In Australia, this sort of facadism was rife in the 1970s, approaching extremes where in sydney a 3 storey  classical facade is stuck on a multistorey building which totally overwhelms it, and destroys even a sence of a previous building being onthe site. another group of 2-3 story buildings in melbourne were cutted for a ssingle story supermarket with roof top car par, with the upper parts of the facade proped like some skeleton of a building, not even with the window frames retained.  The habit was scorned by the heritage practitioners in the 1980s and 90s with demands for better conservation of the whole fabric, at least for the more important places. It has been reappearing in recent years, sometimes with the compromise that the front room of a building is retained, or where the floor levels of the new building stuck on the back at least match approximately the original floors. But you still see where 4 modern floors are sat behind the original 3, with floor levels cutting accross windows. 

What is nearly always lost, is the sence of the interior spaces, a wharehouse beomes apartments, small offices become open plan. lightwells, passages, stairs, etc disappear.

Many still get away with it because of the domination of the exterior architectural aesthetics in some heritage assessments, although that was probably not the intention. the fact that these interior spaces no longer meet the needs of modern office, accomodation or whatever use, is itself an indication of their hsitorical imporatance reflecting the way we used to build and use buildings.






This evening I attended a meeting at which an architect and his developer
team proposed the preservation of the exterior facade of a building, then gutting
the interior, roof, interior walls, ripping the earth below, and creating a
modern building beneath the old skin of the building. How do you feel about
gutting an historic building? Is this consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards?

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.