An Addition to a 1927 Bank Lobby
A 1927 neoclassical bank lobby-18 by 12 meters, with two-story Corinthian columns, a coffered plaster ceiling, and pink marble wainscot-has been converted into a community arts center. The center needs 200 square meters of studio space and has two schemes on the table. Scheme A adds a limestone wing with replica Corinthian pilasters and a matching coffered ceiling. Scheme B sets a six-meter glass curtain wall three meters back from the cornice and exposes black steel columns inside. Board criteria: the addition must be visually distinguishable from the historic fabric; character-defining features must be preserved; the budget is capped at 1.2 million; and floodplain rules require raising the new floor 60 cm. A public hearing is scheduled in five weeks, and the local preservation society has already objected to 'fake history.'
1. Evaluate each scheme against the four criteria and name the criterion each fails most clearly.
Read the worked answer
Scheme A fails distinguishability most clearly. Replica Corinthian pilasters and a matching coffered ceiling invite visitors to read new work as original; that is the preservation society's 'fake history' charge, and it is fair. Carved limestone also strains a 1.2 million cap.
Scheme B fails character preservation most clearly, and only conditionally. The three-meter setback protects the cornice and columns, but a six-meter glass plane can flood the lobby with light and visually overpower the plaster ceiling. Cost and distinguishability are its strengths.
Neither scheme is disqualified outright. A wins on continuity and loses on honesty; B wins on honesty and risks the interior's character, which is the criterion the board must police most carefully.
2. Recommend a scheme with two conditions, and explain how the 60 cm floor raise affects the compatibility judgment.
Read the worked answer
Recommend Scheme B with two conditions. First, express the 60 cm raise as a visible plinth in a different material, not as a disguised continuation of the marble wainscot. Second, key the curtain wall's mullion spacing to the bay rhythm of the coffered ceiling so the new facade answers the old one without imitating it.
The floor raise is the decisive argument against Scheme A. A replica Corinthian order sitting on an invented 60 cm base misrepresents the order's proportions; the imitation is therefore inaccurate as well as dishonest. A modern plinth can accept the required height truthfully, which is why the floodplain rule pushes the decision toward B.