A 1958 Market in Badajoz: Rationalist or Ordinary Shed?
A 1958 municipal market in Badajoz is scheduled for demolition. It has a thin-shell concrete roof, a glazed corner tower, brick infill, and an open-plan hall. A local group calls it 'the city's best rationalist building' and wants it listed; the developer calls it 'an ordinary industrial shed'. The building has been altered: some glazing replaced, a mezzanine added, and the concrete shell has cracks. The city has a budget for either a heritage assessment or emergency propping. The market is still used by 14 traders. The mayor asks you to judge whether the claim of architectural significance is defensible, what evidence you would require, and how a PAU-style answer should distinguish 'modern' from 'avant-garde'.
1. Is the claim of 'rationalist' significance defensible? What criteria and evidence would you use?
Read the worked answer
Reasoning. The label must be tested against criteria, not asserted because the building is old or uses concrete.
- Rationalist criteria: expression of structure, unadorned geometry, use of modern materials, and a functional plan. A thin-shell concrete roof can express structure, but it may also be an engineering solution rather than a rationalist manifesto.
- Evidence needed: architect and engineer names, original drawings, construction date, contemporary reviews, and comparison with documented rationalist markets or halls. The glazed corner tower and open hall may support the claim, but alterations and the mezzanine affect integrity.
- Distinguish 'modern' from 'avant-garde': many post-war buildings use concrete and glass without being avant-garde. 'Modern' is a broad condition; 'avant-garde' implies innovation, polemic, and a conscious break with tradition. The market may be modern and locally significant without being a canonical avant-garde work.
A defensible answer would say the claim is plausible but unproven. It should recommend a heritage assessment before demolition, not immediate listing on the strength of a style label.
2. How should the city choose between heritage assessment and emergency propping?
Read the worked answer
Reasoning. This is a sequencing problem: safety and documentation are not mutually exclusive, but the budget forces a priority.
If the concrete shell has cracks and there is any risk of collapse, emergency propping comes first because people and the building are at immediate risk. A structural engineer should assess the cracks and specify propping. Heritage assessment can begin in parallel through photographic and drawn recording, which is relatively inexpensive and can be done before or during propping.
If the cracks are stable and there is no immediate danger, the heritage assessment should come first because it informs whether propping or demolition is appropriate. The city should not demolish before recording. A practical answer is: commission a structural report immediately; if risk is high, prop and record; if not, assess and monitor. The decision should be evidence-led, not driven by the developer's label of 'ordinary shed'.
3. How would you argue for adaptive reuse to the traders and developer?
Read the worked answer
Reasoning. An argument for reuse must address economic and practical concerns, not only architectural history.
For the traders, the key point is continuity: the market already works as a covered hall with 14 businesses. A reversible refurbishment can retain the shell and open plan, improve lighting and services, and keep stalls in use during phased works. For the developer, the argument is that a distinctive structure can anchor a mixed-use scheme and avoid the cost and controversy of demolition. The thin-shell roof is a visible asset if cleaned and repaired.
The city should commission a costed reuse study rather than promise that reuse is cheaper. It should also be honest that not every modern building can be saved. If the structure is unsafe or the costs are disproportionate, recording and selective retention may be the fallback. The aim is a reasoned decision, not a slogan about 'rationalism'.