adaptive re use

8/18/2019 Adaptive Re Use

1/12

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235274709

Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings

ARTICLE in STRUCTURAL SURVEY · NOVEMBER 2011

DOI: 10.1108/02630801111182439

CITATIONS

8

READS

720

2 AUTHORS:

Peter A. Bullen

Curtin University

12 PUBLICATIONS 171 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Peter E.D Love

Curtin University

497 PUBLICATIONS 8,262 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Peter E.D Love

Retrieved on: 29 March 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Bullen3?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Bullen3?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Love2?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Curtin_University2?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Love2?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Love2?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Bullen3?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Curtin_University2?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Bullen3?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Bullen3?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235274709_Adaptive_reuse_of_heritage_buildings?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235274709_Adaptive_reuse_of_heritage_buildings?enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2


2/12

Adaptive reuse of heritagebuildings

Peter A. Bullen and Peter E.D. Love Department of Construction Management, School of the Built Environment,

Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – There is growing acceptance that heritage buildings are an important element of Australia’s social capital and that heritage conservation provides economic, cultural and socialbenefits to urban communities. The decision whether to reuse a building entails a complex set of considerations including location, heritage, architectural assets, and market trends. The role of building conservation has changed from preservation to being part of a broader strategy for urbanregeneration and sustainability. A growing body of opinion supports the view that adaptive reuse is apowerful strategy for handling this change. Urban development and subsequent redevelopment hasa significant impact on the environment and the purpose of this paper is to investigate how theconservation of heritage buildings may contribute to a more sustainable urban environment.Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines the views and experiences of architects,developers and building managers who have been involved with the adaptive reuse of heritagebuildings. In total, 60 semi-structured interviews were drawn from this stakeholder group toinvestigate their current understanding of the sustainability issues associated with the adaptive reuseof heritage buildings.Findings – The subsequent data show that despite many positive outcomes in terms of sustainability,the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is considered to create many problems; not the least of whichis whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conserved or whether they are in fact eyesoresand unviable for adaptive reuse.Originality/value – The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability hasnot previously been explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest between thepreservation of heritage values and progression of the sustainable urban design agenda.

Keywords Australia, Heritage, Building conservation, Urban regeneration, Sustainability,Adaptive reuse

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionHeritage buildings form an integral part of Australia’s social capital. There is growingacceptance within Australia that conserving heritage buildings provides significanteconomic, cultural and social benefits (Bullen and Love, 2010). According to theDepartment of Environment and Heritage (DEH, 2004) heritage buildings provide avaluable glimpse of the past and lend character to communities and therefore shouldbe conserved for future generations. The integration of historic conservation withenvironmental concerns has become an innate feature of an agenda to support

sustainability (Stubbs, 2004; Bullen and Love, 2010). As part of a wider revitalisationstrategy to promote sustainability within the built environment, many buildings of cultural and historical significance are being adapted and reused rather than beingsubjected to demolition (Ball, 1999; DEH, 2004; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Wilkinsonet al., 2009; Bullen and Love, 2009).

To date there has been limited research that has examined the economic benefits of heritage buildings (Bullen and Love, 2010). As a result, the retention of heritagebuildings are often viewed as being “investment sinkholes” with issues associated withsocial and environment sustainability being ignored. In Western Australia, for

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

Structural Sur

Vol. 29 No. 5, 2

pp. 411-

r Emerald Group Publishing Lim

0263-0

DOI 10.1108/02630801111182

41

Adaptive reusof heritag

building

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247513357_Heritage-sustainability_Developing_a_methodology_for_the_sustainable_appraisal_of_the_historic_environment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247513357_Heritage-sustainability_Developing_a_methodology_for_the_sustainable_appraisal_of_the_historic_environment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==


3/12

example, the City of Perth (2011) has been advocating that significant financial savingsand returns can be made from the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in an attempt topreserve the past for the future.

Adaptive reuse may help communities, governments and developers in the quest to

reduce the environmental, social and economic costs of continued urban developmentand expansion (Ball, 1999; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Bullen and Love, 2009). Adaptivereuse can transform heritage buildings into accessible and useable places as well asprovide the added benefit of regenerating an area in a sustainable manner. Many citieshave begun to realise that reusing heritage buildings is an important part of anyregeneration programme (Ball, 1999). Yet, many building owners and developers stillregard the reuse of heritage buildings as being an unviable option as planning andbuilding regulations may restrict their functioning (Bullen and Love, 2010). Inaddressing this issue, the Property Council of Australia (2005) has advocated thatheritage regulations should require the retention of only the best and most usefulfeatures of an historic building. This paper examines practitioners’ views andexperiences associated with adaptive reuse of heritage buildings within the context of

urban regeneration, conservation and sustainability.

Adaptive reuse and the conservation of heritage buildingsAdaptive reuse involves converting a building to undertake a change of use requiredby new or existing owners (Latham, 2000; Wilkinson et al., 2009). The change of usemay require refurbishment and/or complete renovation of existing buildings orstructures. In most States of Australia, adaptive reuse is a process that invariablyinvolves physically changing the function of a disused or ineffective building (DEH,2004). Changes to buildings can involve major internal space reorganisation andservice upgrades or replacement. Alternatively, adaptive reuse may simply requireminor restoration works where nothing changes except the building’s functional use.

When adaptive reuse is applied to heritage buildings, it not only retains the buildingbut conserves the effort, skill and dedication of the original builders (Love and Bullen,2009). Adaptive reuse also conserves the architectural, social, cultural and historicalvalues (Latham, 2000). Accordingly Bromley et al. (2005) have advocated that adaptivereuse is essentially a form of heritage conservation. There has been a shift away fromconfining heritage value to prestigious, monumental or historically significantbuildings. Buildings of more vernacular origins such as redundant offices or obsoletecommunity halls are seen to have heritage value (Hamer, 2000). The practical outcomesof adaptive reuse and the conceptual values of conservation support the reuse of heritage buildings as a sustainable strategy. Cooper (2001) suggests that the outcomesof adaptive reuse include improvements in material and resource efficiency(environmental sustainability), cost reductions (economic sustainability) and

retention (social sustainability).

Maintaining heritage buildingsThe act of conserving parts of cities as history, and then reusing those spaces for avariety of uses, is being driven by growing calls for urban regeneration (Ball, 1999,2002; Bullen and Love, 2010). The conservation of heritage buildings has become a keydriver of regeneration (Pendlebury, 2002; Strange and Whitney, 2003). Pickard (1996)contends that sustainable historic environments should:

. reflect local life;

412

SS29,5

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235279862_Residential_regeneration_and_adaptive_reuse_learning_from_the_experiences_of_Los_Angeles?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233672760_Developers_regeneration_and_sustainability_issues_in_the_reuse_of_vacant_industrial_buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283871_Using_building_adaptation_to_deliver_sustainability_in_Australia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283871_Using_building_adaptation_to_deliver_sustainability_in_Australia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283871_Using_building_adaptation_to_deliver_sustainability_in_Australia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238398433_City_Centre_Regeneration_through_Residential_Development_Contributing_to_Sustainability?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238398433_City_Centre_Regeneration_through_Residential_Development_Contributing_to_Sustainability?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238398433_City_Centre_Regeneration_through_Residential_Development_Contributing_to_Sustainability?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233653495_Learning_from_the_past_Historic_Districts_and_the_New_Urbanism_in_the_United_States?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28578990_Post-occupancy_evaluation_-_Where_are_you?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233359369_The_changing_roles_and_purposes_of_heritage_conservation_in_the_UK?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235279862_Residential_regeneration_and_adaptive_reuse_learning_from_the_experiences_of_Los_Angeles?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_the_field?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233359369_The_changing_roles_and_purposes_of_heritage_conservation_in_the_UK?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232915594_Conservation_and_Regeneration_Complementary_or_Conflicting_Processes_The_Case_of_Grainger_Town_Newcastle_upon_Tyne?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238398433_City_Centre_Regeneration_through_Residential_Development_Contributing_to_Sustainability?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233672760_Developers_regeneration_and_sustainability_issues_in_the_reuse_of_vacant_industrial_buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233672760_Developers_regeneration_and_sustainability_issues_in_the_reuse_of_vacant_industrial_buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283871_Using_building_adaptation_to_deliver_sustainability_in_Australia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253933048_The_Business_Case_for_incorporating_Sustainability_in_Office_Buildings_the_Adaptive_Reuse_of_Existing_Buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233653495_Learning_from_the_past_Historic_Districts_and_the_New_Urbanism_in_the_United_States?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28578990_Post-occupancy_evaluation_-_Where_are_you?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==


4/12

. improve quality of life;

. maintain local identity, diversity and vitality;

. minimise the depletion of non-renewal heritage assets;

. develop collective responsibility for heritage assets;

. empower community action and involvement;

. provide a robust policy framework for integrating conservation objectiveswith the aims of sustainable development more generally; and

. define the capacity by which historic centres can permit change.

In terms of environmental performance, heritage buildings even after adaptive reusemay not reach the desired standards of new buildings. They may also have reached astate where adaptive reuse is uneconomical or their layout may be inappropriate forany change of function, particularly commercial buildings (Wilkinson et al., 2009;Bullen and Love, 2011a, b). Reusing rather than replacing buildings is generally the

most resource effective strategy to provide accommodation, especially if a conservationstrategy is incorporated into the design (Ball, 1999; Douglas, 2002). The mostsuccessful adaptive reuse projects are those that respect and retain a building’sheritage significance as well as add a contemporary layer that provides value forthe future. When a building can no longer function with its original use, adaption isthe only way that a building’s fabric heritage significance can be preserved andmaintained. Some State agencies in Australia, such as Western Australia, are enactingpolicies for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Such policies contain standardcriteria to ensure that an adaptive reuse project has minimal impact on a building’sheritage values, such as:

. discouraging “fac ¸adism” – that is, gutting the building and retaining its fac ¸ade;

.

requiring new work to be recognisable as contemporary, rather than a poorimitation of the original historic style of the building; and

. seeking a new use for the building that is compatible with the immediate area.

Research methodologyThe decision-making processes that owners and practitioners are confronted withwhen considering adaptive reuse and issues pertaining to sustainability are diverse.An interpretative research approach was therefore adopted as it can captureinformation about the beliefs, actions and experiences of stakeholders involved in thedecision-making process surrounding adaptive reuse. Moreover, in considering theviability of adaptive reuse, it is necessary to consider the “context” of the building in

terms of its impact on social and natural environments as well as those of an economicnature.

Data collectionInterviews were chosen as the primary data collection mechanism as they an effectivetool for learning about matters that cannot be directly observed (Taylor and Bogdan,1998). Interviews were used to understand the views and experiences associated withadaptive reuse, which allowed a channel for “context” to be captured (Kvale, 1996). Theinterview guide is the most widely used format for qualitative interviewing and was

41


building

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233672760_Developers_regeneration_and_sustainability_issues_in_the_reuse_of_vacant_industrial_buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233672760_Developers_regeneration_and_sustainability_issues_in_the_reuse_of_vacant_industrial_buildings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-37660228-ea59-4ff0-8ebb-c6c90becdec8&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNTI3NDcwOTtBUzoxMDEzNzA4NDE1MzQ0ODBAMTQwMTE4MDEwMTAyOQ==


5/12

adopted for this research (Patton, 1990). In this approach, the interviewer has anoutline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the wording and order of thequestions to some extent. The general themes that the interviewer focused on were:

. effectiveness of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a strategy to achievesustainability;

. attributes that make a heritage building suitable or unsuitable for adaptivereuse;

. impact of various factors on the decision to reuse heritage buildings; and

. the barriers and opportunities surrounding adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.

A total of 60 semi-structured interviews were conducted over a four-month periodwith a stakeholder group comprising such as architects, developers and buildingmanagers. Interviewees were chosen for their ability to contribute towards thisstudy through both tacit and explicit knowledge of adaptive reuse. Individualrepresentatives from firms from the metropolitan area of Perth were selected

using the technique of stratified random sampling and invited to participate in theresearch.

Content analysis was used as the primary analysis technique of the collected data.In its simplest form this technique is the extraction and categorisation of informationfrom documents. Inferences from the data can only be drawn from the relationship withwhat the data appear to have with their institutional, societal and cultural contexts(Krippendorf, 1980). The text derived from the interviews was analysed using QSRNVivo 9.0, which enabled the development of themes and additional data sources and

journal notes to be incorporated into the analysis. Using NVivo enabled the researchersto develop an organic approach to coding as it enabled triggers or categories of interest in the text to be coded and used to keep track of emerging and developingideas (Kvale, 1996). These codings can be modified, integrated or migrated as theanalysis progresses and the generation of reports, using Boolean search, facilitates therecognition of conflicts and contradictions. This process enabled the key themesneeded to be considered during the adaptive reuse or demolition decision-makingprocess to be identified.

Findings and discussionThe use of the coding mechanism within NVivo enabled a number of criteria to beidentified and quantified. Criteria that were identified as being important reasons forimplementing an adaptive reuse strategy for heritage buildings by interviews were:“encouraging further conservation” (92 per cent), “enhancing the quality of the builtenvironment” (78 per cent), “reducing the use of private transport” (76 per cent),

“maintaining cultural identity of a community” (72 per cent). Issues that wereconsidered to be the most important when deciding whether or not to carry outconservation of a particular building were the: “need to respond to changes in theurban environment” (98 per cent), “incorporation of sustainability principles” (95 percent) and “need to treat old buildings as renewable resources” (95 per cent).

The interview process required respondents to determine their level of agreementto a range of statements. All respondents agreed that “enabling a building toaccommodate changes over time increases value”, and “the age of a building does notnecessarily impact on usefulness”. Opinion was equally divided amongst interviewees

414

SS29,5


6/12

pertaining to whether obsolescence of a building was a valid reason for disposal.Similarly, respondents perceived the obsolescence of a building provided the potentialfor refurbishment or redevelopment as well as disposal.

Interviews identified that the most significant outcome considerations of a building

subjected to adaptive reuse were: “ease of access for disabled or elderly”, “ability toprovide a safe and healthy environment”, “convenience of the building location”,“ability of the building to assimilate future changes” and “how the building fits in withthe streetscape”. Incentives were identified as one of the measures that could be usedto encourage building owners and developers to conserve buildings rather thandemolition and redevelop. The incentives that were deemed to be the most persuasiveincluded “relaxation of building requirements for heritage listed buildings” and“monetary contributions to construction works”. Development bonuses such as densityand plot ratio bonuses’ and “flexibility in meeting current construction regulations”were also identified. Noteworthy, “speeding up the planning processes” was consideredthe least influential incentive. Interviewees were highly supportive of adaptive(building) reuse and refurbishment as opposed to demolition and rebuilding. There

appeared to be a great understanding of the concepts relating to the need to initiallyplan and design buildings well so that they could be preserved and refitted later in theirlifecycle.

Adaptive reuse decision making Respondents identified various factors that should be considered during thefeasibility stage of the decision process (Figure 1). Respondents identified that“cultural significance” (68 per cent) and “heritage significance” (83 per cent) should be

Factors that affect the adaptive reuse decision process

Cultural significance

Life cycle assessment

Heritage significance

Meeting SD benchmarks

Economic sustainability

Environmental sustainability

Social sustainability

Value to local community

Orientation of building

Influence on local economy

Ability of building to adapt

Stakeholder views

Proportion of respondents identifying each factor

0 % 2 0 %

4 0 %

7 0 %

1 0 0 % 1 0

% 3 0 %

6 0 %

5 0 %

9 0 %

8 0 %

Figure Factors affecting adapti

reuse decision maki

41


building


7/12

assessed collaboratively with stakeholders. In addition, the practical aspects of varioususe options should be fully explored while keeping community values and heritagevalues in mind.

Feasibility studies should determine whether projected outcomes can meet

sustainability benchmarks and whether demolition and subsequent rebuilding wouldincrease density and plot ratio. Of them, 74 per cent of respondents perceived it to benecessary to explicitly determine the technical and economic challenges of adaptivereuse during the feasibility study. In particular, the determination of how existingcomponents and the intended construction method would maintain the structuralintegrity of the building was deemed pivotal. In conjunction, a cost-benefit analysisthat was extended to triple bottom line objectives (including economic, social andenvironmental sustainability) was also identified as being required.

Opportunities and barriers of adaptive reuseA wide range of barriers and opportunities to adaptive reuse were identified in theinterviews (Figures 2 and 3). Although economic considerations were prevalent and of

concern to interviewees, there was evidence of a shift, albeit a subtle one, towards theother tenets of sustainability. However, an inability to estimate economic viability of adaptive reuse was considered to be a barrier (53 per cent). This indicates a fairly closedivision of opinion regarding the difficulty to estimate the costs of adapting a buildingcompared with the costs of constructing a new one. However, the difference in opinionwidens when considering environmental and social viability. Here 61 and 77 per centidentified barriers to adaptive reuse to be an inability to estimate environmental andsocial viability, respectively.

Factors considered during adaptivereuse decisions

5 0 %

9 0 %

Viability of recycling existing materials

Public awareness of adaptive reuse

Planning approval process


Opportunity for technical innovation

Market opportunity due to location

Increasing urban density

Impact on visual amenity

Heritage council guidelines

Demand for building after adaptive reuse

Creative value compared to redevelopment

Compliance with building codes

Community value of existing buildings

Benefits of reuse vs redevelopment

Availability of materials to match existing

Ability to aesthetically fit streetscape

Proportion of respondents identifying eachfactor as a barrier

0 % 1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %Figure 2.

Barriers to implementingadaptive reuse

416

SS29,5


8/12

Many barriers to adaptive reuse pertain to cost, as a perception existed that it wasmore economical to demolish and construct a new building than to reuse. Compliancewith building codes (59 per cent) was deemed to be problematic as they were too rigidand did not encourage technical innovation to be developed. Adaptive reuse was

perceived to be cost effective by 47 per cent of interviews in most cases but theavailability and price of materials to match existing elements/fixtures/fittings was anissue of concern. It was perceived that retaining older buildings rather than buildingmore new ones would create a more aesthetical environment for the community(58 per cent).

While older commercial buildings often do not support passive environmentaltechniques, it was perceived that existing buildings do provide opportunity to testmany new innovative technologies and develop diverse solutions to enhancesustainability (65 per cent). The location of existing buildings was seen to be a criticalcomponent of market opportunity, but opinion was fairly evenly divided with 54 per centseeing it as a barrier and 46 per cent seeing it as an opportunity for adaptive reuse.

Impact of adaptive reuse on sustainabilityAccording to 73 per cent of respondents adaptive reuse would impact sustainability byreducing the amount of demolition. However, only 61 per cent felt the impact would bebeneficial as shown in Figure 5, while 12 per cent felt it would have a negative impactas shown in Figure 4. A total of 77 per cent of respondents felt the economic viability of a building after adaptive reuse would improve and in turn have a positive impact interms of sustainability objectives. But it would only be viable if costs and benefits werefactored in over the life of the building. Although adaptive reuse was seen as amore sustainable option than redevelopment, the decision would be case sensitive, with

Factors considered during adaptivereuse decisions

0 % 3 0 %

5 0 %

7 0 %

Viability of recycling existing materials

Public awareness of adaptive reuse

Planning approval process


Opportunity for technical innovation

Market opportunity due to location

Increasing urban density

Impact on visual amenity

Heritage council guidelines

Demand for building after adaptive reuse

Creative value compared to redevelopment

Compliance with building codes

Community value of existing buildings

Benefits of reuse vs redevelopment

Availability of materials to match existing

Ability to aesthetically fit streetscape

Proportion of respondents identifyingeach factor as a benefit

1 0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 % Figure

Benefits of implementiadaptive reu

41


building


9/12

41 per cent of respondents, identifying that decisions needed to be based on optionsthat lead to the most effective use of land such as increased density. Only 46 per cent of respondents identifying this factor felt it would have a positive impact onsustainability. Energy efficiency was identified by 76 per cent of respondents as akey factor that would affect sustainability. Although 43 per cent of them felt that insome cases adaptive reuse could inhibit energy efficiency and the opportunity to

Sustainability objectives affected by adaptive reuse

0 % 2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

Reduced demolition of buildings


Retention of visual amenity

Retaining sense of place

Reduction of resource consumption

Reduced use of Greenfield sites

Less energy for material production

Extending building life cycles

Energy efficiency of reused building

Economic viability of reused building

Eco-efficiency of reused building

Proportion of respondents identifying affect as positive

1 0 %

Figure 5.Positive effects of adaptivereuse on sustainabilityobjectives

Sustainability objectives affected by adaptive reuse

0 % 1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

Reduced demolition of buildings


Retention of visual amenity

Retaining sense of place

Reduction of resource consumption

Reduced use of Greenfield sites

Less energy for material production

Extending building life cycles

Energy efficiency of reused building

Economic viability of reused building

Eco-efficiency of reused building

Proportion of respondents identifying affect as negative

Figure 4.

Negative effects of adaptive reuse onsustainability objectives

418

SS29,5


10/12

increase urban density, it had other benefits in this context such as visual amenity andcultural heritage values. Provided the structure of existing buildings is still functional,53 per cent of respondents felt that adaptive reuse should be a prime consideration interms of sustainability. The majority of responses emphasised that it must be assessed

on a case-by-case basis, but with an innovative approach the longer term sustainabilityof a building should be enhanced by adaptive reuse.

Adaptive reuse was seen to be effective because 75 per cent of the respondents thatreferred to economic viability, felt the costs to demolish outweighed the costs toimprove the building. Out of the 62 per cent of respondents identifying eco-efficiency asa factor, 55 per cent referred to case studies that show eco-efficiency of buildings isincreased during adaptive reuse by using efficient heating, insulation and low-impactmaterials. It would appear from the respondents generally that utilising existingbuildings through adaptive reuse provides the opportunity to make the total builtenvironment more aesthetically pleasing and productive, while retaining streetscapesand our sense of place.

ConclusionThe concept of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a component of sustainabilitywas strongly supported by respondents, but doubts remain about viability, particularlyof economic issues. To a large extent, sustainability of local communities depends onthe sense of place and value they place in their local community. Heritage invests localcommunities with a powerful reason to look after their local environment and leadmore sustainable lifestyles as they have a powerful connection to their physicalenvironment through visual amenity and the intrigue and uniqueness offered byheritage buildings and streetscapes. People feel a stronger sense of connection withtheir local surroundings through heritage, which is quite different to the mentalityassociated with new building stock, in that it can be, replicated anywhere and thereforelends no specific connection to the local environment. Heritage buildings are cultural

icons and their preservation impacts on community well-being, sense of place andtherefore social sustainability. Due to the importance of these factors, it is preferable toreuse heritage buildings rather than replace them regardless of bad plot ratios and lackof efficiency. Old buildings can be a visual amenity that provides a sense of connectionwith local surroundings through heritage.

The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability has notbeen explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest betweenthe preservation of heritage values and progression of the sustainable urban designagenda. In some cases it appears that the heritage requirements attached to buildingsmay obstruct the use of new materials or techniques needed for adaptive reuse.

Any assessment that considers the reuse of heritage buildings should alsoincorporate criteria that ensure the adaptive reuse will not affect heritage values of the

building. Despite presenting many positive outcomes in terms of sustainability, theadaptive reuse of heritage buildings creates many problems. These tend to concentratearound the technical difficulties that working on heritage buildings will generate.Many of the materials and components used in heritage buildings are no longer readilyavailable and may have to be manufactured to special order. Even if the materials areobtained there is no guarantee that suitably qualified craftsmen will be availablelocally or even nationally. These problems will impact on the economic viability of carrying out an adaptive reuse project and may prove totally impractical fordevelopers as an investment. In many cases, the only way that a heritage building will

41


building


11/12

present a viable opportunity as an adaptive refuse project will be if incentivesare available for developers. The ability to make heritage buildings attractive todevelopers as viable reuse projects relies heavily on the introduction of legislation thatreduces building code and planning requirements and offers substantial financial

incentives in the form of tax concessions. The research has highlighted several broadquestions concerning the decision process for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildingsnot the least of which is whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conservedor whether they in fact eventually become eyesores that are liabilities.

References

Ball, R. (1999), “Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacantbuildings”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 140-8.

Ball, R. (2002), “Reuse potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regeneration issuein Stoke-on-Trent”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-110.

Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R. and Thomas, C.J. (2005), “City centre regeneration throughresidential development: contributing to sustainability”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 13,pp. 2407-29.

Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2009), “Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: learning fromthe experiences of Los Angeles”, Structural Survey, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 351-60.

Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2010), “The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition:views from the field”, Cities, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 215-24.

Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2011a), “Factors influencing the adaptive reuse of buildings”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-46.

Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2011b), “A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reusedecision-making”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 32-44.

City of Perth (2011), “Heritage program”, available at: www.perth.wa.gov.au/web/Business/

Heritage-Program/ (accessed 17 May 2011).

Cooper, I. (2001), “Post-occupancy evaluation-where are you?”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 158-63.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2004), Adaptive Reuse, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Douglas, J. (2002), Building Adaption, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn.

Hamer, D. (2000), “Learning from the past: historic districts and the new urbanism in the UnitedStates”, Planning Perspectives, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-22.

Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, NewburyPark, CA.

Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing , Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA.Latham, D. (2000), Creative Reuse of Buildings, Donhead Publishing, Shaftesbury.

Love, P.E.D. and Bullen, P.A. (2009), “Toward the sustainable adaption of existing facilities”, Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 357-67.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Interviewing and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, NewburyPark, CA.

Pendlebury, J. (2002), “Conservation and regeneration: complementary or conflicting processes?The Case of Grainger Town, Newcastle Upon Tyne”, Planning Practice and Research,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-58.

420

SS29,5


12/12

Pickard, R.D. (1996), Conservation in the Built Environment , Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow.

Property Council of Australia (2005), “Tax incentives could transform civic and towncentres”, available at: http://propertycouncil.gravitymax.com.au/nat/page.asp (accessed19 July 2006).

Strange, I. and Whitney, D. (2003), “The changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation inthe UK”, Planning, Practice and Research, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-29.

Stubbs, M. (2004), “Heritage-sustainability: developing a methodology for the sustainableappraisal of the historic environment”, Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 285-305.

Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1998), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meaning , John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Wilkinson, S. and Reed, R. (2008), “The business case for incorporating sustainability in officebuildings: the adaptive reuse of existing buildings”, Proceedings of 14th Annual Pacific

Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Kuala Lumpur .

Wilkinson, S., Reed, R. and Kimberley, J. (2009), “Using building adaptive reuse to deliversustainability in Australia”, Structural Survey, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 46-61.

Corresponding authorPeter A. Bullen can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

42


building

adaptive re use

Documents