Yeah, but "facadism," as described in the article, is essentially hollowing out some old, architecturally significant building, and making a different, mismatched building inside the remains.
The historic building is far too small for what's needed in the location now. The building can't be brought up to modern standards with any sort of rational budget. So we have adaptive reuse - wildly popular in many areas such as the historic docks and warehouses in London, disused steel mills, etc
Facadism allows you to keep a great street level architecture while dramatically increasing the density and utility of the area. Useful in London, where you couldn't build up until very recently, but especially in North American cities where there are very few old buildings since they aren't that old and the cities were dramatically smaller than they are today.
So accept facadism or widespread annihilation of historic fabric.
Look at these examples. The historical fabric has already been annihilated and keeping the facade around is making a mockery of it.
I don't get it; why can't we just write some textbooks and then be done with it?
One could argue the Hearst Tower does just that. Most beloved architecture was derided when it was built.
Furthermore, one must consider the broader economic context within which renovation occurrs. Is full renovation a realistic alternative? Or would the building simply fall into disrepair, caught between preservationists' costly demands and the reality of modern residential and commercial buyers' requirements.