Bias of the Facade vs the Interior on a 'Public' Standpoint

 Facade or interior? Which is more important in playing a cohesive role to the community at large? In this short blog I will explain my opinion on the two and give reasoning for why I think one is more important than the other with exceptions. 

People dwell, sleep, eat (primarily), work, and do arguably most of their lives inside of an envelope. Our culture is when we've had a long day, we go home and sit on the couch and watch television to rest and recoup. The interior of our walls is our safe space, away from the elements and creates a setting of privacy that we all need to have. 

The envelope and facade protects us from the elements we wish to exclude ourselves from. The facade works as a thermal barrier that either protects us from the heat or cold. It works sustainability to save energy and keep living costs down. There is no doubt the interior and facade both play a major role cohesively in architecture to support its users. 

While the interior serves as a more quantitative role and function space, considering circulation, program, and commodity; the interior is not a public space for all 24/7. Most public buildings close down outside business hours, leaving a blank and lifeless building standing along with no purpose during these times except to look and glance at the facade. The exception to this is the very few public buildings that are open all year round with no exceptions to the public, like grand central station in NYC. Outside of these few completely public buildings, most structures are not meant for the public at all, yet they create space in the public realm. 

The envelope and facade however, are meant for anyone to glaze onto it from afar (or close up) depending on location. The businesses I mentioned earlier are still present even after hours, either contributing to a culture and desire to be in a space or diluting the public atmosphere. This is where the facade plays a role. The cities with the most tourists and strongest culture have unique facades that contribute to these aspects rather than dilute. I believe we as architects need to ask ourselves, who are we designing for? A single user or the community? When we design a facade, one can argue we are designing to enhance a community, when we design an interior, one can argue we are designing for a specific user group. 

Good facades can contribute to the functionalism needed on the interior to make a space work, while a strong interior with minimal thought to a facade creates something rather weird and unattractive on the exterior. Without a well thought out facade, we are not designing for the public cohesively, rather than just a user group. 

Interiors are great and as I mentioned, serve a role of functionalism need to support program. But with an interior that serves every purpose, we are incentivising people to stay inside. Considering so many Americans lack daily exercise, don't receive healthy amounts of sun, lack community, and much of the population falls under obesity, should we continue to support such regerious strictly indoor activity? We are beings designed to live outside and create shelters for sleeping and protection. We are falling further and further away from how we were built to live. With proper urban spaces and attractive facades, one may see the argument in how this will incentivise users to explore, visit spaces and glance onto buildings from a 'public' distance; further incentivising communication, community, exercise, or curiousity. I believe these elements would contribute to all more than an interior with spectacular spaces. 

In cases of buildings that create congregation and are completely public, this is where my opinion differs. This is the time and space in which interiors are arguable as important as a facade if not more. These building do everything I said, but allow users to feel comfortable indoors for a time being. After that time people are still forced to leave, communicate, walk around (exercise), and socialize. Whether that be indoor or outdoors, they still need to travel back outside to eventually go home per se. These spaces include cultural buildings, community centers, spaces of worship, or public terminals. 

To diluted my argument down to a single point, buildings who are completely meant for the public are the exception on whether if the facade or interior is more important. Otherwise, a facade contributes more to the important attributes that I believe create strong communities. 

The Administrative Center from Jesenice as designed by Studio Kalamar - an example of a facade (in my opinion) that contributes to a place and the public realm. With it is not a public building, it enhances public spaces. 

http://decojournal.com/25-stunning-architectural-facades/