How do replacement, retrofit, and recladding strategies compare in cost for aging curtain wall facades?

Deciding between replacement, retrofit, and full recladding depends on the façade condition, performance deficits, life expectancy, and budget. Targeted replacement (repairing failed gaskets, replacing isolated glass units, or resealing joints) is the lowest immediate cost and can extend service life when the underlying structure and framing are sound. However, repeated repairs over years can accumulate higher lifetime expense if systemic issues persist. Retrofit measures—such as adding external thermal insulation, installing secondary glazing, or upgrading gaskets and seals—offer a mid-range option that improves energy performance and occupant comfort without removing the primary façade. Retrofits can be staged and often avoid full shutdown of occupied spaces. Full recladding (strip and replace) is the most capital-intensive option but resolves systemic failures, allows full thermal and acoustic upgrades, and can be justified where life-safety, major corrosion, or aesthetic renewal is required. When calculating comparative cost, include direct costs (materials, labour, scaffolding), indirect costs (tenant disruption, temporary weatherproofing), and lifecycle savings from energy reductions and reduced maintenance. Perform whole-life cost analysis over a realistic horizon (20–30 years) and factor in risk and performance uncertainty. In many mid-to-long term scenarios, a strategic retrofit provides the best value where structural frames are sound; recladding is warranted when frames are compromised or the client requires a transformational upgrade with predictable long-term savings.