Operating in urban environments often requires us to make decisions regarding pre-existing structures. The increase in city density has directly impacted the availability of space for developing new and independent constructions, sparking debates about what stance to take toward built heritage that has become obsolete—either due to deterioration or because it no longer meets the functional needs of the contemporary population. In cases where buildings have seriously deteriorated or new projects differ greatly from the spatial possibilities an old building can offer, preserving only the façade—as an exterior envelope, almost like a superficial element—can be seen as a partial solution that allows for the preservation, in part, of the urban character of a structure if it holds some public or cultural value. The controversy arises, certainly, from the lack of relationship or connection between the transformed interior and the preserved exterior.
In an essay titled "The Ethics of Facadism," Robert Bargery writes: "Facadism, in its most common sense, involves retaining the façade of a building—usually a historic one—to construct a completely new space behind it, as the façade is considered to have some architectural or cultural value (...) Is it really necessary for a building's façade to reflect what is happening behind it? Where it is impossible to preserve a building in its entirety and the loss of at least its interior is inevitable, why not save the exterior?"
- Related article:
Facadism: When Walls Talk, and Lie
