Build for Longevity or Building for Temporarity?

One of the big final questions from our debate this week was "When considering the changes that will inherently happen over time and with different inhabitants, should architecture strive to be more temporary"? We didn't get to discuss this question in its entirety due to time, so I thought I would share a few of my own thoughts here. 

First I would like to consider what do we mean by temporary? Temporary in some cases is that the building is built only to be torn down again in a few years. It could also mean temporary in the sense that the building is built as an independent structure so that programming can come and go over time. Another stance is that it could mean constructing the building with reusable materials so that the structure can be strategically taken apart so that the materials can be reused and adapted to the changes in society. 

In the first instance, constructing a building to be torn down completely is not sustainable. The materials are exploited and the time, effort, and costs are insurmountably high. This type of temporary, in my opinion, is not a viable option. 

Option 2, creating an independent structure so that programming is changed over time is a step up. We currently see this in the architectural world, mostly with older buildings. The Cigar Factory in Charleston is one example of many. The independent structure of the building allowed the interior once suited for the production of cigars, to be completely removed and outfitted with the new interior structure to accommodate the changes in the area and the influx of new people. This is how the CACC came to be and has provided architecture students a beautiful space to work. In years to come, the same instance can take place to accommodate new programming in the future. While this is a very viable option, newer buildings today are not built that way. They are rooted in concrete or have many load-bearing walls that make it impossible to change over time. If we could move towards construction methods of the past in an advanced way, architecture can be temporary and still be sustainable in the long run. 

The last approach, designing with materials that can be reused over time, is an interesting option to discuss. Wood as we know it is a renewable resource. It comes from the land and can return to the land after it has run its course. New advancing technologies in the architecture world have been able to eliminate some of the weathering properties of wood, making it a resource that can last longer over time. Mass timber is also an up-and-coming building material that is being to be used more frequently in building construction. Imagine a Mass Timber building being built and then 10 years later, as people and society change, are able to disassemble the structure to then build a new one with the same materials as years before. A sustainable solution, but timely design process to consider connections that can easily go up, but also be taken apart, consideration of the placement of materials in the event they need to be reused, or potentially many other situations to plan for. While it may take careful consideration up front, it could be a viable option for a more temporary architecture that is sustainable and adaptable over time.

Of the three options, what do you think could be best? Are there even more options than the ones listed above? At the end of the day architecture is evolving, and so should our design methods.