Judging from the material examined to this point, dissatisfaction with the architectural status quo for Ibsen's characters leads to two main alternatives. The first might be characterized as “cleaning house.” This is the impulse to unmask, to open windows, to air out, and perhaps even to mop up (as much as Dr. Stockmann might debate its value). This is the position of the reformer, and the basic architectural expression of this position is in the idea of renovation. Existing social structures are understood to be fundamentally sound; in fact, a firm attachment to the enduring value of foundations despite the contingency of buildings themselves is a key characteristic of this position. It is the structures built on top of those foundations that are sometimes in question. If they are poorly designed, misused, or corrupted in any way, the reformer nevertheless sees no real threat to the idea of the social building itself, whose essence is understood to be in the foundation. Matters can be put right by adjusting what is above ground to bring it back in line with the more constant principles below. This position can work itself out entirely within a metaphorics of architecture.

Another possibility is to imagine demolishing the existing structure completely to build anew. The reigning metaphor here is razing. This stance takes renovation to be an unacceptable compromise with the past. It views all architectural structure – foundations included – as equally contingent. Since ruins can get in the way of the new, the argument goes, it is sometimes necessary to start completely from scratch. The assumption here is that the present and the past cannot easily coexist; there is something antagonistic and limiting about the past, so that even foundations must be cleared to make way for something entirely new.

Each of these positions implies a philosophy of time and history; each typifies a mode of modernity and a stance toward traditional social structures.