Frankenstein architecture: an interpretive framework for reading adaptive reuse through the Vitruvian lens

Abstract

Adaptive reuse architecture increasingly confronts a critical tension: when does the grafting of contemporary elements onto historic structures produce an innovative synthesis, and when does it create what critics term “Frankenstein architecture” buildings perceived as fragmented, incoherent assemblages lacking cultural authenticity? Although the Frankenstein metaphor circulates widely in architectural discourse, particularly following Liliane Wong’s identification of “Frankenstein Syndrome” in 2016, it has not been systematically operationalised as an analytical framework. This paper addresses that gap by developing an interpretive analytical framework rather than a quantified diagnostic instrument that brings Mary Shelley’s literary metaphor, together with its better-known popular-culture descendants, into dialogue with the Vitruvian triad (firmitas, utilitas, venustas), extended with a fourth virtue, dignitas (respect for heritage values), as proposed for adaptive-reuse contexts by Clarke and Kuipers (2023). The contribution is best understood as a synthetic re-framing: it gathers conceptual clusters already in circulation parasite/prosthetic, symbiosis, palimpsest, translation, duet into a new interpretive configuration rather than inventing them. Its claim to priority is correspondingly specific, and distinct from any claim of conceptual novelty: not that the metaphor is new, but that arranging it into a working Vitruvian analytical structure has not, to our knowledge, been done before. Through an illustrative comparison of three paradigmatic cases the Royal Ontario Museum Crystal (Libeskind, 2007), Port House Antwerp (Zaha Hadid Architects 2016), and Elbphilharmonie Hamburg (Herzog & de Meuron, 2017) the study reads a spectrum from parasitic to mutualistic association. The analysis suggests that perceived architectural “monstrosity” arises not from stylistic contrast per se, but from compounded weaknesses across structural integration (firmitas), functional coherence (utilitas), aesthetic synthesis (venustas), and heritage sensitivity (dignitas). Because the evidence base is discursive rather than experiential, the framework is positioned as a critical reading aid whose claims are interpretive and provisional, requiring user-based validation before any stronger evaluative status could be asserted.