Our preferred option is habitually to clear the site and start again, but carbon calculations too often advise that this is not appropriate. An alternative has been to retain the facade leaving it looking out of place, but why not retain the building? Adaptive reuse of, and where appropriate extensions to, existing buildings can be more challenging, but more rewarding against many of the measurements we can apply including the continuity of place. Is it the designer’s obligation to put zero carbon first?
This debate will look at the issues from both sides. The audience will be invited to vote for the motion at the start of the session and again at the end once the arguments have been aired.
Motion: Planning must presume in favour of retrofit for whole life carbon and cultural reasons
Chair: Isabel Allen, Editor, Architecture Today
For the motion:
Why planning is the key to building retrofitting and reuse
Estelle Dehon, KC, Cornerstone Barristers
The designer’s responsibilities for whole life carbon
Peter Fisher, Director, Bennetts Associates
Against the motion:
What about viability?
Jack Conroy, Savills
When demolition and rebuilding is the right decision
Jo Bacon, Partner, Allies and Morrison
