The most interesting architectural stories of recent months are not Adrian Brody’s Oscars to play the architect, nor is Donald Trump’s executive order “promoting beautiful federal civil architecture.” It was a revelation that the first building to win the prestigious Sterling Award would be demolished late last year.
The 100th anniversary building of Salford University was completed only in 1995 and was largely vacant for nearly a decade. The plan to knock it down has frustrated people who argued that reusing the building is greener than replacing it. Former RIBA president Jack Pringle suggests that all Sterling Prize winners need to be “listed” and introduces more regulatory barriers to change or replace them. But if an architect did the better job of creating a beautiful, practical and adaptable building, would such protection really be necessary?
Around the same time that Centenary Building was receiving praise from the building facility, the Iconoclastic Thinker Stewart brand published a book, both presenting BBC television series. How to learn about buildings. The brand was surprisingly critical of many modern architecture, but his work was more than complaining about Carbuncle. Instead, he made an impressive and powerful argument. All buildings are forecasts, and all forecasts are wrong.
The error may be obvious and responsible. Flat roofs often leak, large windows trap the sun’s heat, and hard surfaces reflect noise. No matter how beautiful your award-winning library looks on Instagram, such a failure, if it’s not available, will not be loved.
However, in many cases, predictions are incorrect. Because they were never the right thing to do. Inventing from air conditioners to cars, shopping malls and the internet has changed what you can do in a building and what you need from them. The Victorian architects of Victorian warehouses cannot reasonably blame them for not expecting the rise of shipping containers. Nor are the designers of Georgia’s great townhouses because they didn’t foresee the arrival of a safe elevator. For a brand, the mark of a good building is to adapt gracefully in the face of change.
Based on the work of architect Frank Duffy, the brand has outlined six different layers of a building, ranging from the site to the structure (decades) to the skin and services (cladding and wiring may change every decade) and to the space program (which may change every few years) to “frequently moving furniture and fixtures). The building adapts well if slower layers such as structures cannot prevent the change into faster layers.
So, what kind of buildings are aging gracefully? The brand outlines three approaches:
First, “High Road”: the world slowly builds beautiful things to preserve it, such as the Rouen Cathedral, Chatsworth House, and Parthenon. But what’s more practical is the “low road” and relies on simple, unpretentious shapes and structures. Older warehouses and terraces can withstand because they can be easily modified or expanded.
What is absolutely avoided is the third way for brands to sloppy as “magazine architecture.” It looks good in the photos, but it’s a clever look that is unrealistic and inflexible for those who are unhappy enough to live in them. The geodesic dome looks amazing, even soundproof, insulate, expand, and want to erect the set of shelves.
Therefore, all buildings are forecast. But why is it as convenient as that perspective? Many other things are also predictable. Marriage is predictive. So does new business. The same goes for agencies such as the British Parliament and NATO. And because all predictions are wrong, marriages, businesses and institutions must also change, whether or not they change gracefully.
Insert your own spectrophor here: strong foundation, expensive renovations, endless leaks. You can push analogies too much. But the brand’s ideas remain insightful. Our lives are shaped by relationships and organizations that must continue to adapt to changing circumstances.
Airport bookstores have lots of books on corporate adaptability. If it’s simple, spare and ready for pivots, not low road facilities, what is a startup? In contrast, marriages and institutions lean heavily towards the highway’s idea that nothing changes, or can, or can change. Or perhaps they’re kind of like magazine architecture, designed to be photogenic, but rotten underneath the surface.
In fact, marriage often adapts well. Beyond wedding vows and unrealistic dresses, a good marriage is a low-stage structure. It is constructed with time elements to adjust as needed. Not made for shows.
Changes in the system are not that easy. Many institutions are high roads at best and at worst magazine architecture. Much of their dignity and power comes from the pretense of permanence. NATO certainly needs to be flexible, but isn’t the overall point of NATO a certain indomitable homeostasis? It may be said that the same applies to the US Constitution.
These institutions commit themselves to the grand, noble and often expensive roads. But they also need to perform a practical function. That is, you have to adapt. Otherwise, we can all see the crew of destruction grow more boldly.
Written for and first published Financial Times March 14, 2025.
A loyal reader may enjoy the book that started it all, the secret investigative economist.
A storefront was set up in a bookstore US and England. Links to Bookshop and Amazon may generate referral fees.
