How to preserve (or not) in Europe?

How to choose what to preserve over the whole and which approach suits different buildings is central in preservation theory, cultural heritage studies and decision-making studies.

The reuse of existing buildings is a central issue for the present of the Western world and shapes our future, both in terms of sustainability and preservation theory.

Interpretative graph of the contemporary Preservation field. © Elena Guidetti, 2021

Preservation is overtaking us

“12% of the world’s surface is preserved.”

The adaptation of existing buildings has increased in architectural practice and theoretical production during the last decades. A preservation trend is overtaking us; last years have seen a growing number of preserved buildings and an increasing shorter time-span. As Koolhas outlines in his exhibition Cronocaos the gap between the present and what was preserved is shrinking. In 2017 the 12% of world's surface is preserved. In 1818, it was 2,000 years. In 1900, it was only 200 years. And near the 1960s, it became 20 years. During the last ten years, in the European context, the more general phenomenon of buildings' adaptation has increased. From 2010, the renovation market in Europe overtook the market for new buildings.

Preservation boundaries are blurred

argues that preservation is a living concept, allowing a critical choice in the designation of “heritage”. Counterpreservation argues the relevance of intentional use of architectural decay in existing buildings. In critical heritage studies, and in particular in "future heritage studies" the Post-preservation theory embraces the inevitable evolution of the existing , considering the loss as a ‘potentially generative power’. Loss is also presented as a part of the currency that gives our heritage value. These future heritage studies define ‘heritage’ as ‘both endangered and positively valued’, and introduce the term that includes traces, redundant objects, waste.

Sustainability matters

“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.”

Recently, the preservation argument has been expanded to reuse existing buildings regardless of their official “historic” label, embracing the sustainability agenda. The building sector is responsible for increasing GHG emissions and generating a significant impact on a massive scale, producing heavy consumption of natural resources and wastes. In response to these challenges, the field of buildings has faced a shift in many instances proposing strategies not only in retrofitting existing buildings, but also in adapting the existing to suit new uses. Within these studies, emerges the crucial importance of materials in place as a stock of energy, or in environmental engineering terms 'embodied energy'. Today is fundamental to recognize existing stock, as an important energy, cultural, social and architectural resource in shaping our future. The paradigm Reduce/Reuse/Recycle stands for a successful shift from waste to reusable material.

Adaptive reuse scenarios

A shift of perspective in evaluating the existing built environment based on what they can become, despite what they were, could be beneficial in answer to the general questions: How to preserve (or not) in Europe?

Among the option, the adaptive reuse seems the more inclusive one (when a change of use occurred). Adaptive reuse can be seen in multiple ways. Its edges are not sharp. Its use is not uniform. If we consider the term adaptive reuse as 'the process of reusing an obsolete and derelict building by changing its function and maximizing the reuse and retention of existing materials and structures', then it is necessary to open to the numerous possibilities of intervention and start investigating existing buildings in terms of their transformative potential.