Let us take the example of a building. Is it better to try to preserve every building that is redundant in its entirity, but risk finding no sustainable way to ensure its survival. Or is it better to conserve only a key part of a building, and accept the rest will ahve to be changed to allow the building to find a sustainable use. In other words, is it quantity or quality, preservation or conservation.

To take your example of a building - in the ideal world, there would be no buildings at risk, because a new use would be found in every case, and more to the point - a use that did not damage that building.

However, we do not live in an ideal world, so some level of compromise has to be found. The worst case results in the complete loss of a building by demolition and redevelopment of the site.

The preservation of a "facade only" is very much, in my opinion, a poor second place to restoring the whole building. And the situation becomes much poorer if it is only selected features which are retained.

It is a pity that developers and their clients cannot see the utility in keeping the old! Unless they are forced to do so! Especially as some modern materials are not a patch on the quality of the originals.

I could list many examples to support each of these points. In another post I'll add at least a few to back up what I have just typed.

I really dont know to say, but the date is a little suspicious. That said this is not an uncommen problem, so if it was true...

An example ot two, at least recent case I am aware of.

The facade of a building in Grey Street (Newcastle upon Tyne) is grade 2 listed. The new owner decides to knock down all but the facade, and rebuild behind. Result is that the facade collapses during the building works!

Another building, that had been a bank, with a very nice (and listed) ceiling was transformed into a bar/club. The ceiling was retained, but the other changes to the interior rather took away the impact. The lighting was not well designed, either (IMO).

There are a lot of similar examples.

Sorry wondered what happened to this post, it was supposed to go on the NWI forum. Back to the thread ----->

Yes indeed. Every building has a use life, and it is impossible to point at most structures and say ahh thats the building as it should be, thats the point to preserve. Buildings do not function like this. So yes, I dont like modernisation, but where would we be if the Georgians had decided not to modernise a medieval Britain for example, or imagine if the poster child of modernity, Art Deco had never occured? Esp re. Georgians, how many Georgian facades have been slapped over much earlier buildings.