behind the scenes

The main focus of the class's conversation was about whether or not architects should relinquish the design of the interior spaces to other professionals, and focus solely on the design of the envelope. My thoughts on this were, why would focusing on the facade mean that we could no longer affect the design of the interior spaces. And it seems that the implication is that the facade is only the skin, the exterior of the building. And that it is only seen from the outside. But you are not limited to only viewing the facade from outside the building. From the inside of the building, behind the facade, you can still see and interact with its design. There are many examples of buildings where the atmosphere, layout or materials are dependent on, or caused by, the facade design.

For example, the Federation Square building by LAB architects. The quality of the interior space is determined by the geometric design of the facade. A different facade treatment would have produced a drastically different space.


Another example would be like the Sam Telmo Museum, where the harsh perforated facade creates a delicate and serene atmosphere in the interior.



Can we not use such a versatile tool such as the facade to design interior spaces as well? Perhaps we cannot affect the floor plan layouts, or specific sizing restrictions put in place by clients and users, but that does not mean architects must be at the mercy of whomever is designing the interior, and always design the facade as a separate part of the building. At the very least, if the ability to design the interior spaces is limited, the architect can still have a say by using the facade as another tool - as a way to affect the interior and exterior of the building.