| dc.description.abstract | In New York engineer Reginald Pelham Bolton’s 1911 obsolescence study “Building for Profit: Principles Governing the
Economic Improvement of Real Estate”, he foretold a truth that remains today, that “the useful or economic existence of
all classes of buildings, in the rapid march of modern conditions, is constantly shortening” (Bolton, 68). He details how
the parts of buildings lose value at different rates—as they physically deteriorate, materials wear and things fall out of style,
but even more quickly, he notes, do our structures become economically obsolete. Then and still today the durability of
building materials is the least of our concerns when considering functional obsolescence. The physical is almost certain to
exceed the economic durability of a building as a whole.
Designers and developers recognize this gap between physical and economic obsolescence, and in response have called
for a moratorium on new construction—opting instead to convert existing structures to meet changing programmatic
demands. Yet in these conversions, we use the same extractive methods as new construction, filling existing frames and
envelopes with non-structural light framing to differentiate the space inside. In this paradigm, to build inside an existing
frame still relies first on the tool of demolition.
The uneven wearing that Bolton wrote about in 1911, appears again in the iconic shearing layers diagram from Frank
Duffy and Stewart Brand, who make a very similar economic argument, demonstrating that the economically fast-wearing
interior layer accumulates the most investment over time, rebuilt on a cycle of every 5-10 years. We are facing a turning
point in building; as of 2020, over 35% of total construction activity is renovation work, and we are making increasingly
rapid changes to building function. This creates a paradigm of fit out architecture that answers unpredictability and
shifting values with indeterminacy, perpetuating a cycle of repetitive building. This project takes the converted structure
as its starting point, experimenting with disassembly, reassembly, and the boundaries between fit out and frame, sited
within a larger material and economic framework that expands the definition of “value” beyond the monetary to include
material resources embodied by a given structure. | |
