Introduction

hi hi, we are group 5, (Kotryna, Alan and Rolf) covering the book of Adaptive Reuse of
the built Heritage by Plevoets and van Cleempoel. This book is published in 2019 and
is built up in 2 parts. first a theory part about existing strategies and three strategies
the writers are adding to the classic ones sofar. Part 2 exist of case studies covering
over 20 carefully selected projects and the strategies that have been used are
identified and explained.

With this short overview we want to cover a short introduction of the book that lead
towards the development of three new strategies that are the core part of this book.
the strategies being; aemulatio, facadism and ruination. After a short introduction
towards these strategies, the strategies will be shown one by one, followed by a case
study to explain the way the strategy has been used in the project. Ending with a
notion on if and how these strategies can be helpful with the graduation studio.

FIRST PART

The writers start with defining the 2 most important questions and the core approach
of adaptive reuse, as shown on screen. Then they present 2 main ways to approach
the existing building stock: as monuments or as palimpsests. The first approach is to
conserve and protect the authenticity of the building, the other is to approach a
building as palimpsest. A palimpsest is a piece of parchment that has been wiped
clean and used again, after a while showing the layers it holds. Since the last decade,
new strategies appear that do not fall within the existing categories but that represent
an original view on the existing building and deal with the palimpsest in a novel way.

The author describes these strategies as: aemulatio, facadism and ruination, which
we are now going to describe more in detail.

STRATEGY 1

Aemulatio, copy and improvement as a strategy for adaptive reuse.

Aemulatio is the first strategy presented in the book. This strategy gives a critical look
towards the modern notion of adaptive reuse. The strategy is contrasting the classical way of
adaptive reuse. Thusfar, adaptive reuse where a clear division between the old and the new
is seen as a respectful way of dealing with the historic and architectural <significance> of the
existing building of landscape.

However a shift can be seen making its entrance the last years. An approach where the
designer searches for similarity over contrast, by incorporating the existing, hidden or lost
qualities of the building, and re establish them in a novel way! Starting from the interior.
Established architects in the field, that have done projects in a way of showing contrast, also
are switching their approach in this way. For Example Park Avenue Armory, Herzog & de
Meuron (unlike their usual approach they started from the inside!)
Example Altes neues museum, David Chipperfields Architects.

The copy and the model: translatio, imitation, aemulatioThe concept is coming from a
threefold, translatio, imitatio, and aemulatio. Relating to the copy and the model.
Improvement and copying, used as a method of intervention, but not in the classical way, but
more in an embracing way.

Three terms to describe the nature of the relationship of the copy in relation to the model
are; translation, imitation, aemulatio.

Pigman has classified these three steps into a classification in order of increasing freedom.
Whereby the first step is translatio, referring to translate, clinging to the model and aim for
similarity. Imitatio, as the second step, aims more towards equality rather than similarity.
Whereas the last step aemulatio is the most extreme and surpasses the model, the copy is
an improvement of the model.

Translatio, imitatio and aemulatio as strategies for intervention.

Translation, shows parallels with the act of restoration. (“meaning returing a place to a
known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing elements without the
introduction of new material”) ( article.1,7)

However it’s not meant to just copy the model, translation, means to critical and creative
approach the model, there are decisions made in how you’re translating a model into a copy.

The second step, imitatio. A more liberal approach then translatio, applies more a selective
restoration approach. For example the historical exhibitions rooms of the Rijksmuseum in
Amsterdam. ((case 17) the space for the night watch is carefully picked and elements that
could hinder the appearance of the painting have been left out.)

Another example of imitation is the Park avenue Armory in new York (case 13) the original
historic interior has been brought back that was hidden, but also lighting and wallpapers
have been added carefully to match the model.

Then the third step is aemulatio, which goes beyond the original ideas and strives to surpass
the original both aesthetically and functionally as well.

CASE STUDY

The original museum had been altered in some places before the museum was bombed in
the beginning of WW2 in 1939. After the fall of the Berlin wall, ideas to build up the museum
again were presented right away. A competition where David Chipperfield Architects got a
second place, got eventually chosen to make the design. The approach wasn’t easy, as the
majority was heavily damaged, a reconstruction seemed impossible, an approach that was
too contrasting didn’t fit very well due to the tragic past and could be too confronting. A third
way was chosen here. To incorporate the remaining fabric in the design. Showing the layers
of the building, but also merging new elements into the existing. The concept behind this
approach was striving for continuity rather than contrast, an example of the aemulatio theory.

The Neues Museum in Berlin shows respect to the original concept but also to the tragic
history. Reusing almost all of the remaining fabric. Showing the patina it has collected over
time. Add structures where necessary to show the original idea of the museum. (to make it
readable again) materials that have been used come with a similar patina of the original
buildingpart. Blurring the division between the old and the new. (idea of imitation)

Pick the elements they think are important to show, bring back. But the overall strategy can
be seen as a form of ‘aemulatio’. The new and the old are merged together, but are also
visible
STRATEGY 2

The second intervention strategy to adapt heritage identified is Facadism. For many people,
especially in certain cities, this term is associated with lazy development or an insincere type
of transformation aimed at making money, as it is one of the most extreme forms of
intervention possible.

Facadism is a term used to describe the reuse of the facade of a structure, without
necessarily keeping the original interior intact. In extreme cases, only the front facade could
be left standing while behind this facade an entirely new building is constructed. On the other
hand, it could also be used to describe reusing only the structure of the building, while
replacing the facade. This latter form is more common with newer structures where the
facade is separate from the structure.

Critics of Facadism would tell you it is a cheap and easy way to get out of heritage
restrictions by leaving only the historically valuable elements and replacing the rest with a
low-cost high-profit structure. Others would also argue it avoids the need to properly design
a new facade to fit in with its context. This could mean modern architecture never gets to
integrate with older architecture, which leads to a disorganised and chaotic streetscape.
Thirdly, many argue that such a practice leads to the Disnification of a city. They imply a city
with picturesque facades hiding modern interiors is the same as the carefully organized
scenery you could find in Disneyland. This argument is twofold: first it implies that the city
becomes a decor instead of a living streetscape. This would put a stop to the normal
evolution of a city. Secondly, it refers to the maze of tunnels, cabling and other utilitarian
elements often hidden behind the pretty facades of the Disneyland scenery.

But proponents argue it is one of the most valuable tools of adaptation, where in any other
case the lack of use would lead to demolition. Leaving the facade allows for preservation of
the original context and genius loci, and allows an existing structure to be fully adapted to its
new use without the need for full demolition.

The author argues that a reused facade allows for new architectural opportunies.
The reuse of a facade into a new structure breaks with the modernist thought that a facade
should reflect a building’s internal layout. Windows can either be placed anywhere in the old
facade or the old windows could be kept as is, without necessarily fitting with the interior
behind it. This ‘’dichotomy’’ between interior and exterior allows for experimentation and can
lead to a structure with a surprising and modern interior, which still fits in its original context.
In doing so, the architect can question previously applied practices of hiding interiors behind
ornamental facades, like in Hausman’s Parisian boulevards, but also the modernist motto of
‘’form follows function’’.

An example given in the book is Herzog & De Meuron’s Caixa Forum in Madrid. This
building reuses the facade of a powerstation which previously occupied the side. The
architects bricked up the windows, cut open the ground floor and added a vertical extension
to the roof. The ground floor was then paved and became an extension of the street. Visitors
walk through the open ground floor and enter through a central staircase.
This building reflects the theories of how proper facadism should be applied. The original
exterior, clad in old brick and a new corten steel roof extension, is completely separated from
the interior. New windows were cut where needed, ignoring the original rhytm, creating
tension between facade and interior. The ground floor ceiling and supports are clad in
sharply contrasting triangular shapes of stainless steel, further underlining the disconnect
between facade and interior.

And finally some examples I came across of how facadism should not be done. Especially in
London in recent decades, older buildings are being replaced with housing. However, in
many cases these buildings or their facades are listed monuments. To compromise, many
developers promise to keep the facade - only to then build a new, cheap structure separate
from the facade.

3rd STRATEGY - REUSING THE RUIN

The third strategy seeks to work with ephemeral characteristics of ruins.

The book categorizes ruins as classical and ‘modern’ ruins, which can be a ground for different design
approaches. The classical ruins possess the ‘age’ value. According to Simmel, ruins have ephemeral
characteristics as they are capable of transferring a message. They might have less value as an object itself for
its’ decay but manifest the shift of values. That’s why ruins have been romanticized by many artists and writers in
the past and were the focus point of anti-restoration movement, which celebrated the beauty of decay.

On the other hand, ‘’new’’ ruins are not as inspirational. They are usually overlooked by professionals, which
stimulate more alternative and informal cultural movements. For example, abandoned buildings become a place
for art venues or attract urban explorers.

A different type is the ruins that are a result of some disaster. These kind of ruins can represent trauma and
become a commemorative monument, place for remembrance or forgetting

As ruins often have no use, this reuse strategy is often led by users and is rather informal. The difference of
formal and informal adaptive reuse is that the informal one is led by users and characterized by small
interventions made step by step on a try-and-error principle using materials accessible to the user. This building
adaption is described as ‘vernacular’ as users are the ones to add a new value to the building. As in the case of
Kunsthaus Tacheles in Berlin, an art centre created by a group of artists who squatted the ruins of a former
shopping arcade and started transforming it and adapting to their needs. In this case the building actually has
been protected as a monument not for its original values but for the values and qualities it gained through its
reuse as an art centre.

The book also mentions more formal way of adaptive reuse for ruins. Some architects purposely use the strategy
of ruination to give a new meaning for the building. As in the case neo-gothic building of PC Caritas. Demolition
of the building had started when the project for its adaptation was given to de Vylder Vinck Taillieu. They
continued this process of dismantling the building but in a selective and fragmentary way: what is left is a building
without finishings (e.g. roof covering, floor covering, plasters, etc.); the floors between different levels of the
building have been partly removed; some windows have been completely removed, from others only the frames
have been kept, and for a few, both frame and glazing are kept. In fact, the building is used as an enclosed
exterior. Although the building from the outside still looks like a building rather than a ruin, it is used as an outdoor
space, an enclosed garden for retreat.

Conclusions

To conclude, the use and reuse of heritage is key to its value and meaning for society, that’s why it’s
important for us as students to build a strong theoretical approach towards heritage and understand the
use of adaptive reuse strategies and the challenges they can possess. I think all of the mentioned
strategies could be applied to our cases in some way, but we have to be really critical about the result we
want to get and the consequences of applying one or the other strategy. We should always keep in mind
what value we want to add, but also what value we take away with each of these intervention strategies.

overlapping with the idea of the studio, is coming up with a new way, a new approach. This book
presents such new strategies, it can be helpful in that case.