The Enduring Question: How Long Should Our Buildings Last?
The imperative to construct buildings with enduring qualities is increasingly driven by concerns regarding embodied carbon, leading to a reevaluation of how long structures should be expected to stand. Historically, prominent figures like 19th-century critic John Ruskin advocated for perpetual construction, a sentiment often unmet in modern commercial building practices, where lifespans are frequently cut short. For instance, the Centenary Building at the University of Salford, a Stirling Prize winner, faced demolition merely three decades after its completion, highlighting a prevalent short-term approach to architectural design. This trend raises fundamental questions about the ecological and economic implications of rapid construction and demolition cycles, prompting a critical examination of what constitutes a reasonable and sustainable lifespan for a building.
Determining a building's optimal lifespan is a multifaceted challenge, transcending mere physical durability, as structures can often be maintained indefinitely with proper care. The core issue, as Arup's Mel Allwood explains, lies in predicting a building's ongoing utility. Iconic structures like the Pantheon, with their basic and timeless functions, illustrate how adaptability to fundamental human needs contributes to extreme longevity. In contrast, even state-of-the-art Victorian hospitals, once considered cutting-edge, eventually become obsolete due to evolving functional requirements. Beyond practical utility, cultural and aesthetic values also play a significant role; while Victorian houses were once deemed unfashionable, their inherent charm and spaciousness now make them highly desirable for various adaptive reuses, underscoring the unpredictable nature of societal appreciation. Architects like Peter Söderman and Sou Fujimoto emphasize a shifting paradigm towards designing for extended lifespans, advocating for buildings that can serve for a century or more, rather than the conventional 50-60 years.
Achieving architectural longevity requires a strategic approach that prioritizes adaptability and embraces the concept of 'design for disassembly.' Laura Baron of Purcell cautions against relying solely on subjective notions of beauty, stressing the importance of practical design elements such as generous floor-to-ceiling heights and ample space, which enable buildings to accommodate diverse future functions. Modern construction, often characterized by complex, glued-together components, inadvertently hinders adaptive reuse and repair, contrasting with older structures that offer inherent flexibility. The tragic fate of the Grand Ring at Expo 2025 Osaka, designed for temporary use and now facing incineration despite its architectural merit, serves as a poignant reminder of the limitations architects face in dictating a building's ultimate destiny. This scenario underscores the necessity for broader policy changes that encourage sustainable building practices, including higher upfront investments in adaptable and demountable designs, to mitigate environmental impact and promote a more circular economy in construction.
The pursuit of architectural excellence extends beyond immediate aesthetic appeal; it demands a visionary commitment to sustainability and future generations. By designing structures that are inherently adaptable, emotionally resonant, and considerate of their entire lifecycle, from construction to potential deconstruction and reuse, we can transcend transient trends and contribute to a built environment that truly endures. This forward-thinking approach not only reduces ecological footprints but also fosters a deeper connection between communities and their physical surroundings, cultivating a legacy of resilience and responsible stewardship.