A building's facade: A critical component of architectural architecture
A building's facade is a critical component of architectural architecture. It is the main external component of any structure that is visible to the public (Charlen). It plays an important advertisement role in an economic climate, allowing a company to stand out from the crowd while also raising the public image.
The significance of a facade
The facade of an organization gives a sense of originality, as well as a basic representation to the public of what the institution stands for and values. Fascism is the preservation of a structure's historic facade when demolishing or greatly altering the structure's interior. The controversial demolition of the Swallow Hall while maintaining its historical facade of the university's campus quadrangle has raised different concerns from the society. Several conflicting perspectives emerge given that the university has heavily invested in its reconstruction and would seem unfair to bring down the structure due to the heavy loss they would incur. Similarly, it would be unfair for the old building to be in service to the university residents due to its old stature and current state.
Renovation or demolition: An architectural perspective
Looking at the issue from an architectural angle, this paper argues that it would be better to demolish the building because the advantages evidently outweigh the losses of this act. Swallow hall's construction was built based on rather outdated architectural designs. For the hall to serve its purpose adequately, it is relevant that its realization starts from scratch. The materials used in the construction may have aged due to time.
The advantages of demolition
Such materials include timber and concrete and can cause a building to be unstable and unfit for occupation by the people involved. Since such materials make up almost 80% of a building, replacing them would mean reconstructing the whole structure to achieve satisfaction of the parties involved (Trabucco and Fava 38). Although, renovating the building would be a possible solution to the building's issue, it is not the best because it will not have fully solved the problem.
The benefits of recycling
Upon demolition of the building, the materials obtained as waste products can be recycled and converted into other useful material such as glass, bricks and tiles. This would be an added advantage, as some of the energy used in the construction of the building saved (Unwin). These materials - if in good condition - can act as material for the new building to replace the Swallow Hall. Although renewal of the building would take half the time it would take to build a new one, this is not the case on because the MU campus is an establishment meant to last for many years to come. Hence erecting a new structure would be the best solution as opposed to renewing the already existing one.
The challenges of preserving the facade
In an effort to preserve the building's facade, the stability of the building may be compromised which could possibly lead to future expenses (Trabucco and Fava). This would be in an attempt to fix the already existing old structure carefully while trying to preserve its historical touch. Most of the technology used to build the Swallow Hall has now been outdated and would prove to be difficult to retain to perfection the historic structure. Moreover, construction from scratch would also give the campus a good detail of modern facade which would attract the public even more to its new look (Unwin). It would therefore be better to give the Swallow Hall a new look that is in accordance with the current structural standards.
Advantages of facadism
On the other hand, facadism of the building would present some advantages over complete demolition. To begin with, the building within the campus is regarded as an imperative landmark and is a symbol of heritage and culture within the school. Evidently, demolishing a landmark would lead to questioning of the principles adopted by the school. Additionally, Trabbuco and Fava assert that the historical and social appeal of older buildings may provide marketing opportunities for institutions. Secondly, the decision to demolish a building would be about 30% higher than constructing a new building (Unwin). The construction materials such as bricks, tiles, and concrete cannot be recycled, hence, costing more. In this regard, facadism would be deemed as less expensive for the school in general. Thirdly, facadism would have a shorter critical path in construction, thus, the building would be able to function faster to meet the needs that it was intended (Deplazes). Finally, facadism provides a valuable way for sustainable practice in ensuring the usage of embodied energy in a building.
A balance between tradition and innovation
Although facadism is considered as a more sustainable method of construction, introducing new ideas into the building's appearances would serve as a positive step towards promoting creativity in architecture rather than thriving on traditional ideas. The use of new technologies in the MU campus will lead to the development of an ultramodern design with contemporary spatial, social, and economic considerations although at a higher initial cost. On the other hand, facadism allows the preservation of culture and acts as a reminder of the past. Overall, the issues surrounding the adoption or rejection of facadism all seem to have valid arguments. Nevertheless, my personal perspective remains that adopting contemporary building practices would be more advantageous for the campus in the long run.
Work Cited
Charlen, Andrew. Structure of Architecture. London: British Library Cataloguing Publishers, 2005.
Deplazes, Andrea. Construction Architecture. Bern: Birkhauser Publishers, 2006.
Trabucco, Dario and Paolo Fava. “Confronting the Question of Demolition or Renovation.” Council of Tall Builidngs and Urban Habitats IV (2013): 38-43.
Unwin, Simon. Analysing Architecture. New York: Routledge, 2014.
