Notes on Facadism

20 Dec, 2025

If you wander around central Auckland, before too long you'll notice a strange architectural phenomenon. There are plenty of old buildings, and some newer ones, but also some strange mutated combos of the two, with a thoroughly modern building having the facade of an older one seemingly glued onto it.

A particularly blatant example 396 Queen Street, Auckland; image from Google Streetview

If you look around a bit more, you'll find some slightly less awkward looking but still clashing examples around the CBD, including within high profile construction projects like the new downtown convention centre¹.

The New Zealand International Convention Centre (still under construction) image from Google Streetview

This is of course just my subjective aesthetic preference, but I think this is in most cases ugly and pointless. It doesn't feel like keeping de-contextualised bits of old buildings around really provides more than a token link to history².

So who actually wants this?

It doesn't seem to be building conservation people, who hate it and pejoratively call it 'Facadism'. Architects don't seem to be a fan of it too. Both point the finger towards developers and 'bean counters' trying to do the minimum possible to get their developments past planning boards and conservationists. Perhaps most ordinary people's preference for traditional architectural styles plays a part in it, but I doubt the token approach would really satisfy anyone who cares enough to assert their aesthetic preferences.

It all feels like a crappy compromise that pleases nobody. My broad impressions of why this happens is this³:

• Facadism comes from the conflict between two groups with strong aesthetic preferences:
  • Architects who want to build fancy (post-)modernist buildings which win awards and get them elite cred.
  • Building conservation people who want to protect as many 'old' buildings with as few changes to their form as possible (preferably zero, but in practise prefering to minimise external changes).
• Developers don't have a strong aesthetic preference but want to get stuff built while getting the highest return on investment (with the prestige from building something in a high status architectural style as a bonus).
• Everyone else's aesthetic preferences aren't as strongly held as these groups so their preferences don't really get taken into account.
• These two groups' preferences aren't opposed to each other in most circumstances, at least in modern western cities.
  • This is as there are already plenty of still surviving 'old' (pre 1940s) buildings in most major western cities due to blocks to development and the building heritage movement's success.
    • This might be different in places with fewer surviving pre-WW2 buildings?
  • The heritage people don't mind modernist buildings as long as they don't interfere with their precious old buildings.
• But when developers want to build stuff on or adjacent to the site of 'heritage' buildings there is conflict.
  • Facadism is a crappy compromise between these two groups which doesn't really please either of them but minimises conflict by giving the heritage people a token nod towards history. Developers prefer this because it gets conservationists off their back while minimising the amount of resources needed for the 'conservation'.

So what if you aren't a developer, architect or city planner, but you would rather have less of this sort of thing? As a generally pro-development person, I don't really feel that every pre-1940s building in Auckland or anywhere needs to stay around forever, whether in its original form or as part of a new structure. I would certainly like more new buildings, in whatever style is functionally and aesthetically appropriate. Maybe its just a case of us having to find a way of asserting our aesthetic preferences more strongly. I don't have any great ideas of how to do what without spending millions on city centre real estate, but maybe?

#auckland #ideas