7) regarding a definition and goes on to identify, the retention, rebuilding and replication of a façade alongside the design within a traditional style and the construction of a new façade to an existing structure, all as legitimate expressions of facadism. Kyriazi likewise identifies that defining the multiple aspects all considered to be facadism presents a challenge (Kyriazi 2019) and as a consequence summarises the practice as ‘’ the preservation of historical façades; the creation of facsimile façades in front of modern buildings; and decorative or structural exercises of Postmodernism’’ (Kyriazi 2019, p.185).

Another approach to defining facadism is taken by Highfield in his book ‘The Construction of New Buildings Behind Historic Facades’ in which he examines facadism, referred to as ‘façade retention’, within a scale of redevelopment (Highfield 2002). Highfield’s definitions of what constitute facadism are limited to the retention of historic fabric with a new intervention behind. This approach to defining the term is also adopted by Wood in her study of facadism (Wood 2012), linking the term solely to the retention of historic facades. The streamlining of the term enables both authors to work within a typology of facadism that is specific to the area in which their study is based and clarify their brand of facadism in connection to specific contexts.

Scale of Redevelopment

7. Total demolition & replacement 6. Retention of a singular faรงade

5.Retention of two/three facades

Facadism Facade Retention

4. Retention of envelope walls. All other fabric demolished 3. Retention of entire external envelope with major internal structural changes.

2. Retention of entire external envelope with minor internal structural changes 1. Retention of entire building with minor cosmetic upgrading.

Figure 2 - Facadism demonstrated within a scale of redevelopment as defined by Highfield (2002). Interestingly Highfield positions facadism more closely with redevelopment than conservation.

Alongside the range of definitions presented in contemporary literature facadism also has roots within historic architectural practice. This historic brand of facadism is firmly rooted within aesthetic and stylistic motivations, seen as ‘’interchangeable stylistic solutions with façades considered as clothing fit for symbolic purpose’’(Lewi and Murray 2014, p.508). Whilst all these definitions and manifestations of facadism originate from differing motivations and produce varying architectural results they do share a common characteristic, that serves as the generator of the controversy that seems inherent to facadism, in that the strategy results in a divorce of continuity between interior and exterior.

Developing a Typology Whilst useful for providing an overview on the subject these varied definitions make critical analysis challenging due to the variety of ways in which this overarching term can be manifested. In order to combat this and allow for a critical approach within the scope of this study I have developed a facadism typology that is grounded in definitions of existing literature, in particular that of Wood (2012), with adaptations made for the purpose of this study. Overarchingly, facadism will be defined as the retention of an existing historic faรงade and its incorporation within a new build element, this definition will then be further broken down into typological definitions, as outlined in the following illustrations enabling the categorisation of case studies.

Type 01 - Veneer

Retention of a singular front faรงade which is reduced to a singular leaf and acts as a veneer to new construction behind. There is minimal interaction between new and old.

Type 02 - Envelope

Retention of multiple external walls, excluding the roof, with a new construction enclosed within the retained external envelope.

Type 03 - Intersection

Retention of elements of a faรงade with new build elements incorporated with a clear definition between new and old.

Type 04 - Alteration

The retained faรงade is altered in a manner to accommodate the new build elements in a manner that is in keeping with the historic in order to maintain a consistent style to the altered faรงade.

Type 05 - Illusion

Retention of a faรงade with the new build element set back from this faรงade, giving the illusion of depth and the retention of more of the building than just the faรงade.

Figure 3 - 7. Facadism Typologies

Motivations of Facadism Regardless of which of the aforementioned typologies are employed the choice to utilise the technique stems from a need to balance a series of conflicting agendas, all of which have differing motivations. This conflict of agendas is often perceived as a clear battle between two principles, growth versus development or even pragmatism versus idealism (Bargery 2005), of which facadism can ultimately ‘’rarely gratify admirers of either’’ (Lloyd 2018). It is facadism’s ability to satisfy, to a questionable degree, each of these agendas and their motivations that sustains its reputation as a suitable design strategy for compromise. Lewi and Murray have attempted to categorise the motivations for facadism as Cultural and Architectural, Economic and Legislative (Lewi & Murray 2014, p.507), demonstrating the relevance of the technique to each agenda.

The economic motivations for the implementation of facadism are often the clearest to comprehend as ultimately it aims to support demand for urban redevelopment and growth on occasions when historic fabric presents an obstruction to entirely new development. A compromise is also offered regarding cost, providing the middle ground between often extensive renovation and complete demolition. However the technique is not entirely one of compromise when examining economic motivations as it offers developers the opportunity to capitalise on the profitability and economic value associated with the historic and as described by Bargery, ‘’gives aggressively commercial development a sheen of respectability’’ (Bargery 2005). Motivation from a legislative perspective originates from the ability of facadism to fulfil legislative agendas that highlight heritage and development as important areas of focus and indicates that both have been considered from a legislative perspective. Finally, there are cultural and architectural motivations, in which conservation agendas should be considered. This motivation is based on the principle that retention of some value opposed to total loss of value, either through demolition or dilapidation of historic assets, is always preferable when no other alternative appears viable.

Facadism A point of balance

Development

Prestige of Heritage

Conservation

Economic Growth

National Identity

Legislative

Figure 8 - Facadism acts as a point of balance for those who assign value to heritage, responding in part to a range of disparate motivations that stem from varying views of why heritage is of value. Prioritisation of a singular agenda over others is idealistic with the desire for compromise more grounded in reality.

3. Conservation and Facadism Conservation as a Value-Based Approach The complexity of the heritage discourse is a result of the subjectivity and interpretive nature that is inherent within both theory and practice. Yet at the heart of this complexity is a clear goal to preserve heritage for the benefit of future generations. Whilst the goal is clear defining what we constitute as heritage and the best way to protect this is a more contentious issue. This discourse has evolved dramatically with conservation initially comprising of ‘’a narrow set of values considered “intrinsic” and self-evident’’ (Torre 2013, p.157). Documents such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) manifesto (1877) and Athens Charter (1931) initiated a formal consideration of the conservation of heritage, providing a foundation on which documents such as the 1964 Venice Charter began to outline governing principles for heritage conservation. Whilst there was a distinct prioritisation of aesthetic and historic value with an emphasis given to historic fabric these documents did establish a values-based approach that has ‘’come to dominate academic and professional discourses’’ (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016, p.466). At the heart of this value based approached is the term significance, and the process of its identification, preservation and enhancement. ‘’Significance is understood as the overall value of heritage, or the sum of its constituent ‘heritage values’’ (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016, p.466). These recognised heritage values, which are socially and historically constructed, have continued to expand with the introduction of the Burra Charter (1981) and the Nara document (1994). These charters provided a pivotal point in which the heritage discourse shifted from ‘’the material authenticity of European-based standards’’(Falser 2010, 120) to recognise the potential intangibility of heritage value. As demonstrated by figure 9, a wide variety of what constitutes heritage has since emerged, with Pendlebury indicating this shift is a consequence of societal change, with economics, globalisation and greater inclusivity all playing a role alongside the idea that ‘’heritage is essentially a cultural practice and social process’’ (Pendlebury 2008, p.7).

Figure 9 - Comparative table of value typologies, demonstrating the expanse of values that can assigned to heritage. Adapted from Fredheim & Khalaf (2016) 21

Within the UK, specifically England, the value-based approach has emerged as an amalgamation of national cultural ideas and the work of both academics and practitioners within the international spheres of heritage. Historic England (HE), the public body responsible for the designation and protection of heritage assets within England, have defined the values that should be recognised within national conservation practice as evidential, historic, aesthetic and communal (Historic England 2008). Whilst HEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recognised values do not appear as expansive as other value typologies the use of broad terminology and definitions within the guidelines provides an opportunity for a degree of interpretation that reflects the subjectivity inherent within the heritage discourse.

tiv e

tra us Ill Comm

cia

emor ative

onal

Associati

Co m

ty au

Ar tle

ual

s Ae

Spirit

tic

tis Ar

Design

HERITAGE VALUES

Sublim

Ev id

ral ltu Cu

Natural

ica

r sto Hi

tia

SIGNIFICANCE

Figure 10 - Regardless of the extent of values recognised, significance of place is determined by the sum of values assigned to it. Adapted from Finch (2019).

Facadism and Conservation Value The role of the façade within the overall composition of a building has been reconsidered with every differing architectural ideology, each attaching a differing importance to the façade as a component and its relationship with the rest of the building. The emergence of contemporary facadism is perhaps then unsurprising when considering the ‘’historical emphasis on the outward face of a building’’ (Lewi and Murray 2014, p.509) due to its public facing role and the rejection of modernist principles, in that form follows function, that have occurred during the postmodernism movement. This historic valorisation of the façade and the value attached to it ensures that it is undeniable that facadism has the capacity to preserve forms of conservation value, especially those which prioritise physical fabric because it acts as a ‘’means of preserving valuable exteriors’’ (Highfield 2002, p.10). Yet it is inevitable that during the process of facadism visual alterations will be inflicted upon these facades, especially when development includes visibly unsympathetic new additions in which scaling is often inconsiderate. These changes risk diminishing the existing aesthetic value and contradicting the conservation motives for implementing facadism. It is not only the alteration of the visual appearance of the façade that presents a problem but also the relationship with the new building behind. Facades often inform about the internal organisation of a building, create emphasis on specific features and indicate how one should interact and engage with the building. When implemented in a situation in which the relationship between the two is inarticulate an ‘’unavoidable sense of absurdity’’ (Bargery 2005) is generated, negatively impacting the visual value. It should also be considered whether preserving a façade is sufficient or can we tell more about these values through spatial quality? Providing a definitive answer to this question presents a challenge due to the subjectivity of the discourse and the inherent characteristic of value that means it is represented differently to each individual. Regardless it is clear to see that facadism is reductive in that it limits the opportunity to perceive value to interaction with a singular façade, disregarding internal details or typological references that can contribute to this historic, aesthetic or evidential value. To critique facadism as a conservation technique is to imply that it has a reduced ability to preserve conservation value and the subsequent significance of a heritage asset. Its ability to conserve value is more closely aligned with tangible heritage and the use of the technique to sustain communal value is more contentious. The ability of a series of or singular façade to represent value that was once evoked by a dynamic space that people perceived as ‘’ a source of identity, distinctiveness, social interaction and coherence.’’ (Historic England 2008, p.32) is inevitably limited as it ‘’denies the preservation of the collective memory and functional workings of a building’s internal blood and guts’’ (Lewi and Murray 2014, p.515). If facadism reduces a space of value into a two-dimensional representation that fails to embody the qualities and atmosphere that evoke elements of communal value, it suggests that perhaps retention of the façade is unnecessary due to its ineffectiveness. If in the case of communal value, significance and historic fabric are not always relative, perhaps this value can be evoked through typological references or architectural moves within new buildings. Although this type of approach would require insightful design which seems beyond the capabilities of the generic design principles that seem to dominate developmental projects whose primary concern is not architectural quality but profitability.

Photograph - poorly scaled facadism

Figure 11 - Inconsiderate scaling can result in the heritage asset becoming subservient to the newly built elements. This establishes an unconscious hierarchy, in which the historic fabric is seemingly worth less than the contemporary.

Communal value is not only conceived in relation to individual heritage assets but also on an urban scale. Facadism is often justified by those who support its usage, as a technique that ‘’enables urban tradition to conform to development’’ (Kyriazi 2019, p.187) via its retention of historic street scenes which preserve urban communal value. Significant prioritisation is awarded to the townscape aspect of conservation due to the ability of distinctive spatial and visual qualities in creating and sustaining local identity (Richards 1994). These qualities are most commonly associated with the façade as the street facing element, reinforcing its value and promoting the idea of the façade as the property of the city and community. By assigning hypothetical public ownership to the external fabric of the building it inevitably positions facadism as an acceptable form of conservation as way to preserve a street scene. Yet this implementation of facadism, although seemingly acceptable, aids in ‘’restricting both the natural flow of cultural change and the city’s evolution’’ (Kyriazi 2019, p.189). Our cityscapes become frozen, mummifying the landscape rather than documenting its changes, evoking questions of authenticity.

Alongside the concept of value, authenticity has been central to the heritage discourse since its inauguration with authenticity defined as the ‘’essential qualifying factor concerning values’’ by the Nara Document of Authenticity (1994). The authenticity of facadism is often the area in which it is most heavily critiqued. Whilst it is simple to understand that pragmatically facadism is done to balance the relevant agendas and to entirely disregard developmental or legislative agendas in favour of the conservation agenda would be unrealistic, there is still a conflict surrounding the use of the technique. Bargery states that this problem arises primarily due to the perceived ethical implementations of poor uses of facadism (Bargery 2005). The retained façade becomes a mask, an illusion of retained heritage and it is this ‘’deliberate obfuscation’’ (Bargery 2005) that is ethically questionable. If the urban development and subsequent compromise that facadism accommodates is inevitable, then perhaps as promoted by the SPAB ideology, interventions including facadism should be honest by documenting the development rather than creating an illusion of the historic and distinguishing clearly between old and new. Conservation should not only address how we maintain value but how we can increase it and by documenting the story of a building we can increase evidential value as opposed to faking authenticity.

Figure 12 - A slither of the historic is retained, stranded from its context but kept to provide a consistent visual reference within the public realm.

Despite the numerous critiques of facadism there are instances in which it has created greatly successful architecture, demonstrating the potential of the technique when used considerately within a suitable context. Selected as the 2013 Stirling Prize winner, Astley Castle by Witherford Watson Mann (WWM) utilises elements of facadism in order to conserve a dilapidated 12th century castle and is described as ‘’an exceptional example of how modern architecture can revive an ancient monument’’ (Waite 2013). The approach used within the project reflects both the previously defined envelope and intersection facadism typologies, an effort by the architects to communicate the ‘’rejection of the ideas of return and rupture’’ (Mann 2013). By binding the historic structure together with new build elements, the ruinous language can authentically articulate the relationship between past and present, documenting a wider scope of history that doesn’t just prioritise the first and current iterations and eradicate all the history in between. Here facadism allows the ruinous language to remain as part of the townscape whilst new masonry, referencing historic spatial and aesthetic qualities, provides typological references and instigates profitability and economic sustainability. Most importantly the historic and contemporary elements work in collaboration together, creating a cohesive piece of architecture rather than the ‘’gross hybrids of conflicted intentions’’ (The Gentle Author 2018) we often associate with facadism.

Astley Castle Completed 2012 Astley, Warwickshire

285m2 £1.25 Million WWM Architect RIBA Stirling Prize 2013;

Fritz Höger Preis für Backstein-Architektur 2014

Figure 13 & 14 - Originally listed in 1952, Astley Castle is considered exemplary in both an architectural and conservation sense due to its ability to communicate the relationship between historic and contemporary.

Astley Castle Photoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s / Drawings

Figure 15, 16 & 17 - The project utilises the intersection typology of facadism, which addresses conservation concerns successfully in several ways. The new fabric provides a reference to the original form of the castle whilst simultaneously allowing retention of the ruinous appearance, documenting an authentic history of the building. The intersection typology is used in a way that creates a hierarchy between the elements allowing the historic fabric prominence.

The success of the Astley Castle project further highlights the issues present when facadism is implemented poorly, which is often the case when examining this as a mass solution to redevelopment. Whilst there is an opportunity to create ‘’palimpsests in which the history of the building’s evolution can be read by the perceptive viewer’’(The Gentle Author 2018) more commonly there is no effort to create dialogue between the historic and new, creating architecture that is illiterate and unresponsive to an expanded view of what constitutes heritage value. This issue is well recognised yet no shift to improve the usage of facadism appears to be occurring. So, if this epidemic of poor facadism is so detrimental why is it continually implemented as a credible solution? Facadism and the Authorised Heritage Discourse The usage of facadism when positioned as a technique that priorities aesthetic and historic value, however unconvincingly, can be understood when examined within the context of the ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’ (AHD) theory which ‘’focuses attention on aesthetically pleasing material objects’’ (Smith 2006, p.29) and recognises the importance of the policy framework in influencing and dominating conservation practice. The AHD theorises that the heritage discourse has become ‘’hegemonic and regulating, sustaining a notion of heritage that privileges the cultural symbols of a particular social group’’ (Waterton 2010, pg.2) or those with the greatest agency and as a result decreases the validity of perceived alternative values through their exclusion or lack of acknowledgement during the legislative process. Due to the ‘’self-referential nature of the discourse, which continually legitimises itself and the values and ideologies on which it is based’’ (Smith 2006, p.30) contemporary conservation practice becomes restrictive and unresponsive to a more inclusive theoretical scope of heritage. Therefore, is facadism simply ‘’a pragmatic response to circumstance’’ (Bargery 2005) that responds to a restrictive interpretation of what constitutes heritage, enforced by the current AHD? If this is the case than analysis of heritage policy within England alongside an examination of the impact of policy on heritage case studies is required to determine if certain values are promoted over others as insinuated by the theory of the AHD in order to balance several agendas at the expense of legitimate conservation.

Project Stage

Expanse of recognised Values

Use Pre-Intervention of AHD

Designation Post - Intervention of AHD

Value Limit Treatment Post - Intervention of AHD

Conservation Project Realisation

Figure 18 - Whilst values attached to a heritage asset are incommensurable and immeasurable, due to their socially constructed nature, the engagement of the conservation process and the intervention of the AHD can limit the values recognised in relation to the heritage asset.

4. The Role of Policy It is evident that facadism is not categorically good or bad conservation, as demonstrated by examining the technique regarding conservation value and accepting concessions are inevitable in order to balance conflicting agendas. Therefore, can facadism’s perceived inadequate response to the conservation agenda be explained as a consequence of an AHD that is unresponsive to a dynamic representation of heritage? Whilst the scope of this study is not to dissect the entirety of the governance of heritage within England, generating an understanding of the role of policy in direct relation to facadism can help to answer this question by determining if prioritisation of specific values is present within UK heritage policy. Historic England As the English governmental body responsible for the historic environment HE has a considerable impact regarding the contemporary, value-based representation of heritage within the policy framework. As stated previously, whilst HE do promote an expanded view of what constitutes heritage, values other than the traditionally recognised aesthetic and historic are often ‘’subsidiary and generally assumed to be dependent on the other, primary, values’’ (Pendlebury 2013, pg.715) which are supported by the AHD. Their conservation agenda also positions heritage within a more contemporary context, presenting themselves as a ‘’socially beneficial agent of change… not as an impediment to development’’ (Pendlebury 2013, p.722) shifting away from the traditional positionality of early conservationists such as Ruskin and Morris who opposed change, all of which contribute to more invasive solutions such as facadism. Despite the recognition by HE that facadism is ultimately an undesirable technique within conservation practice as is it ‘’challenges fundamental precepts such as authenticity deriving from historic fabric’’ (Pendlebury 2013, p.720) the use of the technique has been included within good practice guidance. The guidance, entitled ‘Shared Interest’ which focuses on investment within the historic environment (Historic England 2006), recognises the use of facadism within the Free Trade Hall, Manchester as an example of good practice whilst also acknowledging the controversy surrounding the decision. Justifying the technique by describing the façade as the ‘most important feature’ (Historic England 2006) HE contextualises its importance as a monument and a part of Manchester’s identity and whilst these statements recognise the presence of communal value they imply that this is dependent on to the retention of aesthetic value, reiterating the hierarchical representation of a valuebased approach that has been manifested within policy. The consideration of alternative agendas alongside conservation ideals seen within HE guidance and their agenda to promote development infers compromise is inevitable and both this agenda and hierarchy of value can be seen in designation and protective legislative strands of conservation.

Free Trade Hall Manchester

Figure 19, 20 & 21 - Highlighted as an example of good practice by HE the Free Trade Hall, Manchester is an example of the Veneer typology. The main source of value was the role of the faรงade within the cityscape however the prime location ensured that it was well positioned for redevelopment with both factors contributing to the decision to use facadism.

The Designation of Assets The statutory recognition and designation of architectural heritage is driven by the listing process within England and provides a key indication that ‘’the expanded concept of heritage has failed to filter down from official guidelines to policy on a widespread scale’’ (Lodge 2019a). The guidance regarding the eligibility of assets for listing ensures that ‘’traditional forms of value, in particular historical and architectural value, also continue to prevail’’ (Jones 2017, p.33) with criteria being described as ’’special architectural or historic interest’’ (Historic England 2019a). This trend can also be seen within the documentation of significance of listed assets with details provided regarding the significance often listing architectural features, predominantly from the exterior of the building. This type of description is often the result of a lack of internal assessment and although this does not diminish the importance of the interior or exclude it from the listing it does nurture the impression that exterior architectural features hold the most value and subsequently promote the suitability of facadism as a technique. An estimated 500,000 buildings are listed within England and as more existing fabric is accredited with significance and the availability of space for development diminishes the need for compromise becomes even more apparent. This is often at the expense of buildings that fall within a grey area, neither valuable enough to keep in its entirety yet recognised as holding some value. This combined with the language within the listing process, reinforcing the interdependence of heritage and fabric, is conducive to facadism.

1. Signi�icance Assessment

Curatorial Assessment

Condition Assessment

3. Determination of use

4. Treatment & Protective Measures

5. Monitoring & Review

Figure 22 - ‘‘A schematic mechanism demonstrating the role of significance, within the complex structure of heritage management, in determining the appropriate conservation and use of heritage’’. Adapted from Fredheim & Khalaf (2016)

Past and Current Heritage Policy Policy relating to the protection of architectural heritage is also important when examining the implementation of facadism. Whilst this policy has been amended several times in recent decades there are several key pieces of legislation directly targeted to the historic environment as documented in Figure 23. Alongside direct references to aesthetic and historic value there is an undeniable level of ambiguity that has been consistently present within policy wording, with legislation requiring the retention of fabric that makes a positive contribution, yet ‘‘the criterion for determining the positive contribution is vague’’ (Hammond, 2003). There is a well-established view, inspired by cultural norms that have stemmed from the architectural tastes of AHD’s, of what constitutes a positive constitution from an aesthetic and historic perspective however communal values are ‘’contentious to define and their inherently dynamic nature ensures they are constantly evolving’’ (Lodge 2019a). Therefore, in regard to ensuring the heritage asset continues to makes a positive contribution it is simpler and more efficient to preserve elements that have been preestablished within the listing process, most often external features, as the alternative would require in-depth communal consultation to establish intangible value. This once again demonstrates the appeal of utilising facadism as ultimately it does meet this criterion, even if only as a technicality.

Primary Legislation

1990

1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act

Guidance & Frameworks

1994 PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Environment:

2000 2005 EH made responsible for administration of the listing system.

2013 Amendment under â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Actâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

2010

2010 PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment

2019 amendment

2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF)

2018 amendment

2020 Figure 23 - Timeline of key moments within the recent history of heritage governance and guidance within England. Most recently, specific pieces of heritage guidance have been discontinued, replaced with the NPPF which encompasses a range of considerations.

Heritage policy is becoming increasingly embedded within more general policy and contextualised against other agendas as seen within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The theory of the AHD positions the discourse as only a product of elitist heritage views, rather than an ‘’explicit tactical response of the AHD-formers to external pressures’’ (Pendlebury 2013, p.717), however the existence of policy such as the NPPF demonstrates that this interconnectivity is now an inevitable characteristic of the heritage discourse and subsequent conservation practice. This need for balance can be seen within the policy as despite the notion of facade retention being explicitly discouraged the NPPF negates this position by providing justification for this technique if ‘’it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss’’ (Great Britain. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019). This allows ‘’issues related to heritage protection, urban regeneration and economic payback to be simultaneously addressed through the lens of conservation and a singular AHD’’ (Lodge 2019a) legitimising facadism.

Historic Conservation Town Centre Vitality

Climate Change Impact

Green Belt Protection

Communication infrastructure

Design Quality

Sustainable Transport

Economic Growth Land Use Environmental Conservation

Sustainable Mineral Use

Housing Supply

Community Safety

National Planning Policy Framework Environmental

Economic

Social

Figure 24 - The NPPF organises it’s approach by identifying three interdependent objectives, these being social, economic and environmental, to achieve sustainable development. The treatment of the historic environment is addressed within the NPPF in line with other factors to ensure ‘’opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives’’ (Great Britain. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019).

5. Case Studies This chapter examines two case studies in relation to ‘’the issues discussed in the thematic chapters within the context of a physical application of facadism’’ (Lodge 2019b). Each example will be assessed to understand the motivations to implement facadism and the impact of policy and the present AHD in the realisation of the project. By examining each example against a number of key themes the chapter hopes to determine whether the scheme was an appropriate method to conserve conservation value.

Case Study 1

Case Study 2

Figure 25 - Aerial photograph of Central London identifying the location of the two case studies.

Case Study 1 - 465 Caledonian Road, Islington 465 Caledonian Road is a new build student accommodation constructed behind the façade of a 19th century warehouse which used to occupy the site. An infamous example of facadism, this building was awarded the 2013 Carbuncle Cup, which identifies the worst new buildings within the UK.

465 Caledonian Road Completed 2013 Islington, London

12, 122 sqm £18 Million Stephen George & Partners Architect Carbuncle Cup 2013

Figure 26 & 27 - The project has been described as a ‘’building created purely to expose the sentimentality of letting decaying frontages frustrate living creatives’’ (Bennet 2013).

Figure 28 - The 465 Caledonian Road project is an example of the Veneer and Alteration typology. The retained faรงade is placed centrally in front of the new development, disconnecting it from the rest of the site and neighbouring buildings.

Architectural and Historic Context The development is fronted by what remains of the 19th century warehouse façade which has been modified, raising the original pediment through the addition of a brickwork coursing. The retained façade is flanked on both sides by the face of the new build element, comprised of curtain walling, render and a zinc aluminium composite cladding system which replaces the red brick warehouse frontage. The scale of the scheme varies, incrementally gaining height during the transition from front to rear of the site reaching 11 storeys at the highest point with each block of varying height operating around an internal courtyard. Constructed in 1874 ‘’as a woollen rag (mungo) warehouse for the merchants Mallett, Porter and Dowd’’ (ARCUS 2008) the building remained as a space for distribution and storage for much of its life until its redevelopment to student accommodation and retail units. It was locally listed in 1980 as a ‘’good example of the period, individual in character’’ (Islington Borough Council, 2010) but has failed to meet criteria to be subject to national statutory listing.

Figure 29 - The historic façade is ‘’constructed from yellow London stock bricks with ashlar detailing’’ (ARCUS 2008) with architectural symmetry a prominent feature. This architectural style is not referenced within the new elements.

Motivations for the use of Facadism

Motivations for Facadism Development Conservation Legislative

Respond to heritage policy restrictions â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Premium of heritageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Opportunity to increase area of accommodation provision

partial retention of locally listed frontage

Historic Fabric Increased rentable area due to demolition.

Street facing historic fabric retained.

Figure 30 - The implementation of facadism was seemingly always an element of the scheme when examining early design iterations. Whilst this would indicate a series of well-established motives for its retention as a historic asset these motives appear tenuous, especially when examining conservation motivations.

The Impact of Policy The proposal was submitted for planning approval in 2009 as a joint venture between Mortar Developments and University College London. It was initially refused by Islington council on the basis that the proposal ‘’would result in an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the surroundings’’ (Reid, 2010) due to inconsiderate massing and scaling, which contradicted policies within the Islington Design Guide and Unitary Development Plan, alongside the consideration that the retention of the façade would have a negative daylight impact to the inhabitants. This refusal was later overturned by the planning inspectorate who discounted the reasons for refusal previously given. The impact of policy on the scheme and the decision to implement facadism is evident. Alongside the reason for local listing both the refusal and approval decisions demonstrated a distinct focus on the visual impact of the scheme within the townscape. This demonstrates the prioritisation of specific values that, from a theoretical standpoint, facadism responds to. This case study also demonstrates that there is a distinct level of subjectivity employed during the decision process due to the contradictory views of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and Planning Inspectorate regarding the schemes response to specific policy and guidelines. This results in decisions that despite impacting a social discourse are based on the viewpoint of those with the greatest agency, as depicted by the AHD theory and therefore may not be reflective of the views of those who have the greater relationship with the asset in question.

Theme Assessment

Engagement The faรงade demonstrates minimal physical engagement with the new structure. This lack of physical connection is exacerbated by the inconsistent levels between the new build and existing facade. This creates two disparate elements with no architectural dialogue and this incoherence has resulted in both poor architectural design and conservation.

Figure 31 - When examining the building in section it becomes clear that the placement of new internal levels and partitions do not align with the retained facade. This inarticulate relationship between the two elements is damaging and changes not only the way in which the facade responds to the internal fabric but also how users inside the building interact with the street through the views created.

Figure 32 - The physical engagement between the historic and contemporary is reduced to thin metal connections, suspending the historic fabric. The contemporary element becomes the one most rooted within the context with the retained faรงade reduced to an inconsiderate imposition.

REG 18131

Scaling There is a significant difference in the scaling of the two elements despite the decision to alter the historic faรงade in order to minimise the difference in scale. This decision not only damages the evidential value of the faรงade but reduces the authenticity of the fabric to achieve planning approval.

Figure 33 - Front Elevation of 465 Caledonian Road prior to redevelopment. Submitted as part of the 2009 planning application.

This is trial version If you want get full version, please register it, thank you. www.verypdf.com

Figure 34 - Front elevation demonstrating the newly built elements and amendments to the existing faรงade.

Spatiality Whilst there was an opportunity to reference the industrial history of both the site and the wider area the spatiality of the new build element demonstrates no relation to that of the previous warehouse and is volumetrically inconsistent. This eradicates any communal or historic value related to the functionally of the building.

/09 LBI REG 18131

Volumes of New Build Elements

N This is trial version If you want get full version, please register it, thank you. www.verypdf.com

Figure 35 - Ground floor plan of 465 Caledonian road prior to redevelopment. The volumes of the new development are overlaid demonstrating a significant change regarding spatiality.

Urban Role The historic faรงade is stranded amongst a sea of modern development resulting in an uneasy juxtaposition that gives the impression of a stranded historic faรงade rather than the preservation of a historic townscape. Its role within the wider composition of the area has become confused due to lack of physical relationship with the other buildings.

Figure 36 - Aerial photograph demonstrating the lack of connection of the retained faรงade to neighbouring buildings and the subsequent failure to retain the impression of a historically influenced street scene.

Summary Architectural, conservation and development potential have all been stunted due to the implementation of facadism within this scheme. The resultant awarding of the Carbuncle Cup further reducing the architectural and conservation value of the project as the scheme becomes a point of contention within the landscape rather than being perceived as an asset. It is without doubt that the compromise achieved was unsatisfactory to the conservation agenda.

News articles screenshots

Figure 37 - Negative coverage from both public and architectural media has further reduced the value of this historic faรงade. The role of the faรงade has shifted from a valorised element of the landscape to one which is mocked and condemned.

Case Study 2 - Empire Warehouse, London Empire Warehouse (EW) is a mixed-use development located within the Bear Gardens Conservation area. Completed in 2018, the scheme combined four 19th century warehouses to create a singular building retaining two complete facades and elements of a third to revitalise the previously derelict buildings.

Empire Warehouse Completed 2018 Bankside, London

5912 m2 ÂŁ20 Million SPPARC Architect

Figure 38 & 39 - Completed within recent years this project has established economic rejuvenation of a redundant site whilst conforming to the visual appearance of the conservation area.

Bear Gardens Photograph

Figure 40 - Through the use of extensive intervention, that retained only a portion of the warehouse facades, the site was repurposed to support a mixed-used commercial scheme.

Architectural and Historic Context The project incorporates a series of facadism typologies with each original building receiving a different treatment in relation to the wider scheme as detailed in figure 41 with two of the street facing facades kept in their entirety with the third reduced to form the entrance to the reconfigured internal spaces and interlinked to a newly constructed replica façade. The materiality of the building at street level is reflective of the wider conservation area ‘’to integrate it into the established street pattern’’ (Kafka 2018). Above the level of the historic structure materiality shifts to become contemporary and lightweight creating a distinction from the historic. This is set back from the historic facades with the building becoming volumetrically smaller at the upper levels. The site is set within proximity to Elizabethan and Jacobean bear baiting arenas and at one time was home to the Hope Playhouse (Historic England, 2019c). Any remnants of these historic functions were destroyed when the site was used for warehouse facilities in the 19th century. The industrial usage of the site remained consistent until the 1960’s at which point the buildings became vacant. During the next 40 years the site descended into dereliction although two of the buildings did have a temporary usage as warehouse and gallery spaces.

Illusion Typology

Alteration Typology

Original

Empire Plan typology

Illusion Typology

Figure 41 - The project is an example of the Illusion and Alteration typologies, this facadism strategy is then consolidated with replica facades constructed to present an impression of a higher level of original fabric. 61

ENS ARD

EY ALL

BEA

Empire Warehouse

Rose Court

1 58

Areas designated as a scheduled monument

Figure 42 - The areas immediately adjacent to the site are designated as scheduled monuments due to the archaeological remains alongside the reference to historic leisure activities. The retained fabric has no relation to either of the reasons for designation. 62

Motivations for the use of Facadism

Motivations for Facadism Development Conservation Legislative Rejuvenation of key site

Retaining character of Conservation area

ARD

ENS

‘Premium of heritage’

Approval of scheme in conservation area

ALL

BEA

Empire Warehouse

Rose Court

Partial retention opposed to demolition due to structural de�iciencies

Figure 43 - A series of motivations for the use of facadism can be demonstrated, although primarily the desire to use this technique is driven by the desire to achieve visual cohesion with the other buildings within the area as promoted by policy.

The Impact of Policy Submitted for planning approval in 2011, the scheme gained approval from the planning committee despite 22 public comments against the development. The application was assessed against Policy PPS5 which as discussed in previous chapters demonstrates a preference to value associated with architectural, artistic and historic interests (Coleman 2011). Although unlisted the historic fabric was located within a conservation area with ‘’extra planning controls and considerations in place to protect the historic and architectural elements’’ (Historic England, 2019b). It should be noted that the conservation area designation was due to cultural association with activities in the 16th century however the facades which were retained have no relation to the intangible heritage which influenced the designation. Regardless of this, the existing fabric had to be addressed from a conservation standpoint, against policy PPS5, and the decision to use facadism was a result of the perceived value of the building to the visual character of the wider urban area. This once again demonstrates both the prioritisation of aesthetic and historic value alongside the ingrained perception within policy that intangible forms of heritage and the values attached to this are dependent on historic and aesthetic value that is perceived through the preservation of material fabric.

Theme Assessment

Engagement The historic and contemporary are closely linked at ground level with sympathetic material choices ensuring it is difficult to ascertain the difference between these elements. Whilst the difference in origin is more distinctive above the historic facades the legislative focus on visual cohesion within conservation areas mean this distinction has been avoided at street level. As a result, this can be misleading in terms of evidential value and authenticity.

Retained Fabric

Figure 44 - West Elevation demonstrating the material treatments used on the overarching faรงade composition.

Scaling Within the scheme new build elements are significantly higher than the original building however this is less evident at street level due to the integration of the illusion typology, containment of new-build element within the footprint of the historic fabric and narrow street layout.

Contemporary

Historic

Figure 45 - Sectional drawing through the retained facades. Internally the scaling is an articulation of the facades whilst externally contemporary elements are much larger in scale and are introduced above the level of the historic.

Spatiality The retained facades dictate the internal spatial qualities of the immediately adjacent spaces. This contributes to the influence of the warehouse typology and provides a reference to historic functionality preserving the subsequent value attached to this. However, this is only to a minimal depth within the building meaning the typological reference could have been more evident.

Historic building layout indicated in red

Area of consistent spatial quality

Figure 46 - Ground floor plan of the scheme. The spatial arrangement of the previous warehouses is overlaid, demonstrating a distinct change in spatial arrangement between historic and contemporary.

Figure 47 - Photograph of shaded area indicted in figure 46. Both materiality and volume are used to reference the industrial history of the site.

Urban Role The urban role of the building regarding the visual contribution remains largely unchanged at street level, retaining the historic street scene and aesthetic cohesion with other buildings due to the retained facade and sympathetic materiality of the new build.

Elevations ?

Figure 48 - Photograph of the faรงade retained on the east elevation of the building.

Summary Whilst it is inevitable that both the demolition of the historic fabric and the replication of facades damages the authenticity of the asset the unsafe structure meant that total retention of fabric was unfeasible and despite this the building can once again become an active agent within the landscape as opposed to an architectural relic. Alongside the treatment of the historic fabric in retaining value, design decisions within new build elements aim to assist in the retention of conservation value through both the typological references and material selections to inform about the industrial past. There is also the opportunity for the formation of new value as the building programme is reflective of the historic usages of the site which the conservation area is valued for.

6. Conclusion Facadism will likely always remain a contentious yet ever present technique within the realms of conservation practice regardless of its numerous critics. The examples discussed within this study demonstrate the potential for both positive and negative contributions regarding conservation value and to conclude by classifying facadism as simply good or bad conservation is reductive and unreflective of a complex reality. The crux of the problem with facadism is deeper than poor architectural and conservation outcomes, it is the uncomfortable truth that its implementation highlights about the relationship that has emerged between conservation, development and legislation that is embedding an urban tradition of unsatisfactory compromise. Whilst it is not possible to dissect these deeper issues within the scope of this dissertation it is possible to provide recommendations of how facadism can be adequately utilised if its usage is inevitable, aiding in the retention of a multiplicity of conservation values whilst sustaining development aspirations.

Throughout this study and the examinations of facadism it has emerged that the success of the strategy is often dictated by the motivation for choosing facadism as a design strategy. Poor facadism is the result of a motivation that aims to ‘’slow the perception of change if not the change itself’’ (de Klerk, 2015). However, when the aim is to document a changing reality that values its past facadism can more than adequately respond to both conservation and development agendas. It is essential that architects ensure that a rich dialogue is created between both historic and contemporary elements as opposed to treating one reverentially to the detriment of other. An emphasis should also be placed on the responsibility of the contemporary fabric to assist in the conservation of value using physical characteristics to evoke collective memory.

Recommendations should not only be limited to design approaches but to legislative avenues due to the interconnectivity that is inherent between heritage and policy. Current designation procedures risk embedding a predetermination of the extent of value that a fragment of the historic can hold. By integrating a more socially influenced method of significance assessment, that is better positioned to recognise an expanded view of heritage, the determination of suitable techniques such as facadism will be more transparent. Alongside this it is essential that policy makers, if an AHD in inevitable, acknowledge heritage as a socially subjective practice and reflect this nature within its policy holding both designers and planners to greater levels of accountability when responding to the socially constructed conservation agenda.

Most crucially facadism needs to be considered not as a catch-all approach to both conservation and development but as a technique with a variety of typologies, all of which provide specific responses to differing conservation requirements. Its usage needs to be carefully considered in the context of the contemporary or we risk producing elements of our architectural landscape that have been eviscerated of architectural quality of both the historic and contemporary due to an unsatisfactory compromise.

Figure 49

7. Bibliography ARCUS., (2008). Historic Building Appraisal of 465 Caledonian Road, Islington [online]. Sheffield: ARCUS. [Viewed 28 June 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING Bargery, R., (2005). The Ethics of Facadism: Pragmatism versus Idealism. In: Taylor, J, ed(s). The Building Conservation Directory. Salisbury: Cathedral Communications ltd. Baxter, I., (2015). Mainstreaming policy and pragmatism: Whither the historic environment. Cultural Trends. 24(1), 34-38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2014.1000603

Bennet, C., (2013). The winner of the Carbuncle Cup looks like a joke. Sadly, it is a sign of the times. The Guardian [online]. Updated 31 August 2013, 21:24. [Viewed 3 September 2013]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/31/winnercarbuncle-cup-joke

Bimo, H., (2016). Heritage Facadism And Its Concept of Value. In: International Symposium on Nusantara Cultural Heritage, 26-29 November 2016, Medan, Indonesia [online]. Uretch: Utrecht University. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313903730_Heritage_Facadism_and_Its_Concept_of _Value Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C. and Natarajan, L., (2016) Design governance: The CABE experiment. New York: Routledge

Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C. and Natarajan, L., (2017) Design governance the CABE way, its effectiveness and legitimacy. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. 11(1), 1-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1341425

Coleman, R., (2011) Townscape and Conservation Assessment [online]. London: Citydesigner. [Viewed 16 August 2019]. Available from: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=11%2fAP%2f4297&system=D C Cullingworth, B. and Nadin, V., (2006). Town and Country Planning in the UK. 14th edition. London: Routledge Darley, G., (2015) Facadism. Architects Journal. 241(7), 70-71. Available https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/culture/essay-facadism/8678769.article

De Klark, N., (2015) Retained [online]. Nicholas de klerk. [Viewed 1 October 2019]. Available from: https://librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.html

Delafons, J., (2005) Politics and Preservation. A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1996. London: E. & F. N. Spon Earl, J., (1997) Building Conservation Philosophy. 2nd ed. Reading: College of Estate Management.

English Heritage., (2012) The National Heritage Protection Plan Framework. Unknown: English Heritage. Falser, M., Lipp, W. and Tomaszewski, A. eds., (2010) International Conference of the ICOMOS International Scientific Community for the Theory and the Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration, 23-27 April 2008, Vienna, Austria. Firenze: Polistampa. Fountain, T., (2010) Facadism: Preserving Heritage, Continuing Modernisation. Adelaide: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH KG

Fredheim, L. & Khalaf, M., (2016). The Significance of Values: Heritage Value Typologies Reexamined. International Journal of Heritage Studies. [online]. 22(6), 466-481. [Viewed 9 April 2019]. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247 Glendinning, M., (2013) The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation. London: Routledge

Gordon, A., (2018) Another Elderly Lady Knocked Down: Heritage discourse and the protest to save the Missions to Seamen Building, 1986. M.A. Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.

Great Britain. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government., (2018). Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission: draft terms of reference [online]. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/753671/Building_Better_Commission_Submission_-_ToR.pdf

Great Britain. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government., (2019). National Planning Policy Framework [online]. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Hammond, M., (2003) Do Three Râ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Make a Right [online]. Architects Journal. [Viewed 9 July 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/do-three-rs-make-aright/145657.article?sm=145657

Harrison, R., (2010) Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester: Manchester University Press in association with the Open University

Harrison, R., (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches. New York: Routledge

Henry, T. J. (2013). Facadism as an approach to redevelopment and conservation of world heritage. Cultural heritage and sustainability. 5. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Highfield, D., (2002) The Construction of New Buildings Behind Historic Facades. London: CRC Press

Historic England., (2006) Shared Interest: Celebrating Investment in the Historic Environment. [online]. Historic England. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/imagesbooks/publications/shared-interest/shared_interest/

Historic England., (2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance: For the sustainable management of the historic environment. [online]. Historic England. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principlessustainable-management-historic-environment/

Historic England., (©2019a). Listed Buildings [online]. Historic England. [Viewed 25 April 2019]. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings/ Historic England., (©2019b). Living in a Conservation Area [online]. Historic England. [Viewed 22 September 2019]. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/yourhome/owning-historic-property/conservation-area/

Historic England., (©2019c). The Hope Playhouse, and the remains of three further bear gardens, Bankside [online]. Historic England. [Viewed 27 August 2019]. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1433280

Hobson, E., (2004) Conservation and Planning: Changing Values in Policy and Practice. London: Spon Press.

ICOMOS., (1994) The Nara Document on Authenticity. [online]. Unknown: ICOMOS. [Viewed 19 September 2019]. Available from: https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf

Islington Borough Council., (2010). Register of Locally Listed Buildings and Locally Significant Shopfronts [online]. London: Islington Borough Council. [Viewed 5 September 2019]. Available from: http://www.canonburysociety.org.uk/pdffiles/Register%20of%20Locally%20Listed%20Buildings%20and%20Shopfronts%20April%20 2010.pdf

Jones, S., (2017) Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage. 4(1), 21-37. Available from: DOI:10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996

Kafka, G., (2018) Bankside warehouses repurposed by SPPARC as mixed-use hotel scheme. The Architects Journal [online]. Updated 25 June 2012. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehouses-repurposed-by-spparcas-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article Kindred, B., (2006) Appendix. Journal of Architectural Conservation. 12(3),137-139. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/13556207.2006.10784983

Kyriazi, A., (2019) Faรงadism, Building Renovation and the Boundaries of Authenticity. Aesthetic Investigations. 2 (2), 184-195. Available from: https://www.aestheticinvestigations.eu/index.php/journal/article/view/136

Lodge, B., (2019a) Conservation values are dynamic not static. Discuss the role of taste in shaping and sustaining the historic built environment, examining the evolution of conservation practice and our subjective relationship with heritage. MArch essay, University of Sheffield.

Lodge, B., (2019b) Preliminary Dissertation Submission. MArch essay, University of Sheffield.

Lewi, H. and Murray, A., (2014) Faรงadism as Urban Taxidermy: All Skin and no Bones. In: C, Schooner, ed. Translation The 31st Annual SAHANZ Conference, 2-5 July 2014, Auckland, New Zealand [online]. Auckland: Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand and Unitect ePress, pp.505-516. [Viewed 10th August 2019]. Available from https://www.sahanz.net/conferences/translation/

Lloyd, J., (2018) Facadism is not visionary repurposing of buildings, it's lazy and cheap. ICON [online]. Updated 13 June 2018. [Viewed 6 September 2019]. Available from: https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/crimes-against-design/item/13049-crimes-against-designfacadism

Mann, W (2013) Inhabiting the Ruin: Work at Astley Castle. ASCHB Transactions [online]. 35. [Viewed 1 April 2019]. Available from: http://www.wwmarchitects.co.uk/site/assets/files/1225/inhabiting_the_ruin_wwm.pdf Pearce, D., (1989) Conservation Today. London: Routledge

Pendlebury, J., (2008). Conservation in the age of Consensus. London: Routledge.

Pendlebury, J., (2013). Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation-planning assemblage. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 19(7), 709-727. Available from: doi: 10.1080/13527258.2012.700282

Pendlebury J. (2015) Heritage and Policy. In: Waterton E., Watson S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Pendlebury, J. and Strange, I., (2011). Centenary paper: Urban conservation and the shaping of the English city. Town Planning Review. 82(4), 361–392. Available from: doi: 10.3828/tpr.2011.23

Reid, L., (2010). Decision Notice [online]. London: Islington Borough Council. [Viewed 8 August 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING Richards, J., (1994) Facadism. London: Routledge.

RPS., (2009). Design and Access Statement [online]. Unknown: RPS. [Viewed 8 August 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING

Schumacher, T., (2010) Façadism” Returns, or the Advent of the “Duck-orated Shed. Journal of Architectural Education. 63 (2), 128-137. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1531314X.2010.01073.x Semes, S., (2009) The future of the past: a conservation ethic for architecture, urbanism, and historic preservation. London; New York: W.W Norton.

Smith, L., (2006) Uses of Heritage. Londres: Routledge.

Smith, L., (2014). Intangible Heritage: A Challenge to the Authorised Heritage Discourse. Revista d'Etnologia de Catalunya. [online]. 39, 12-22. [Viewed 21 April 2019]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/34518290/Intangible_Heritage_A_challenge_to_the_authorised_her itage_discourse Smith, P., (1975) Conservation Myths: Facadism used to be a dirty word. Built Environment Quarterly. 1(1), 77.

Strange, I. & Whitney, D., (2003) The changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation in the UK. Planning, Practice & Research. 18(2), 219-229. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/0269745032000168278 Swenson, A., (2018) Historic preservation, the state and nationalism in Britain. Nations and Nationalism. 24(1), 43-63. Available from DOI: 10.1111/nana.12373

Taylor, J., (2014) Heritage Protection in the UK [online]. Building Conservation. [Viewed 28 August 2019]. Available from: https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/uk-heritageprotection/uk-heritage-protection.htm

Taylor, S, P., (2019) Listed buildings and conservation areas: planning legislation in England. Journal of Recent Activities in Architectural Sciences. 4(1), 32-34. Available from: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/4484/1/Taylor_ListedBuildings.pdf

The Gentle Author., (2018) Outrage: future generations will laugh in horror and derision at the folly of facadism. The Architectural Review [online]. Updated 2 January 2018. [Viewed 3 August 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectural-review.com/outrage-future-generations-willlaugh-in-horror-and-derision-at-the-folly-of-facadism/10026645.article

The Planning Inspectorate., (2010) Appeal Decision [online]. Bristol: The Planning Inspectorate. [Viewed 12 August 2019]. Available from: https://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/465-caledonian-rd-planningappeal-decision-nov-2010.pdf Throsby, D., (2000) Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Thurley, S., (2013) Men from the Ministry: How Britain saved its heritage. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Torre, M., (2013) Values and Heritage Conservation. Heritage & Society. 6(2), 155-166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000011 Wainwright, O., (2013). 'Prison-like' student housing wins Carbuncle Cup for worst building. The Guardian [online]. Updated 29 August 2013, 12.26. [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbuncle-cup-studenthousing-ucl

Wainwright, O., (2014). Some front: the bad developments making a joke of historic buildings. The Guardian [online]. Updated 25 August 2014, 8:00. [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/aug/25/frontfacade-bad-developments-ruining-historic-buildings

Waite, R., (2013). Astley Castle Stirling Prize win hailed as an "important precedent" for historic buildings. Architects' Journal, 238(12),8â&#x20AC;&#x201C;10.

Waterton, E., (2010) Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Waterton E., (2007) Rhetoric & 'Reality' - Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in England. York: University of York; Archaeology. Wood, S, K., (2012) Architecture of Compromise: A History and Analysis of Facadism in Washington D.C. M.A. Dissertation, Columbia University.

Illustrations All illustrations and photographs are the author’s own unless otherwise stated below.

Figure 1: The Gentle Author., (2017). In Gracechurch St, City of London [Digital Image]. [Viewed 1 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectural-review.com/outrage-futuregenerations-will-laugh-in-horror-and-derision-at-the-folly-of-facadism/10026645.article Figure 2: Author’s own, based on information in, Highfield, D., (2002) The Construction of New Buildings Behind Historic Facades. London: CRC Press.

Figure 9: Author’s own, devised from Table 1 in, Fredheim, L. & Khalaf, M., (2016). The Significance of Values: Heritage Value Typologies Reexamined. International Journal of Heritage Studies. [online]. 22(6), 466-481. [Viewed 9 April 2019]. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247

Figure 10: Author’s own, devised from: Finch, D., (2019) On Modernism [PowerPoint Presentation]. ARC6874, Conservation and Regeneration Principles and Approaches. 25 March [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_71207_1&cont ent_id=_3845892_1&mode=reset

Figure 11: Aslam, M., (2018). Altolusso Old and New [Digital Image]. [Viewed 8 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/65295157@N04/41207721330/in/photolistfAb2io-KaFQC-8qBDKx-LycbxA-2FQSWS-K1rbq-pDwr1r-64bNbq-pomLHQ-cjFGdE-8wp8BHapswt7-K1rFq-4pjWtD-agPAmB-cjFFAC-4s3chh-HA9K-8TFGof-95xRXV-5qtVVX-bfXxui-bFL7ev6kk5b9-2ic4Xn-6W39xM-bfXvvK-e3JYrD-BDN2V-6W36QV-4bG6Pf-6W7dPw-25MokTY-7jqqJe2wcxL-K1ABX-K1r7L-BTyog-A7jLu-357FDU-e3QCJ7-Qex45v-aLuUtn-BDMhD-KxGcg-BUS1sKCPWQbN-24EYGXB-aLuTYi-vfN7Hk Figure 12: The Gentle Author., (2017). In Smithfield [Digital Image]. [Viewed 1 October 2019]. Available from: https://spitalfieldslife.com/2017/12/31/on-facadism/

Figure 13: Author’s own, information extracted from, Witherford Watson Mann (©2019) Astley Castle [online] Witherford Watson Mann.[Viewed March 2019] Available from: www.wwmarchitects.co.uk/projects/astley

Figure 17: Price & Myers., (©2019) Astley Castle, Warwickshire [Digital Image]. [Viewed March 2019]. Available from: https://www.pricemyers.com/structural-engineering/projects/astleycastle-warwickshire/

Figure 22: Author’s own, devised from Figure 1 in, Fredheim, L. & Khalaf, M., (2016). The Significance of Values: Heritage Value Typologies Reexamined. International Journal of Heritage Studies. [online]. 22(6), 466-481. [Viewed 9 April 2019]. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247

Figure 23: Author’s own, based on information in, Historic England., (©2019). Timeline of Conservation Catalysts and Legislation [online]. Historic England. [Viewed 25 April 2019]. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/whatsnew/features/conservation-listing-timeline/ Figure 24: Author’s own, information extracted from, Great Britain. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government., (2019). National Planning Policy Framework [online]. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Figure 25: Author’s own, edited image from, Unknown., (no date). Aerial photograph of London [digital image]. [Viewed 1 October 2019]. Available from: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/

Figure 26: Author’s own, information extracted from, Wainwright, O., (2013). 'Prison-like' student housing wins Carbuncle Cup for worst building. The Guardian [online]. Updated 29 August 2013, 12.26. [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbunclecupstudenthousing-ucl

Figure 30: Author’s own, base image from, Digimaps., (no date). Topography Map of Islington [digital image]. [Viewed 9 October 2019]. Available from: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/

Figure 31: Author’s own, devised from, RPS., (2010) Outlook from behind Façade of 465 [digital image]. [Viewed 22 September 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING

Figure 33: Stephen George and Partners., (2009) Existing Elevation [digital image]. [Viewed 28 August 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING

Figure 34: Author’s own, edited image from, Stephen George and Partners., (2009) Existing Elevation [digital image]. [Viewed 28 August 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING

Figure 35: Author’s own, base image from, Stephen George and Partners., (2009) Existing Ground Floor Plan [digital image]. [Viewed 28 August 2019]. Available from: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Pl anning%20Applications%20OnLine&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=308524&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteF iles/Skins/Islington/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC= Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Islington/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI= PLANNING

Figure 36: Author’s own, base image from, Google Earth., (2019) Satellite Image of Caledonian Road [Satellite Image]. [Viewed 5 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/

Figure 37: Screenshots from, Wainwright, O., (2013). 'Prison-like' student housing wins Carbuncle Cup for worst building. The Guardian [online]. Updated 29 August 2013, 12.26. [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbunclecupstudenthousing-ucl

Andrews, K., (2013) "Prison-like" student housing wins Carbuncle Cup 2013. Dezeen [online]. Updated 29 August 2013. [Viewed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/29/carbuncle-cup-2013-winner-announced/

Figure 38: Author’s own, information extracted from, Kafka, G., (2018) Bankside warehouses repurposed by SPPARC as mixed-use hotel scheme The Architects Journal [online]. Updated 25 June 2012. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehousesrepurposed-by-spparc-as-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article

Figure 39 & 40: Reeve, E., (2018) SPPARC Native Bankside [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehousesrepurposed-by-spparc-as-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article.

Figure 41: Author’s own, base image from, SPPARC,. (2018) Ground Floor Plan [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehouses-repurposed-by-spparcas-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article

Figure 42 & 43: Author’s own, base image from, Digimaps., (no date). Topography Map of Bear Gardens [digital image]. [Viewed 9 October 2019]. Available from: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/

Figure 44: Author’s own, base image from, SPPARC,. (2018) West Elevation [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehouses-repurposed-by-spparcas-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article

Figure 45: Author’s own, base image from, SPPARC,. (2018) Section [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehouses-repurposed-by-spparcas-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article

Figure 46: Author’s own, base image from, SPPARC,. (2018) Ground Floor Plan [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehouses-repurposed-by-spparcas-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article

Figure 47 & 48: Reeve, E., (2018) SPPARC Native Bankside [digital image]. [Viewed 20 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/bankside-warehousesrepurposed-by-spparc-as-mixed-use-hotel-scheme/10037245.article.

Figure 49: Lerman, Y., (2014) Facadism in Ghent [Digital Image]. [Viewed 12 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoavlerman/15141396525/in/photolist-p4ZBEMcJ7V5-2dSGFtG-U93xCG-6t6G8R-dx4R1M-7Yk1bd-c3vqr5-ScEaoG-7pFBa8-4kDjDG-6taSHh-e69FTi3WZRg7-f2Ewev-4NRnJp-axCnJq-mxFLBK-f2EubM-axzEHc-7CTzba-H8qiuA-8mMtTw-8ZJ2js-5mrcF8NCmT3-geRJo5-geRJGG-dv2ueo-bn6M2o-U51v8-6vdbLg-7r41a1-2ekc66E-6RKuH7-U3Er1H-bzRewnpV2QX5-2bUALLV-7YjZw9-dwMPEj-23S8KFW-dHE3AU-rJdp3-dg717C-dxcLuz-bncgYw-bA78sVRSef44-5VN8hS