Comments on: The Creeping Plague Of Ghastly Facadism

By: Cheyenne Morrison

Cheyenne Morrison — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:08:05 +0000

“The city is not a place of make-believe, a place of illusion where little buildings exist to be pinned, like brooches, on the front of bigger structures to which they bear only the most distant of relationships. To turn an older building of distinction into a fancy front door for a new tower is to respect neither the integrity of the new or that of the old, but to render both buildings, in a sense, ridiculous.”

‘FACADISM’ ON THE RISE: PRESERVATION OR ILLUSION?
By Paul Goldberger, New York Times, July 15, 1985
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/15/nyregion/facadism-on-the-rise-preservation-or-illusion.html

By: Nilina

Nilina — Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:05:27 +0000

We are facing the same problem here in Calcutta (Kolkata). “Guardians” of heritage are advocating this approach to allow “development and progress” in the city. I would rather they pull down the entire building and construct something new. Heritage is not about the facade, and good quality new buildings is not about glass facades, especially in tropical climates. Leaving the old facade and constructing something in glass behind that is neither here nor there.

By: George Tomlinson

George Tomlinson — Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:39:59 +0000

It reminds my of a conversation I had many years ago with a very senior Planner in London.I asked him what was a typical background for one of his Planners.He replied with a chuckle.”Dont tell anyone I said so but they are mostly failed architects ,people who would simply never have made it in your profession.” It seems that the two ‘professions’ have now come together in a cosy relationship.Not quite the oldest profession but with similarities.

By: Sambal

Sambal — Mon, 30 May 2016 17:07:50 +0000

I fear it is too late. The horse has bolted having been spurned on by our former mayor of London. So called ‘redevelopment’ is reducing our historic and culturally rich heritage to a sham, Disneylike, ersatz playground for the super rich. An environment stripped of every last ounce of beauty, history, social connection. It is not just money that drives the development ever onwards but a total lack of awareness, care, sympathy, recognition. It is an ignorant machine out of control and there is no one at the reins to apply the break of common sense, decency and rationality. Shame on all those charities that like to applaud themselves for protecting our heritage and the town planners who, like them, meekly acquiesce with these shocking and irreversible decisions. Let’s hope Sadiq Khan has the desire and muscle to put an end to this deeply damaging assault on London and its past.

By: Daniel Snow

Daniel Snow — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:15:07 +0000

I’m also currently carrying out research for my final year dissertation.
Do you think its ever justified to use façade retention? If the building is derelict and the use of façade retention can inject life into it and preserve the streetscape and urban heritage is that not a positive attribute?

By: John Pritchard

John Pritchard — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:39:17 +0000

I am currently in the process of writing my MSc thesis on whether facadism has a negative or positive effect on the built environment and would appreciate users thoughts on this subject area.

Many thanks,
John.

By: Jane Cooke

Jane Cooke — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:13:55 +0000

Certainly makes me want to weep. This kind of practice needs to made illegal.

By: Barbara Grehs

Barbara Grehs — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:35:36 +0000

Valentine Place, London SE1, site of the former Maltina Bakery. Built in 1910 in a beautiful neo-classical style, the building survived in its entirety for 100 years (including a night of bombing during the WWII Blitz). That is, until the developers decided they wanted to demolish it. A local campaign led to the creation of the Valentine Place Conservation Area and effectively helped save the facade. Unfortunately, Southwark Council subsequently approved an application from the developers to demolish over 50 per cent of the conservation area, including all but the facade of the bakery. The building is now being marketed at prices starting at £735,000 for a one bed flat and the bakery’s history (oh the irony) forms part of the pitch: “The Architecture is a mixture of new build warehouse style, reflecting its neighbouring buildings and a unique retained façade of the former Maltina bakery.” (https://www.crestnicholson.com/valentineplace/?gclid=Cj0KEQiA89u1BRDz8enExq7rvN0BEiQAaFCHm47zbD9q7kap2VA8JjjNKtSn58P7M2JLH3ysMEuXedUaAt5H8P8HAQ). In 2013 I spent many months researching the bakery’s architecture and history: original internal features included a magnificent vaulted wooden roof, parquet flooring and a unique tiled inner courtyard with skylight access to roof level. The building could have been retained and re-used but the demolition was approved by the Council and all of these features were destroyed in a perfect example of ‘facadism’. So sad. p.s. If anyone would like a copy of my research, ‘Saving a Southwark Bakery: The Story of 21 Webber Street and The Valentine Place Townscape’, I’d be happy to provide a link to the PDF.

By: Tigger Snapper

Tigger Snapper — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 17:39:48 +0000

Does this count, look at the upper Windows https://flic.kr/p/DQ7z5s

By: Debenie Morse

Debenie Morse — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:02:22 +0000

My God, these are vile! I remember Artillery Lane and Gun Street so well. Atmospheric . . .then.