REVIVING EXISTING BUILDINGS New Directions In Architectural Design
By Sejal Pandey ID4 - 2014/15
2
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of why alterations and interventions behind historic façades are becoming more and more common. The paper seeks to point out the advantages and reasons this form of design can be the new direction is architectural design the society needs and the better way to restore buildings. It also points out arguments by groups of people who do not agree with this style of design and feel it is not the right solution to restore buildings. It will also briefly go through different styles of interventions by which new form of design can be intersected with existing buildings. The paper has researched about the various reasons and benefits which can be gained from this style of design from ecological to economical by looking into statistics and the findings of many architects, designers and professors. The paper also looks into a case study of a building which has been altered and restored. It has then presented the oppositional view by some preservationists and architects who believe that this form of design in ruining historic buildings and limits an architect’s creativity. It also presents different styles by which interventions can be made which have been categorised into different groups. The findings of this paper have reflected positively upon the re-use of historic and existing buildings and why it is the best solution for economic and ecological reasons. It has also concluded that this form of design is very creative whilst providing functionality and sustainability.
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENT Cover
1
Abstract
3
Contents page
5
Introduction
7
The main question
9
Reasons for construction behind historic façade - 1.1 The appeal of renowned buildings - 1.2 The availability of financial assistance - 1.3 Planning permission may not be required - 1.4 The options of available façade - 1.5 Sustainability for architecture
10 10 10 10-11 11-12 12-13
Case study – Malcolm Fraser’s ECCI
14-15
Arguments against alterations in existing & historic buildings
16-17
Arguments for alterations in existing & historic buildings
18-19
Different styles of interventions for existing buildings
20-31
Conclusion
32
Bibliography
33-34
Table of Illustration
35-36
5
6
Introduction An old building is not an obstacle but instead a foundation for continued action. Designing with them is an exhilarating enterprise; adding to them, grafting, inserting, knitting new pieces into the existing built fabric is endlessly stimulating.” —Françoise Astorg Bollack Architecture is also subjected to aging just like people are. Buildings need to evolve to suit the needs of the people managing and living in them. It is the functional requirements, more often than not, which cause interventions and changes to existing buildings. These changes behind historic facade can have numerous reasons and advantages which make this form of design economically and functionally viable. The vital aim is that the historic environment is a wealth which should be preserved, but can integrate cultural and economic value to new design inserted in it. Respectively, the integration of the new design within the historic façade will become a crucial part of the building and contribute to the functionality of the space. In recent years, altering historic buildings has become less conservative and people are accepting the roles they can play in a modern society. However, this is a debatable matter as there are still many preservationists who believe that historic buildings should be preserved just as they are, without any alterations (Michael Davies, 2011). Many European cities have been shrinking towards the end of second millennium. This is a clear indication that new building constructions is declining steadily (Cramer, 2007). This has given a boost to a new form of design which is keen on altering existing buildings and giving it a new form of design. This form of design is becoming progressively influential as the society is becoming more informative of environmental issues. If historic buildings are not preserved right, they can turn into ruins. There are many examples around the world where this is happening. This neglectful demolition of buildings which are no longer intact as they were not preserved on time is now being perceived as ecological waste and also as the destruction of the identity of that space (Johannes Cramer, 2007). The methods used to preserve historic buildings are taking a new turn in design by going beyond restoration. These methods are now being applied to existing buildings to make them more functional and give a new design to it rather than demolishing the whole structure. These methods have been given names of insertions, weaving, parasites, juxtapositions and wrapping (Francoise A. Bollack, 2013). To understand why this form of design is the new direction in architecture, understanding the methods above is crucial which I will go over in this report. My aim for this report is to address why this form of design is becoming steadily popular and what are the numerous advantages and reasons for this design being considered more economical than new construction. As working with historic buildings can be complicated because of the structure of it, the problems it can cause will also be covered in this report. I will also discuss the opposite view of purists and architects who believe this form of design is ruining historic buildings and leave no room for creativity. 7
8
Why should we build new designs behind historic faรงades and reuse historic buildings?
In order to understand the benefits of creating new design behind historic faรงades. We need to understand that buildings are not structured to deliver the growing needs of the population when the design of the building is made in a particular period of time, the design is made keeping in mind the needs of the people for that time period and not for the future. As the time passes, if changes are not made within the building to improve functionality, it will gradually become vacant. These vacant buildings are more at risk of vandalism and burning down as there is no one to look after it. It is said that lack of action can have as much impact as action. These vacant buildings are demolished more frequently as it is harder to justify the restoration of a non-functional building than one which is in use. These buildings offer no economic benefit to the society and come with legal liabilities as people can sue the owner if they get hurt in them. In order to keep these buildings functional, decisions by the owner and the people residing in them need to be made such as crucial alterations and updates (Dedek, 2014). Many buildings which we are using today and are fully functional did not initially have electricity, central heating or air-conditioning. These building had to be retrofitted with new facilities in order to make them fit for habitation. Old buildings have many problems such as no fire escape routes, disability access, and inefficient consumers of energy and get more affected by hurricanes and earthquakes and other natural causes. The life of existing buildings can be extended by altering them to address the problems mentioned above (Charles Bloszies, 2013).
9
Reasons for construction behind historic façades I will now go through the various reasons of why construction is taking place behind historic buildings?
a renowned façade will therefore add to the importance of a building. The restored, prestigious façade will display the status demanded by the user, at the same time the new constructed accommodation within the façade will cater for the modern and productive working environment required (Highfield, 1991).
renowned
1.2 The availability of financial assistance
Many historic places influence the architecture and interior design fields as they show us the staggering statements, and the complex details of the lifestyles of the past generations. It is these buildings and architecture that give a sense of identification to a place. These factors make this form of architecture more justifiable as it works around the historic façades, keeping the sense of identification while improving the functionality of the space according to the needs necessary.
Façade restoration can sometimes be more costly than both ‘lowkey’ reconstruction and the new build construction. Some of these expenses can be covered by attaining financial aid. Financial assistance is not obtainable for all reconstruction and preservation schemes, however, in numerous events, for example where façade of historic structure is affected, or where new jobs are being generated, it can be possible to attain significant amount of these grants, or loans at lower rates of interest for the work expenses (Highfield, 1991).
1.1 The buildings
appeal
of
There are many organizations, such as commercial buildings, banks, insurance companies and other institutions, whom often opt to work from these prestigious, sophisticated historic buildings. These organizations will often pay a substantial amount of money to purchase or lease these buildings. By constructing a modern, more functional accommodation behind
1.3 Planning permission may not be required Under the section of Town and Country Planning Acts 1990, you will require planning permission for any construction work. However, it also states that carrying out any work within the interior for improvement, maintenance and any other alteration, where the exterior look 10
of the building is not getting affected, does not involve construction and thus it does not demand planning permission (Highfield, 1991). This comes in useful to give an interior a modern look with increased functionality, whilst the exterior still reflects the prestigious looking faรงade which is in demand. 1.4 The options of available faรงade With the development in commercial and industrial field, combined with the requirement for a better, modern interior environment, have added up to numerous amount of buildings becoming vacant, pleonastic and outdated. This, in turn, have provided an opulence amount of buildings which are suitable for redesigning. Examples include old factories, old train stations, warehouses in industrial centres and many other out of date churches and abandoned historic
facades like castles. Large number of these buildings, if they are structurally stable and have beautiful exteriors, are excellent candidates for these faรงade restoration schemes (Highfield, 1991). Along with these reasons, there is a growing importance of building refurbishment and adaptation. Looking at UK, building refurbishment and adaptation contributes an important amount of output to the construction industry. The table below 1.1 shows that this sector of the industry almost adds up to a half of the construction industry. These statistics have been taken from Goodier and Gibb, 2004. These building refurbishments and alterations have been driven by deficiencies in functionality of a space and to achieve a higher, more sustainable working environment which will benefit both the owner and the environment (J. Douglas, 2002).
Figure 1, Value of the building sector in the UK, 2004.
11
This figure was generated in 2004. However, various studies now show that around 50 to 70 percent of all construction work and around half of the entire economical volume on architectural work is getting done on existing buildings (Cramer and Breitling, 2007). With these statistics, it can be justified that working with historic and existing structures is considered both environmentally sustainable and economical than the new build development. (Bollack, 2013). There is also a view that suggests that the general public likes existing structures rather than new build, whether the structure is insufficiently designed or well designed, to any new development. Why is this the case? It has been argued that the lack of artistic literacy is what stops the general public from admiring and embracing the new build architectural forms. Various structures which are famous now and have become a part of an identity constructed by mankind were initially not approved because of their basic form of design which was different from the accepted criterion of the time. For example, the Eiffel Tower, was initially built as a temporary structure and was considered unpleasant by many, but overtime has become a great symbol which the French cultural is associated with. Nevertheless, it has become very important to consider the emotional attachments
a lot of people have to these historic buildings (C. Bloszies, 2013). For many cities, their historic buildings and cultural values is what they are better known for which includes Edinburgh, Rome, Venice and many others. Demolishing these buildings when they are no longer functional will be taking away the identity of these cities. By altering and retaining these buildings, a new role can be given to them which will enable them to contribute back to the society. Not only historic buildings, altering and re-using any existing building allows for a creative re-use for a whole secondary level of architectural legacy which if not retained on time might have disappeared (D. Latham, 2000). 1.5 Sustainability for architecture ‘’The greenest building is one that is already built’’ – Carl Elefante The built environment uses up to 40% of energy resources and produces a considerable amount of waste. Global warming has been affected by the built environment and in order to minimize waste, better use of the infrastructure and reusing existing structure is needed. Existing buildings get abandoned if they are not providing the resources and functionality needed by the user. Overtime, the building becomes of no use to the public and economy. Many historic buildings cannot be 12
demolished as they are protected by the respective government as a graded building. To make the building functional again and save it from becoming a ruin, reusing the building becomes important. However, this can only be done through alterations within the building to improve its functionality as it would be nonfunctional in its original design (Highfield, 1991).
and the quantity of the material in question. For example, re-use of materials like marble, stone and granite will benefit the energy required to produce these materials again compared to the re-use of bricks which does not consume as much energy as other materials. However, in both cases, materials are being re-used which adds up to less energy wasted (Benfield, 2012).
Another point to this argument is when a building is damaged to an extent where the exterior structure is also not intact. These buildings are called ruins and offer no economic benefit to the society and thus, get subjected to demolition. Instead of demolishing these structures and using the materials for new buildings, the existing buildings should be kept intact and restored. This way consumes less energy spent on demolishing of the infrastructure and the re-use of materials is also gained (Dr Langston, 2008). However, the benefits vary depending on the type
As all of the points above suggest that historic buildings are in demand for commercial use and protected by the government for their cultural values and heritage, many of which are vacant and cannot be demolished due to historical values. Faรงade retention is the way forward in architectural world as it looks to preserve existing buildings whilst giving them a new function to contribute back to the society through alterations within the existing structure.
13
Case study – Malcolm Fraser’s ECCI
Figure 2, New Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation
The Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation at High School Yards in Edinburgh’s old town has been able to put the points mentioned above into action. Here is a small case study on the ECCI and its recent refurbishment. The ECCI works towards solving problems related to climate change and achieving a low carbon emission future, so their new home had to fit the purpose and give out a strong message. ECCI has created a new home at the High School Yards and has been transformed into the first listed building to attain the UK’s topmost sustainable building award. It has taken 19 months and £10.5 million redevelopment by Malcolm Fraser architects to remodel an 18th century old 14
high school building into an improved home for ECCI. BREEAM, which is the leading sustainability assessment method has considered factors like health and safety, pollution, green gas emission, materials and energy consumption into consideration to assess the refurbishment of ECCI (Edinburgh centre, 2013). The team involved has expressed their achievements on attaining such high standards of sustainability in a historic building where they were faced with many constraints such as technical issues with electricity, heating, and plumbing, and as well as the structure itself. The lead architect Malcolm Fraser states that the ECCI has set an alternative direction in the construction industry where existing buildings get demolished and new ones constructed for better functionality. He states that to achieve a sustainable and a more economically beneficial society, we should start with the renewal of existing buildings while they are still standing, rather than replacing them with new constructions (M. Fraser, 2013). The original structure was retained as it sits on the site of Edinburgh’s historic Old High School which was once attended by Sir Walter Scott. ECCI Executive Director Andy Kerr states that the original building has been around for 800 years focused on teaching and learning, so it was highly important to retain the structure and preserve the culture and integrity the building comes with and at the same time alter it to make it functional and fit for purpose. The building is a great example of old meets new design and how the challenges of a building have become its greatest strength in achieving a high level of creativity whilst making it sustainable by not only reusing the structure, but integrating it with sustainable technology (Edinburgh centre, 2013).
15
Arguments against alterations in existing & historic buildings Ever since the preservation movement started in the 1960s, designers and architects have encouraged the retention of buildings through alterations, refurbishments and restorations. However, in recent times, the re-use and recycle of entire buildings has become popular and has been recognized as a sustainable approach to modern development. This allows complete functionality of the space and an economic benefit to the society. Many cities around the world have adopted policies which state that the reuse of existing buildings is mandatory or encouraged highly (C. Bloszies, 2013). However, this view is not shared by all. These architectural interventions are torn between two opinions of the oppositional mind-sets. This section will go through the views and arguments expressed by those who believe façade retention is the way forward for architectural conservation, supported by architects and designers who believe that designing within historic buildings is when a designer can be the most creative. This view is opposed by some conservationists who are against façade retention schemes or any alterations to historic buildings for
that matter, supported by architects and designers who believe that working within such schemes limits their creativity (Highfield, 1991). Much controversy has been caused among architects, planners, builders and preservationists who believe that a building’s integrity gets lost under these so called creative changes. Some conservationists argue that if a historic buildings in worth retaining, it should be retained in its original form, in its entirety and to alter and conceal a new design behind historic façade is a deceitful and unacceptable approach. Concealing new accommodation behind historic façade is a very false solution. This is what has been named the purist view of conservationists. These purists believe that not only the exterior but what lies in the interior should also be restored. As the interior should be related to the exterior façade, in terms of architectural design and historic significance. For example, a Victorian façade should only function to enclose the rooms, it was originally designed to enclose, and not be altered into a modern open planned accommodation for offices under the retention policies and schemes (Highfield, 1991). 16
Some conservationists have a more realistic view where they believe that if a building is to be preserved, some loss to the integrity of the façade is unavoidable. This view is shared by the majority of the conservationists, from which only a few keep the purist view. Unless a historic building is wanted to be kept purely as a museum piece, some damage to the façade is inevitable. It has been said that to truly preserve a structure it needs to adapt to become more like the functional buildings in order to fulfil viable purposes (Highfield, 1991). This argument is supported by architects and designers who find the very suggestion of designing behind historic façade a constraint on their creative liberty (Cramer and Breitling, 2007). Not many architects have this view and are embracing façade retention. This view of limited creativity is based upon the fact that façade retention comes with many technical problems for builders and constructors which requires innovative solutions and highly specialised technical expertise outside the architectural construction field of new buildings. Factors such as disability access requirements, aesthetics, planning permissions, working with planning codes and space planning make historic buildings more difficult to work with. Historical buildings often have fragile decorative carvings and other elements which need to be protected and structures which
present the cultural values of the time as well as support the building structure. These elements provide a constraint on a designer’s creativity. This restricts the architects and designers to shape the buildings as they would like to and work under specified circumstances in which they are not able to work creatively (A. Causevic, 2009). A big problem faced with façade retention is the cost. To retrofit an efficient solution considering the factors of social, technical, environmental, ecological and internal environment factors such as acoustic quality, ventilation, heating, and security does cost a lot. Some of these systems will need to get fitted in the structure itself, while designing the plans, the architects and engineers will need to come up with creative solutions so the design, the structure and the facilities are not compromised. The cost comes in with using new technologies to retrofit these systems and getting specialist help (L. Braganca, 2007). However, these costs are for the betterment of the functionality of the building and will last a long time, thus making it a good investment. While it restores the façade and with it the cultural values of a place, this form manages to provide necessary facilities required today as well (L. Braganca, 2007). 17
Arguments for alterations in existing & historic buildings The argument placed by purists and architects above is contradicted by many architects and designers who have proved that façade retention is the most sustainable approach forward and state this view as nothing but a ‘’tired cliché’’. The suggestion that creating designs for existing buildings allow no room for creativity is illogical. The designers and architects are free to show their creativity because the problem is always unique, complex and challenges an architect’s creativity says architect Charles Bloszies. The user is free because the architecture contains many sentiments and stories, and this union of old meets new can show various new modes of behaviour and perception (C. Bloszies, 2013). Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), an architect, contributed greatly towards architectural conversions. He had a very different approach where he would get the public involved by laying the plans of the building in its original condition to allow the users to determine the alterations themselves. One of his projects was the manor house for Alexander von Humboldt at Tegel, near Berlin. The owner wanted the
exterior structure of the building to remain intact to allow the cultural heritage to shine through. To achieve this, Schinkel cladded the already existing tower and repeated it on to every corner of the structure. This worked as an extension, remained symmetrical, distributed additional functional around the building and did not overshadow the existing structure. His designs are inspirations for architects and designers who are working with complex design projects for existing buildings (Cramer and Breitling, 2007).
Figure 3, Tegel Palace as standing today
The picture above is showing the Tegel Palace as standing today. The four towers can be seen in this picture as altered by Schinkel. The buildings has been renovated since and kept functional. 18
Other architects from the 1960s also proved that it is possible to alter a building without demolishing its integrity and giving it a new function.
ambitious designer and that limited creativity does not exist (Cramer and Breitling, 2007).
These architects include Carlo Scarpa, Massimo Carmassi, Aurelio Galfetti and Karljosef Schattner. Many architects witnessed what the true relationship between the old and the new looks like when they saw projects by famous Venetian architect Carlo Scarpa. Scarpa had always been interested in renovations and conversions and attracted many eyes with his projects of faรงade retention. His style was tagged as natural with elegant combinations of materials. Whether it was bare concrete or subtle copper strips against the granite, oak, bamboo beams and bricks and other materials associated with Italian palazzo influenced and inspired a great number of architects. He also believed that the intersection of old and new can be subtle or extreme. He showed the contrast between the old and the new through materials and how they complemented each other (Cramer and Breitling, 2007). Footsteps of these architects are now being followed by famous architects like David Chipperfield, Herzog and de Meuron, Malcolm Fraser and many others. These architects have shown creative design within a historic faรงade can be achieved when handed to an 19
Different styles of interventions for existing buildings Working with existing buildings and altering them is one of the greatest challenges an architect is faced with. Historic structures are often very uneven with walls not in the right proportion and the materials get compromised due to being exposed to the environment. How to alter the faรงade becomes complex due to these constraints and thus, coming up with creative solutions becomes important (M. Davies, 2011). This section will go through different approaches categorised for altering existing buildings by Francoise Bollack as insertions, weavings, juxtapositions, parasites and wrapping. These approaches have been used all around the world in existing and historic buildings for improved functionality (F. Bollack, 2013).
INSERTIONS The first group of interventions is the insertions. In this intervention, the newly designed structure is inserted into the older volume, using the older building as shelter and inhabiting in it. An example which can symbolise this action is a wedge being put into two edges. It is a bold tactic where the interior structure is changed entirely and replaced with a new element of design (Michael Coates, 2008). These insertions can be anywhere from inserting a few walls or the whole interior structure, from very subtle insertions to complete transformations. In all cases, the older structure carries the cultural and emotional values and the new structure provides the modern functionality needed by the economy (F. Bollack, 2013).
20
Image below shows the Champollion Museum in Figeac, France by Moatti & Riviere Architects. The new buildings has been inserted within the walls of the older structure, where the inserted building is on display itself through the windows and gaps of the old one.
Figure 4, Champollion and writings Museum, night vision
21
The image below is showing the stairwell in the New York University Philosophy Department, New York by Steven Holl Architect. The stairwell has been inserted within the walls of a nineteenth century building. A skylight with a series of glass lenses were also inserted to create a rainbow like projection of colours through all the walls.
Figure 5, the new stair, with its intriguing geometry and perforated metal railing, is the focus of the design.
22
PARASITES The second group of interventions is the parasites. It has been given the term ‘’parasite’’ because just like the organism, the parasite, it lives off the host. Often called the parasitic architecture, it can be defined as flexible, temporal and exploitive style of architecture which attaches itself on to the topic or side of the building in order to complete themselves (city movement, 2013). The original façade provides structural support, passage and a cultural foundation in an already built structure. The parasitic architecture provides the host building with extra space and offers, as Matthias Sauerbruch puts it, ‘’an invitation to re-read a situation for uses that has originally not been anticipated.’’ These interventions can be spotted in buildings due to either their location, materials used or by form. This form of intervention can be very abstract in its architectural form and unsymmetrical (F. Bollack, 2013).
23
The image below shows the warehouse in Sheffield, England where the parasitic architecture is added on the top and coming off a little to the side to add two more stories to the building. The addition lays over and intersects through the structure creating three duplex studio offices.
Figure 6, 192 Shoreham Street
24
The image below shows the Sharp Center For Design in Toronto, Canada by Alsop Architects. The design has elevated two stories twenty-six meters above ground level. It has a black and white body with colourful legs which makes it seem playful and monumental.
Figure 7, Addition seen from McCaul Street
25
JUXTAPOSITIONS The third group of interventions is the juxtapositions. With these interventions, the additional structure stands next to or opposite the existing building and does not attach itself with the existing structure. The older structure functions fully on its own without any softening of boundaries between the two nor any exchange of architectural elements. The new structure contributes to the original structure through functionality from a distance. The addition of this intervention and the separation from the original building can be visually seen through its material palette, structural form or colour contrasts and textures. This separation of the two structures compliments and adds to the value of each (F. Bollack, 2013).
The images opposite shows the Musee Des Beaux-Arts in Lille, France by Ibos & Vitart Architects. This addition is a six-story glass building facing the rear of the museum which it is an addition to. It is connected to the older structure through the basement however, on ground level and above, no connection is made. The idea of the scene created is to have the new building to act as a scenery of the museum and as a window to the perpetual.
26
Figure 8, Musee des Beaux-Arts reflected in the faรงade of the addition
Figure 9, Musee des Beaux-Arts reflected in the faรงade of the addition
27
WRAPS The fourth group of interventions is the wraps. In this type of intervention, the new design wraps around the older structure. The addition can give protection to the older structure by being placed over it like an umbrella or enclose the older structure in an all-around enclosure. This intervention raises some challenges to the integrity of the previous fabric: the wrapping of the structure under an all-inclusive being, is to protect it from the elements of the environment. The purpose of the wraps is always clear, it is there to protect the existing fabric and to show them afresh by integrating them into a different whole. The integration can also be seen as a renewal to the design. The new enclosure represents modernity wrapped around the old and is always noticeable (F. Bollack, 2013).
The images opposite shows the Santa Caterina Market in Barcelona, Spain by Enric Miralles & Benedetta Tagliabue Architects, EMBT. A wave-like roof blanket has covered the building with 325,000 colourful ceramic tiles from Seville. The roof is supported by three girders going over and through the roof (Will travel, 2012).
28
Figure 10, the entrance to Santa Caterina Market
Figure 11, Santa Caterina Market 29
WEAVINGS The fifth and the final group of interventions can be categorised under weavings. It has been called weaving because the new structure is weaved in and out of the older structure. The new design is not very recognisable from the older structure as it does not form an apparent pattern with its form. The architect replaces certain elements from the existing structure, leaving some intact while placing new elements over and into the older structure. After a building has used this method, it becomes impossible to imagine the old and new fabric as separate as they work together to form a design. The older elements are reused in this form and interconnected with new elements to form the completed component; the result is similar to a knitted fabric (F. Bollack, 2013).
The image below shows Neues Museum in Berlin, Germany by David Chipperfield Architects in collaboration with Julian Harrap. The materials used in the building like brick, plaster, stone and terrazzo allows the viewers to see different time periods at the same time. The original building was damaged in wars, and so the new building re-used remains of the old one and add the new design into the existing structure still standing (F. Bollack, 2013).
30
Figure 12, Neues Museum Berlin, Germany
Figure 13, museum entrance 31
Conclusion I hope to have shown the benefits of reusing existing buildings and why should the architectural world focus of reusing them. Whether it’s for improved functionality or a fresh design, historic and existing structures can be re-used to integrate both the qualities. When architects and designers alter existing buildings, they are doing so because they believe the older structure will profit from the increased functional qualities. The older structure provides an aesthetic appeal connected to the cultural values of a city. The act of adding a different style of architecture to another structure enhances it with a new interpretation. As historic buildings have so many emotions and stories behind them, they help to shape up a city and give it an identity and by altering them, we are making them fit for purpose and functional so they can be used by people today and in the future. As mentioned earlier, altering existing buildings is a big challenge for architects and designers and so it brings out the best creativity in them, which has been proven by many architects through their work as stated earlier in the report. There are preservationists who do not agree with this form of architecture however, this view is not shared by many as the majority of them believe that compromises will need to get made in order to restore historic buildings (Highfield, 1991). As Acknowledged earlier in the report, the biggest benefit by altering existing buildings is the ecological benefit by modifying a building to save the raw materials and the energy which is attained by altering existing structures, as opposed to the construction of new buildings. By modifying floor plans or adding extensions, buildings still standing in this period can be modified in the best way that they receive a new life and can be used for as long as possible. No matter the degree of modification applied to an existing building, it has given a new direction is the architectural world. Along with economic and ecological benefits, this style of architecture also provides us with new and creative designs which we did not know could exist. There will always be challenges in this field and arguments against it however, it is becoming a new direction is the field of architecture which provides a harmonious balance between the old and the new. 32
Bibliography References Bloszies, C. (2012). Old buildings, new designs. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Bollack, F. (2013). Old buildings, new forms. United States: The Monacelli Press. Bragança, L. (2007). Portugal SB07. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Delft University Press. Čaušević, A. (2014). Facade retention in case of historical center of Sarajevo. [Online] Academia.edu. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/5977686/ Facade_retention_in_case_of_historical_center_of_Sarajevo Citymovement, (2012). Parasitic Architecture. [Online] Available at: https:// citymovement.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/parasitic-architecture/ Coates, M., Brooker, G. and Stone, S. (2009). The visual dictionary of interior architecture and design. Laussane, Switzerland: Ava Pub. Cramer, J. and Breitling, S. (2007). Architecture in existing fabric. Basel [Switzerland]: Birkhauser. Davies, M. (2014). New Life for Old Ruins. [Online] Buildingconservation.com. Available at: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/life-for-ruins/lifefor-ruins.htm Dedek, P. (2014). Historic preservation for designers. Fairchild Books. Douglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Edinburghcentre.org, (2014). High School Yards first historic building to win top green building award. [Online] Available at: http://edinburghcentre.org/news/ 33
Top-Green-Building-Award Highfield, D. (1991). The construction of new buildings behind historic facades. London: E. & F.N. Spon. Jagﾌテr, F. (2010). Old & new design manual for revitalizing existing buildings. Basel: London: Birkhuﾌピer; Springer [distributor]. Langston, C. (2014). The sustainability implications of building adaptive reuse. [Online] Works.bepress.com. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=craig_langston Latham, D. (2000). Creative re-use of buildings. Shaftesbury, Dorset: Donhead.
34
Table of Illustrations Figure 1, (page 11), Goodier & Gibb, Value of the building sector in the UK, 2004. Figure 2, (page 14) New Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, http:// www.malcolmfraser.co.uk/malcolmfraser/cache/file/9612FACE-69F0-4EC49B297545F125CA45.jpg, [N.D] Figure 3, (page 18), Tegel Palace as standing today, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Tegel [N.D] Figure 4, (page 21), Boegly L., Champollion and writings Museum, night vision, http://www.worldbuildingsdirectory.com/project.cfm?id=177, [N.D] Figure 5, (page 22), Ryan A., the new stair, with its intriguing geometry and perforated metal railing, is the focus of the design, http://www.stevenholl. com/project-detail.php?id=21, [N.D] Figure 6, (page 24), Hobhouse J., 192 Shoreham Street, http://www.dezeen. com/2012/03/06/192-shoreham-street-by-project-orange/, [N.D] Figure 7, (page 25), Johnson R. /Interior images, Addition seen from McCaul Street, http://www.arcspace.com/features/alsop-architects/sharp-centre-fordesign/, [N.D] Figure 8, (page 27), Ibos & Vitart Architects/Fessy G., Musee des Beaux-Arts reflected in the faรงade of the addition, http://www.archilab.org/public/2000/ catalog/ibos/ibos06.htm, [N.D] Figure 9, (page 27), Sainderichin A., Musee des Beaux-Arts reflected in the faรงade of the addition, http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00T6tm, [N.D] Figure 10, (page 29), the entrance to Santa Caterina Market, http:// haveblogwilltravel.org/barcelona-in-pictures, 35
[N.D] Figure 11, (page 29), Halbe R., Santa Caterina Market, http://www. designboom.com/architecture/benedetta-tagliabue-interviewembt-12-05-2014/, [N.D] Figure 12, (page 31), Kleuker A., Neues Museum Berlin, Germany, http://www. bustler.net/index.php/article/neues_museum_wins_2011_eu_prize_for_ contemporary_architecture_mies_van_der_/, [N.D] Figure 13, (page 31), Wolfgang B., museum entrance, http://www. stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/denkmal/denkmale_in_berlin/en/weltkulturerbe/ neues_museum.shtml, [N.D]
36
37
BY SEJAL PANDEY INTERIOR DESIGN YEAR 4 HERIOT WATT