An Argument for Maintaining Obsolete Architecture:Studies into the relational character of tectonics and program when adapting an existing building.

Problem statement<br/>What are the tectonic rules and principles that either hinder or underpin transformation of a building’s program? Based on fundamental tectonic analysis this article critically discusses why/how a rather young office building - representative of a global commercial typology - now faces potential demolition. The building was once conceived as a prestigious ‘architecturally designed headquarter’, symbolizing a multinational corporation’s future vision and market position, whereas today it is considered as an outdated building type that no longer serves its purpose or aligns with today’s functional and aesthetic preferences.<br/> <br/>The objective of the article <br/>Adaptive reuse and transformation of existing buildings are critical architectural strategies for reducing the building industry's environmental (GhG) impact by decreasing the demand for new construction (IPCC, 2023). Thus, reprogramming existing structures for reuse and to enable maintaining their relevance is arguably a less resource-intensive intervention than demolition for building new construction. (Eberhardt et al. 2022). However, existing structures hold inherent tectonic features based on their original programming that may challenge repurposing (Cramer &amp; Breitling, 2007). This tension between tectonics and program forms the core of our case study examining Nauticon, a 1990s Copenhagen office building representing a typology often subjected to demolition. Modern office buildings with industrialized construction systems typically lack recognition as valuable architectural heritage, raising questions about preserving unloved/unappreciated buildings of our recent past (Realdania, 2024). By identifying the friction points between Nauticon's original/present programming and tectonics, this article aims to discuss less destructive and more meaningful building practices.<br/><br/>Analysis/discussion<br/>Nauticon was built between 1989-90, in the Southern part of the harbor of Copenhagen, Denmark. The building complex features four 5-story Y-shaped volumes connected by three transparent entrance halls. The eastern facades are dominated by blue-coated reflective glass, while the north/west facades feature load-bearing concrete elements. <br/>This article analyses friction points between program and tectonics across three interconnected levels, which also inform the discussion of how legislative framework impact Nauticon's architectural potential.<br/> <br/>1. The context vs. the building body<br/>This section points to the architectural visions and the state of industrialized construction in Denmark that have influenced Nauticon’s development. This includes the site and body of the building; how are the material choices defining the composition of the building (heavy, flexible, durable, kit-of-parts, etc.), and its historical characteristics? It also explores the legal requirements governing the building's reuse and its immediate context, noting how demands for recreational areas and supporting facilities have changed dramatically over the past three decades.<br/> <br/>2. The building body vs. the floor plan.<br/>Nauticon's Y-shaped volumes were conceived as "universal building blocks" adaptable to any orientation and location. The Y-shaped floor plans with load-bearing facades - designed for maximum interior flexibility and office functionality - now represent the primary obstacles for reprogramming the building. This section studies the building principle; how does the structural layout define the building’s program and vice versa, its usability, spatial qualities, flexibility and future adaptability? Additionally, contemporary legislation regarding access, escape routes, and daylight requirements for spatial depths limits Nauticon's reprogramming potentials.<br/> <br/>3. Floor plan vs. specific construction solutions<br/>This section analyses specific design elements as window positioning in the load-bearing concrete facade. These windows were optimized for seated office workers rather than up-standing positions. Similarly, structural elements and joints were dimensioned and optimized for the functionality of the building, making substantial alterations both technically challenging and financially expensive. These design choices create both constructional and legal barriers to physical interventions and raises questions regarding design details and rhetoric; how are the details generated, and which approaches are applied to enhance specific features? What are the functional or aesthetic role models?<br/> <br/>Conclusion<br/>Analysis of Nauticon’s tectonic language, current program, and potential future use, reveals significant design, construction, and legal barriers in the process of transforming the building for new use. The study concludes that aligning programs with existing building tectonics minimizes necessary extensive alterations. This reduced intervention scope—particularly for structural systems—is essential for minimizing environmental impact, waste generation, and virgin material consumption. Deeper understanding of a building's history, design intent, and construction principles enables more appropriate functional adaptations. Creating new relevance in existing structures is critical for preserving building resources in place—without it, buildings lose meaning, deteriorate, and face demolition.<br/>Perspectives<br/>How do we find the potential-value / relevance-value / becoming-value of a building?<br/>Would more open interpretation of the legal framework be beneficial to preserve buildings and their relevance? <br/>Can market forces be challenged? Is it sustainable that financial incentives determine what a building's new program should be? Perhaps it’s more appropriate to assess what is possible to create/achieve with the existing building at hand. <br/>Are modern buildings over-programmed and too purposely designed? How can we design for adaptability and prepare buildings for future changes and different needs? Design for disassembly with the purpose of remodeling them later. <br/>References<br/>Calvin, K. et al. (2023). IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.<br/>Cramer, Johannes, and Stefan Breitling (2007). Architecture in Existing Fabric - Planning, Design, Building. Basel Switzerland; Birkhauser.<br/>Eberhardt, L. C. M., Garnow, A., Birgisdottir, H., Rose, J., &amp; Kragh, J. (2022). Klimapotentialet ved renovering kontra nedrivning med nybyg. (1 udg.) Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø (BUILD), Aalborg Universitet. BUILD Rapport Bind 2022 Nr. 37<br/>Realdania (2024). Klimavisioner for modernismens bygningskultur<br/>Realdania (2024). Renovering er bedst for klimaet - Konklusioner fra udviklingsprojektet Klimadata for renovering. <br/><br/><br/><br/>