281–282 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article uses the word "façade" 7 times in reference to both the older and newer building. My takeaway is the emphasis on "technology" in the article is on form rather than function.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facade The article is using definition #1. I don't think the word is meant to imply anything beyond the literal, "the front of a building".
It's an interesting idea worth exploring... ...but comparing a bank (a building that in 1891 had to LOOK expensive) and student flats (a building that has to BE cheap) results in the rather underwhelming discovery that because they had wildly different budgets with completely different aesthetic aims, they ended up with different built qualities. Shocking, isn't it? If they want to make an apples-for-apples compariso…
> "With the rarest of exceptions, there is no "survivorship bias"." A lot of UK housing built circa 1900 - 1930 was not well built at all; Building regulations as such hardly existed and there was a lot of trial and error. Buildings did indeed fall down.
I didn't mean to imply that no 1900 houses have fallen down, just to say that the incredibly vast majority of them are still around today.
Look at any city and you will see rows upon rows of ~1900s terraces. Still mostly upright. These typically only fall down when you let the roof go.
This is in contrast to North America that at the same time was building their houses out of timber. Not only does the material need better maintenance, but the difference between tearing it down and building a new one and refitting is much less than with a double-layer brick build. People want to tear them down and build something better.