Facade or Interior Experience - Which is Better?

Zumthor says, "We need to regain power and give architecture qualities that no one else can so that it is valued." Architecture has become so complex that Zumthor felt the only way we can save architecture is to concentrate on one element. That one element is to give a message to the facade or envelope so that we are able to save architecture. While the facade is a major component of a building design and it can provide visual interest from the outside looking in, but can it really save architecture?

Facades have very many qualities that extend beyond aesthetics. Some facades play a role in the concept of the design, they can provide building performance to optimize the building's energy usage, and they can ground a design in its surrounding by a few facade design decisions. All these things are great, but can they really save architecture.

Isn't architecture about the quality of space? Isn't it about the people and the way we use spaces? Isn't it about providing built environments that facilitate change in society? Is this how we can save architecture, by focusing on why built spaces are created in the first place? Yes, a pretty building on the outside can be nice, but if the quality of the interior space is terrible, the architecture is terrible. If it isn't to some degree useful, then is it a failure? At the end of the day, both aspects of architecture are important, but to say one element over the other has the ability to save architecture as a whole is difficult to suggest.