The debate between modernising or preserving heritage buildings is a fierce one, and with good reason. The historical buildings we inhabit are not just masonry, but cultural and historical materials, remnants of an earlier world, and expressions of national identity. They contain narratives that have been created over centuries and, once they’ve been manipulated, parts of them are lost forever. But, at the same time, these buildings must be modern in function and still visible to their communities. Were they meant to be transformed for the demands of modern life or kept exactly as they were originally designed? Let’s examine the arguments on both sides of this controversial issue.
The Defense of Preservation: Preserving Authenticity and Cultural Memory
As a preserver, historic buildings are immutable pieces of the past, and any dismantling would amount to disrupting the past. Each arch, each window, every tile constitutes a part of the narrative that defines us. These buildings offer something irreplaceable—authenticity. The notion of visiting a Norman castle or a medieval cathedral in the state it was centuries ago is a potent, even mystical, one. It’s an experience that brings us close to history, anchoring us in a place and time that no textbook can achieve.
Take York Minster, for instance. When we walk into its enormous nave, we’re entering a place that’s been revered for millennia. Its gothic arches and stained-glass windows aren’t just beautiful – they’re also the work, sacrifice and passion of generations of individuals. Modernising a room of this sort risks disturbing the very ambience that sustains it. If something is lost after a building is deconstructed, then it isn’t for sale, and for many people, that’s too much.
Then there’s the practical issue: anything modernised for the purpose of meeting today’s demands might not last. As preservationists always say, we should not try to push prevailing fashion onto old buildings: what’s useful or attractive now might seem absurdly out of place in a few decades. Rather, they believe that we should honour and maintain the original design as faithfully as possible, using materials and techniques that can keep these buildings going into the future without obliterating their history.
Modernisation in the Public Interest: Managing Change and Responding to New Demands
The other extreme is those who believe that ancient architecture isn’t a thing of the past, but an evolving living entity. In this vision, if we preserve buildings as unchanging monuments, we risk making them relics, not places to live. When we restore these buildings, we make them available for modern communities so that they remain as much a useful resource as an eye-catcher.
The Tower of London is a classic example. The Tower began life as a castle and royal residence, but over the centuries it became a prison, treasury, public record office and tourist attraction. It has been updated throughout the years with subtle changes that make it safer, easier to get around and can accommodate huge groups of visitors. In rediscovering the Tower through various uses, we’ve preserved it as an important space instead of discarding it.
Even modernisation can make the old more inclusive. Many older buildings weren’t built with accessibility in mind because disability accommodations simply weren’t part of the cultural debate hundreds of years ago. Contemporary interventions, including ramps, lifts or accessible entrances, make these places available to anyone, allowing everyone to experience the heritage that belongs to us all.
And contemporary modifications might even be essential to conservation itself. When we replace older structures with more efficient lighting, heating or cooling, we minimise the environmental cost of keeping them in operation, a crucial point in our climate crisis. It’s a way to reduce historic buildings’ environmental impact while maintaining their beauty without ruining the Earth.
Finding the Middle Way: Empathetic Modernisation
There is an alternative path towards the middle, what some call ‘sympathetic modernisation’. This style honours the structure’s historic integrity while injecting subtle contemporary details that keep it accessible and usable. Sympathetic modernisation is a way of enriching rather than overwhelming a building’s history. It requires planning, architectural considerations and compromises in order that modifications blend in rather than detract from the original vision.
The Great Court at the British Museum exemplifies this perfectly. Norman Foster’s contemporary glass roof reflects light from a previously shadowy courtyard into a meeting space, making it a hub without detracting from the museum’s neoclassical façade. The work preserves the historical fabric and reclaims it for the public good, moving between preservation and modernisation.
A second excellent example is the St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square. The church was undergoing a major renovation, involving the building of new, underground rooms. The contemporary facilities were hidden below the surface, with the façade and sanctuary of the ancient building still intact. This kind of approach can be used to make the building relevant to a contemporary purpose without compromising its aesthetic or historical significance.
Working Through the Mess: How Modernisation Splits the Minds
Not every project is successful, of course, and the choice to modernise can be highly contentious. A recent instance was the conversion of Westminster Abbey’s Triforium into a gallery space. Having a modern lift installed to provide accessibility prompted eyebrows, some of whom questioned whether it undermined the Abbey’s medieval feel. Others suggested that the lift was vital to ensure everyone could enter the gallery, and that it allows the Abbey to exhibit its treasures more efficiently.
The conflict between contemporary necessity and historical fidelity will never disappear. When it comes to deciding what to place on the map, the question of whether we are a legacy of history or contemporary society will keep popping up. It’s a delicate line, and each choice can shape a building’s future for generations.
A Heritage That Evolves
The question of whether historic buildings in the UK should be modernised or retained has many facets: it involves questions of identity, sustainability, access and memory. On the one hand, keeping the original buildings intact preserves the past, letting the world see itself as it did centuries before. In contrast, modernising ensures that these buildings can take on new roles and meet the demands of a new society, and so they’re both relevant and accessible.
There is no single solution in the real world. Every building is a different challenge, and each choice has to be considered carefully. Perhaps the best hope lies in balancing the two: honouring the past, and consciously celebrating the future. By doing so, heritage architects in the UK can allow our historic monuments to both commemorate their era and serve as meaningful contributions to it.
