Interior and Envelope - Both/And?

Looking at Zaera and Zumthor’s positions on envelope and interior, it seems odd that the two are set up as competing ideas in this class. Envelope and interior, while occasionally historically related, don’t need to be treated as different sides of a coin. Often times a piece of architecture focuses on the development of a particular aspect of a project, whether the reflective skin of the Birmingham train station or the quality of light and intensity of space in the Resurrection Chapel near Stockholm. While both of these projects clearly have an envelope or interior focus, respectively, I don’t know that it is always appropriate for this to be the case.

http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/azpml-birmingham-new-street-railway-station-javier-callejas-designboom-06.jpg

In commercial architecture where only a shell is designed, the project would naturally focus on the envelope. A block of residences may focus on the interiors because it is primarily focused on the occupant. However there are instances in architecture, perhaps more permanent places, something that we seem to be building less of, that could be both an interior and exterior exercise. When we focus on the envelope, and the political role that it plays, it often becomes an object. If an interior has a well developed sense of place, but no street presence, the experience of that place can be missed.

I do not mean to argue that an interior quality needs to directly represent itself on the exterior, I’m only asking why we don’t strive for both. An envelope that conveys an appropriate presence, urban or otherwise, and an interior that is more than a revolving door of tennant revisions, but an actual place, something that can be appreciated beyond the five year lease of a space, or outlive the first generation of tenants in an apartment.