n reference to the proposed topic in the editorial, and illustrated with the cover picture, we have thought that it would be interesting to provide an example of what it can be discovered or learnt if one observes a well-known building once it has been worn out by the time and usage. Taking the opportunity that the Building of the University of Alicante (Spain), created by well-known architect Álvaro Siza -where the Chancellor’s Office and the Service Department can be found- was being repaired, this article author entered in it in order to file the causes and effects of such an intervention, and to be able to get to some reflections from it.

Having been finished in 1998, it can be said that it is a new building, apart from being one of the architectural icons of the campus and being highly regarded for its aesthetic and compositive values. Inspired in the Portuguese traditional architecture (which is usually present in the Siza construction), the architect made the building recreate it both, in the plastic treatment of the clean, white surfaces; as well as in the plain exterior walls disposition and its internal portico around the patio. Due to the fact that the campus has a regular grid shaped pattern and it is situated next to a longitudinal axis, the building "stretches" over 100 metres along the promenade (1-2), and is formed by two slightly convergent blocks that enclose the elongated patio inside. The intention behind its construction was to shelter the University main political-administrative services (studies and offices), in addition to a small assembly hall.

Why did we choose this building as an example for the conflict between the original design and its later usage? As it was said in the current publication editorial, a building failure causes may be grouped in two large categories: on the one hand, those conception mistakes regarding its usage and the relationship between the building and its inhabitant; on the other hand, construction errors, either because the design was inadequate or due to a wrong implementation. This building is chosen because, despite all its values, it has both important concept and construction malfunctions. Some of them are described below. It is worth saying that we do not intend to disqualify Álvaro Siza's design with this article, nor do we want to give a daring evaluation of this building, but we want to show, just for a moment, a side of architecture that isn't much estimated in the disciplinary scope: the fact that the building wears out due to its usage and age.

Conflicts between the design and the real usage are probably the most serious ones that a building can provoke, since they usually don’t have a solution and they continually disturb the user. The Chancellor’s Building, having been carefully analyzed from this point of view, provides some important arguments for criticizing. For its conception, this building is almost completely closed to its surroundings. Therefore, it acquires a light inflexible or indifferent appearance, which is vaguely diminished by the warmth of its finish effects and by the studied ornamental variety. This not only brings about being perceived as an unfriendly piece in the campus, but also having its long inside corridors illuminated only by its extremes (3). The architect made all the offices have a door facing the patio and receive suitably sifted natural light. However, they are only reached through a phantasmagoric tunnel, where you can only hear the sound of high-heeled shoes against the marble. What it could be an attractive effect for the accustomed visitor, turns into an annoying situation for the secretary, who often, in order to run some photocopies, has to walk a 75 metres distance, and then some 50 metres more to reach the ladies-room without having light throughout the entire journey. The fact of having the corridor full of filing cabinets is just one symptom of another malfunction type. Since the very first moment the building was used, comments regarding “excursions” along the corridors were habitual, and one cannot avoid asking oneself if any of them reached the architect’s ear. Does Siza know what a University Vice-chancellor’s department member is going through when using the building?

Leaving the usage topic aside, we can deal with what made the author of this article slip through and take pictures from some simple repair works. We can call them “design physical consequences”: an architect proposes a solution, which is carried out more or less carefully and with more or less fidelity, which will later be tested by the time, the surroundings and the users themselves.

This is exactly how, before ten years from its construction date have passed, the stone footing that surrounds the building external walls start to fall apart (refer to the cover picture) due to its own weight, the humidity and the wind –the latter being less probable. This footing and the surrounding pavements, which were built with pieces of sedimentary natural stone, extremely soft and porous (a type of sandstone), are one of the building main aesthetic values. Apart from constituting a relatively friendly counterpoint with the solid, plain and never-ending white walls, its golden tones create a wonderful contrast with the surrounding vegetation, especially with the purple of the lavender flowers (4).

However, these stone aesthetic values are not sustained with any technical quality that makes it suitable for a building construction, and this is when the architect’s decision on whether to use a certain quantity of it for such a piece of work is important. On the one hand, humidity is absorbed and evaporated easily by the sandstone. Therefore, within a short time, it gets covered by salts that arise to the surface (5). On the other hand, even though it is directly related to what was mentioned before, its resistance to the chemical and mechanical actions is one of the lowest ones that can be found in construction materials. Being directly on the land or in touch with it (especially in those places that are exposed to humidity due to irrigation), after a few years of being used, the stone gets completely wore down, corroded by the atmospheric factors and broken by slight actions such as the steps of the people that walk on it (6-9).

When the architect’s mistake is tried to be mended, a doubt arises: whether the original shape and material should be maintained, or they should be changed to more adequate solution. In this case, the current repair tries to respect Siza’s original project to such an extent that in a few years time, the sandstone that surrounds the lavender flowers will probably have to be replaced, due to the fact that, even though a gravel layer has been put in order to separate it from the land, the sandstone is still in direct contact with it though its side. Moreover, it is still exposed to the rain water or irrigation. The plinth reparation has gone further: the way in which the building makes contact with the land to separate the sandstone from the floor (the main humidity source) was modified (11-14).

We can imagine that after having changed hundreds of square metres of stone, and once the plants grow, the building will be the same again. Maybe too much, actually. The stone will continue absorbing humidity, leaving salts, wearing down and breaking down with its normal usage. Was there any other option to repair it without modifying the entire building look? Possibly not, since by changing the type of stone, the smooth and dull texture –like velvet- that only porous stones like the sandstone have, would be lost. And in ten more years, when the stone needs to be changed again, will Siza himself (as a prestigious architect) go to his building to see how it is being repaired? Will he even know that it is being repaired? Or, speaking in more general terms, how much can we pledge a building maintenance for an aesthetic architectural matter? If a beautiful building, like the Chancellor’s and Services one, does not tolerate being exposed to the inclemency; if the building usage provokes its users to be exhausted and oppressed, how many buildings out of the ones we see on a daily basis might be disappointing those who inhabit them and make them work?

If all of us, architects (or city planner, or…), made that reflection ours and tried to look with our eyes clean and little instructed like those of someone outside this discipline, it is possible to start winning something, right there where there is so much to lose. The way to do that is almost only limited by our attitude and our creativity. We can recourse methodically to the user’s participation as part of the design process, which is something that many architects already do with very good results. We can follow our constructions up closely with the intention of getting a valuable experience. We can do many other things, and nowadays, is not at all superfluous to do them. We risk our profession credibility, especially in those places like Europe, where changes in education and professional competitions are disputing the architect’s real role. If we cannot assure the durability, the sustainable maintenance, and its usage adjustment, what will we offer the society? The ball is on our side of the field.