dpc2093 design education for adaptive reuse

8/13/2019 Dpc2093 Design Education for Adaptive Reuse

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dpc2093-design-education-for-adaptive-reuse 1/10

DESIGN EDUCATION FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE

Özen Eyüce and Ahmet Eyüce

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research

Copyright © 2010 Archnet-IJAR, Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010 - (419-428)

419

AbstractBuiltform is subject to various types of obsolences in thecourse of time. Among these functional obsolesences,taking place as an outcome of ever changing modesof production and consumption, are of crucialimportance so far as their fate of existing urban fabricis concerned. Defunct buildings become derelictand often subject to demolition which amounts to theeradication of the collective memory. In this connection

the process of adaptive reuse can be defined as thetask of adjusting functionally obsolete buildings for newprogram requirements through building conversion.Adaptive reuse projects entail not only alterationswithin the boundaries of an existing building envolopebut also radical changes/transformations in the spaceconfiguration so as to accomodate the new set offunctional requirements. Therefore, the development ofan architectural design scheme in the light of potentialsoffered and the constraints imposed by an existing

architectural entity is essential. Although adaptive reuseprojects require case specific approaches depending onthe peculiarities of the original structure three main areasof concern can be discerned during the elaborationof the design scheme. These areas of concerns are thespace configuration, tectonic aspects of the contextwithin which the project will be realized. The paperaddresses itself to the elucidation of these concern areasand the interrelations with the final scheme.

KeywordsObselescence, adaptive reuse, space configuration,

tectonics, context.

Introduction

Adaptive reuse in architecture denotes

the process of building conversion so as to

accomodate new functional requirements.Since the whole process is shaped within the

possibilities of an already architectured structure

the term adaptive reuse is labelled as ‘re-

architecture’ by Cantacuzino. The process

involves, in the first place, the preparation of an

architectural design project/scheme according

the possibilities/potentialities offered and the

constraints imposed by an existing buildingwhich

is often of historical importance. And in thesecond place the necessary alterations/

conversions are totake place, generally, within

the boundaries defined by the bilding envelope

and in line with the new project. In some cases

the process of adaptive reuse may exceed the

boundaries of the existing structure, or it may

even necessitate the construction of an annex

building depending on the peculiarities of the

project.

Special Volume: Design Edu c ation: Exp lorations and Prospe c ts for a Better Buil t Environm ent

Ashraf M. Salam a a nd M icha el J. Crosbie (ed i tors)

P r a c t i c e s



Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010

Design Education for Adaptive Reuse

Ö Z E

N E Y Ü C E A N D A H M E T E

Y Ü C E

420

The idea of adaptive reuse of buildings in order toproduce space for new functional requirements

is neither something new or contemporary noris it limited to architecture. It has been appliedto almost all types of artefacts since centuries. Ithas been preferred to demolition and rebuildingin various parts of the world and a plethora of oldand defunct structures have been adapted toother utilizations since time immemorial. There arenumerous examples of military buildings adaptedas schools; jails as luxury hotels; palaces as culturalbuildings like museums and art galleries; theaterscenes as palaces; and industrial buildings foralmost all types of functional requirements.

Moreover, it goes without saying that adaptivereuse is not also an area of concern whichis oriented to only to buildings with historicalimportance or to buildings with reacharchitectural features. The process adresses itselfto all types of buildings and is conceived as a

panacea for all types of obsolescences be itfunctional, economical or even physical. In otherwords the applicability of the process of adaptivereuse isclosely related with the obsolescencesof buildings and economical feasibility of theproject.

Built form is subject to mainly to threetypes of obsolescences namely: physical,

functional and economical. Although buildingobsolescences are due to a variety of factors itcan be generalized that they are all the naturaloutcome of the changing modes of ptoductionand consumption triggered primarily by theconsequences of technological changes andtransformations. Least hazardous among thethree types of obsolescences is the physicalone, in that, it can easily be remedied and putto its original state provided that the required

funds are available. Whereas functional andeconomical obsolescences,more often than

not occur in tandem, and are the main causesof derelictions and building demolitions.whichin turn reflect themselves as the unavoidabletransformations of land-use patterns; as thechanges in the character of urban fabric; andmost alarming of them all as the eradication oflayers of history of most cities. On the other handmost building types known to have relativelyshorter funtional lives compared to their physicaldurabilities become obsolete as a result of thetransformations taking place in the urban land-use patterns. Among these industrial buildingsand plants are in the forefront. Obsolescence, asfar as adaptive reuse is concerned is importantbecause it paves the way for adaptive reuse.Furthermore, the type of obsolescence givesvaluable clues for the development of aconceptual framework of a design problem tobe dealth with in the studio.

In addition to the above, it is accepted byone and all that built form plays the most vitalrole during the formation, accumulation, anddissemination of collective memory of a culture.Therefore heritage value of most historicalbuildings/settings prevail over their functionalviability. This also holds true for the piece of landthey occupy too. As it has been stated in the

previous paragraph, the physical durability ofthe majority of historical buildins exceeds theirfunctional life paving the way for economicalobsolescence and eventually for demolition soas to make space for new building. In orderto overcome these demolitions and preventthe dissapearence/loss of collective memoryadaptive reuse is a viable strategy/approach toresort to.





Ö Z E

N E Y Ü C E A N D A H M E T E

Y Ü C E

421

Areas of Concern in the Design Studio

Among the several areas of concern an

architectural design studio aimed at developingprojects for adaptive reuse imlementationsthree main issues come to the forefront namely:the space configuration, building and tectonicproperties and the context within which thedevelopment is taking place. These three areaof concern will be elucidated in the followingparagraphs in relation to adaptive reuseprojects.

Space ConfigurationArchitecture is defined in the dictionary as:an “art or or science of building’. Whether an

art or a science or even a practice, the mainobjective of architecture is the production of

space for human activities, in that, space isthe unavoidable requirement of man involvingprocesses. Therefore, a revised definition ofarchitecture can be formulated as: the art ofbuilding so as to produce space for humanactivities. Buildings help shape, define, house,shelter, divide or unite spaces.

Space, in architectural parlance, can best bedefined as: a percieved portion of the physical

environment which accomodates a set ofactivities. Or in other words, it is a percievedmilieu within the perceptual boundaries of whichhuman activities are performed The perception

Figure 1: Coexistenceof Old and NewComponents in theSame Building: Museumof Rahmi Koç, stanbul(Source: Authors).


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dpc2093-design-education-for-adaptive-reuse 4/10Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010


Ö Z E N E Y Ü C E A N D A H M E T E

Y Ü C E

422

of space is not to be limited with visual faculty only.All senses play important role in the formation ofthe architectural space. No space can exist inisolation as an independent entity. It has to haveconnection with at least one another space. In

this regard buildings can be taken as amalgamof interrelated/interconnected spaces. “Thisidea can best be captured by Hillier’s notion ofconfiguration_a set of relationships among thingsall of which interdepend in an overall structureof some kind.” Space configuration covers thetotality of interspatial relationships/interactions.It is closely related with the indoor-outdoorinteraction of spaces and their corresponding

modes of enclosures and exposures.

The purpose of adaptive reuse projects is theutilization of an existing building for a new set offunctional requirements. It is obvious that there islittle chance for an existing building to conformto a new program. A new program and new

functional requirements to be fulfilled within theboundaries of an existing building will, definitely,entail a new space ordering which in turn willnecessitate substantial amount of changes/transformations to take place in the spaceconfiguration of the original structure. At this pointof the study there are two main points that onehas to make an issue of debate. The first pointis concerned with the new space configuration

of the adapted building; the second is related

Figure 2: Coexistenceof Old and NewComponents in the

Same Building: Museumof Rahmi Koç, stanbul(Source: Authors).





Y Ü C E

423

with clues that the existing configuration willdictate. Both points are also closely related

with the morphological properties of the originalbuilding that will be taken up in the next part ofthis papper.

The above is the most crucial phase of theall adaptive reuse processes, in that, it hasa determining role on the overall success ofthe whole project. In order to overcome thisimportant phase of the process a morphologicalanalysis/study of the original building is essential.

“The morphological study is based on the notionof interrelatedness of parts, or the structuralrelationships of parts to other parts and to awhole.” This phase is to be taken as a turningpoint of the whole sequence of an adaptivereuse design studio.

A new space configuration in accordance withthe adaptive reuse project may involve not only

the complete rearrangement offloor plans butalso may dictate radical changes in floor heigts

and circulation systems. Moreover, the proposedspace configuration may well be based on anew mode of indoor-outdoor interraction patternwhich in turn may necessitate the adoption ofa totally differenbt concept of enclosure andexposures of the indoor spaces.

Building Aspects and Tectonic PropertiesIt is obvious that accomodating a new programaccording to a new space configuration inan existing structure will dictate a number ofbuilding alterations reflecting themselves on thearchitecture of the original building. The debateon the binary relation between form and functionhas always been on the agenda of architecturaldiscourse. It has been claimed by many ascholars that there exists no proof of a direct

relation between form and function. Although thepropreity of the form to functional requirements

is undebatable for good architecture it canbe stated that no function dictates a specificbuilding form. Similiarly no building type is limitedto predetermined geometrical properties. That isto say that the form properties of buildings do notconstitute sharp restrictions for adaptive reuseattempts.

Although most building types lend themselvesfor conversion to new uses, defunct industrial

facilities have a special place in adaptive reuseimplementations. Defunct industrial buildingslike factories, warehouses, power plants,shipyards and etc., besides the surface areathey occupy have large volumes enclosed bylarge wall surfaces. As it has been mentionedby Cantacuzino: “industrial buildings have largeoccupying volumes enclosed by brickwall,frequently whole city block.” Industrial buildings

are large span buildings, that is,their floor surfacesare not obstructed by structural elements. Theyalso lend themselves suitable for additionalslabs and mezzanine floors. Their external wallsurfaces can be converted to a wide varietyof solid-void organization schemes in line withthe requirements of the adaptive reuse projectdesign.

Not all adaptive reuse projects are so lucky asit is the case with industrial buildings. Industrtialbuildings with their large enclosed volumes offera wide variety of possibilities for reconfuguringthe spatial organization of the original building.The opposit also holds true in some cases,thatis, imposition of the space configuration oforiginaal structure through building limitations. A jail building or a school building converted to ahotel building with the limitations of their previous





Y Ü C E

424

space subdivision limitations are good exemplesfor this situation.

In architectural discourse the term ‘tectonic’denotes the art of assembly of building parts.It points out the artful relations of the elementsof form to each other and to the whole so asto achieve a system of order, balance andunity in an architectural ensemble. It alsosignifies, in architectural parlance, the artfulcontinuity between form and construction;betweenconstruction and the structural system

it is based on. Moreover, it is the reflection ofthe notion of space as a form of structure andconstruction.

In connection with the adaptive reuse projects thesensitivity to be shown to the tectonic propertiesof a piece of arcitecture is indispensible, in that,built form is the reflection of the social, cultural,and economical conditions of a culture or of an

era to the physical environment. Built past is thesymbol that embody collective values whichincludes patterns of thought of a society. Theliaison between architectural tenets and systemsof thoughts can best be preserved throughbuildings.

The vast majority of buildings subject to adaptivereuse are historicallynoteworthy buildings. Eventhe industrial buildings, notably those built during

19th Century, possess remarquable architecturalfeatures and tectonic excellences that theproject designers must be sensitive to. Thissensitivity includes primarily the determinationof tectonic properties and also the atectonicfeatures of the original structure. An importantpart of the message to be conveyed by theoriginal building and genealogical clues maywell be dormant in atectonic features. It is

interesting to notice that in the majority of the

industrial buildings, notably those built duringOttoman Era, the structural issues do not prevail

over architectural concerns. On the contrary ,majority of these buildings possess distinguishablyrich stylistic ornamentations each of whichconveying important messages about the past.

The preceeding paragraph clearly dictatesthat prior to the development of the mainconcept for an adaptive reuse project a carefulreading an deciphering of not only of the spaceconfiguration of the original building but also of

its architectural features is essential.

The handling of building tectonics as an area ofconcern of the design studio for adaptive reuseis largely a case specific issue,depending on thearchitectural properties and peculiarities of thebuiding to be adapted. It also depends on thecourses of action of the individual designer/designteam. The debatable question to be answered

here is: whether a new space configuration canbe housed within the tectonic properties of an

existing building or does it require copletely newtectonic properties.

One possible answer to the above statedquestion is to keep intact the tectonic propertiesof the existing building and to realized the spatialrequirements of the new function with completelynew materials and techniques independent of

the original structure. This is something like onebuilding inside the other, or in other words thenew inside the old. One such design solutionto adaptive reuse is seen in Rahmi Koç IndustryMuseum in Istanbul. In this project a 19th centuryOttoman Shipyard and an old Ottoman Foundryhave successfully been converted to an IndustryMuseum where the stone load bearing structualproperties of two historical buildings are very well

preserved and the new spatial requirements are

D i Ed ti f Ad ti R





Y Ü C E

425

solved with additional steel structural elementssensitively placed inside original buildings. In theseproject the old and new co-exist as representativesof two different architectural/cultural era.

Another possibility, which is valid for expecially

for historically important buildings, is to abide bythe constraints imposed by the original structurewithout resorting to major alterations. This can beinterpreted as the exploitation of the potentials ofthe original building an tailoring the new spaceprogram accordingly.

Context as an Area of Concern in the StudioThe term ‘context’ comes etymologically from

Latin ‘contextus’, meaning connection. Among

the dictionary definitions the one which bestrelates with architectural discourse is stated asfollows: “the interrelated conditions in whichsomething exists or occurs.” As it is impliedby this definition the term ‘context’ is richer inmeaning/coverage compared to ‘environment’or ‘surrounding’. The meaning of ‘context’ inarchitectural discourse expands over a vastarea of interpretations ranging from a simplesingle feature to such interrelated conditions likesocial, cultural, economic,and environmentalfactors. Therefore, ‘context’ concerns itselfnot only with relationships between built formsand natural and man made environmentbut also with the determinant factors of these

Figure 3: Museumof Rahmi Koç inLengerhane (1613,

Istanbul (Source:Authors).






Y Ü C E

426

relations.(social,cultural, economical and etc.,)It sometimes plays a very crucial role that itmay become a parametrical detrminant ofthe design. Nevertheless, this importance isnot in the list of priorities of most projects.This isbest expressed by Mark Alan Hewitt who writes:“Despite theorethical turns towards contextualismduring the past twenty years, most buildings stilldesigned as singular, abstract objects, bearingtangentialand largely formal relationships to thesurrounding environment.”

Context does not only include tangibles like manmade and natural elements. It also includessocial and economical determinants which donot have physical presence but strongly felt asdeterminants of the context.

Concerning the existing built forrm the viewsof two scholars are of importance. Accordingto Hewitt: “Major theories of design have been

operated during much of the 20th century: the-so called stylistic unit theory, originally associatedwith Viollet le Duc in the Victorian period; andthe dialectical modernist theory of disjunction,which stipulates absolute contrast (or at leastclear distinction) between old and new. Bothof these theories depend upon the reading ofthe historical piece as an object. The former(conjunctive theory) assumes that the building

will be restored to a state of completenesswhich may never existed during its time. Thelatter (disjunctive theory) that it will be renderedcomplete and frozenas of the moment of thenew intervention and will be set apart forever bythe clear break between the parts”

Concerning the role of the context in theshaping of an adaptive reuse project thepalipsest analogy resorted to by many ascholars

in connection with refunctionning and rebuildingof the built environment is worth mentioning here.A palimpsest is: “a parchment or other surface onwhich writing has been applied over earier writingwhich has been erased “ The term is derivedfrom “Greeek ‘palin’: again+’pestos’:rubbedsmooth.” An interpretation of the term which canbe applied to the study of the built environmentsis as follows: “something reused or altered butstill bearing visible traces of an earlier form.”An extended usage of the term can be foundin the following quotation from Wendy L. Butter

who writes: “Several historians are beginning touse the term as a description of the way peopleexperience times, that is, as a layering of presentexperiences over faded past. The palimpsestanalogy for architecture is a powerfull tool topoint out the importance of the built past for thecollection of urban memories. As it has beenexpressed by Mark Crinson “urban memory....commonly indicates the city as physical

landscape and collection of objects andpractices that enables recollectionof the pastand that embody the past through traces of thecity’s sequentialbuilding and rebuilding.” “

To ensure the continuity with the past, withoutdiscarding the requirements of the contemporaryspatial standarts, is one of the most importantaims of the adaptive reuse projects. Over and

above, revitalization of defunct, dilapidatedand derelict building stock will enhance thevisual quality of the built past.

Conclusion

First of all it has to be stated that adaptive reuse,as a means to extend the life of defunct buildinggives a large array of architectural designpossibilities. Since its field of operation is not






Y Ü C E

427

limited with historically important building it alsogives the possibility of rearchitecture of derelictbuildings. There exist neither a clearly stateddesign method nor established and acceptedprocedures as a source of guidance whenapproaching to the development of adaptivereuse projects. They are all case specific designproblems so far as a studio task is concerned. Inother words each design problem for adaptivereuse defines its own process of development .

1. Cantacuzino,S., “Re-Architecture: Old Buildings/New Uses”, New York, 1989, p:8 .

2. Merrian-Webster Dictionary.

3. Psarra,P., “Architecture and Narrative:The Formation of Space and CulturalMeaning”,Routledge, London and New York,2009, p:5(quoted from Bill Hillier, “Space is theMachine”,Cambridge University Press,1966, p:33)

4. Psarra, P., “Architecture and Narrative:TheFormation of Space and Cultural Meaning”,Londonand New York, 2009, p:5.

5. Bahl, V., “Ethics of Adaptive Reuse”,ArchitectureWeek, on line, (June 22, 2005), available at http://www.architectureweek.com/2005/0518building_1-2.html.

6. Adorno,T.,W., “Functionalism Today”,in RethinkingArchitecture,edited by Neil Leach, London,Routledge, 1997, p:7.

7. Cantacuzino, s., “Re-Architecture: Old Buildings/New Uses”, New York, Abewille Press, 1989, p:8.

8. . Mark Alan Hewit, “Architecture for a ContingentEnvironment”, Journal of Architectural Education,Vol.47, No.4(May1994,pp.197-209).

9. ibid

10. Oxford English Dictionary,http.77www.elpalimpsesto.com

11. ibid

12. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/palimpsest

13. Wendy L. Butter, “The Cultural Landscapeof a Site in Old Montreal:Reflections oon UrbanMemory Montreal as Palimpsest; Architectur,Community, Change”, 2008 Conference on theHi,story of Architecture (quoted from Mark Crinson,“An Introduction in Urban Memory: History andAmnesia in the Modern City, London and New York,Routledge, 2005,p:4.

ReferencesBahl, V. (2005, June 22). Ethics of Adaptive Reuse.Architecture Week. Page B1.2 . 18 May 2005Retrieved from http://www.architectureweek.com/2005/0518/building_1-2.html ( For furtherreading: Adorno,T.W. (1997). Functionalism Todayin Rethinking Architecture. Leach, N. (Ed.). London:Routledge).

Butler, W. L. (2008). The Cultural Landscape of aSite in Old Montreal: Reflections on Urban Memory

Montreal as Palimpsest; Architecture, Community,Change. Conference on the History of Architecture.April 18,2008.(quoted from Crinson, Mark. (2005). AnIntroduction in Urban Memory: History and Amnesiain the Modern City. New York, NY. : Routledge, p:4)Retrieved January 20, 2010 from http://art-history.concordia.ca/institute_site/conf08_palimpsest/en/palimsest_papers.html

Cantacuzino, S. (1989). Re-Architecture: Old

Buildings/New Uses. New York, NY: Abbeville Press.

Hight, C., Hensel, M. & Menges, A. (2009). En Route:Towards a Discourse on Heterogeneous Spacebeyond Modernist Space-Time and Post-ModernistSocial Geography. In Hight, C.,

Hensel, M. & Menges, A. (Eds.) Space Reader :Heterogeneous Space in Architecture.(pp.9-37).West Sussex :John Wiley and Sons.

Hewitt, Mark Alan. (1994 May). Architecture for a

Design Education for Adaptive Reuse428





Ö Z E N E Y Ü C E A N D A H M E T E Y Ü C E

428

Contingent Environment. Journal of ArchitecturalEducation.47(4), 197-209.

Picon, Antoine. (2004). The Freestanding Columnin Eighteenth-Century Religious Architecture . InDaston, L.(Ed.) Things That Talk: Object Lessons fromArt and Science. (pp.67-99). New York, NY. : ZoneBooks.

Psarra,P. (2009). Architecture and Narrative: TheFormation of Space and Cultural Meaning. New York,NY : Routledge (quoted from Hillier, B. (1966) Spaceis the Machine . Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. p:33).

_________________

Ozen EyüceDr.Eyüce graduated from the Middle East TechnicalUniversity in 1973. After graduation, Eyüce heldpositions as research assistant and instructor atvarious universities. Between 1988-1995, she foundedher architectural of fice in zmir and realized manyarchitectural projects. After joining the Izmir Instituteof Technology in 1995, she helped found the

Department of Architecture. In 1998, Eyüce receivedthe National Architecture Award for the design of theIzmir Aquarium with A.Eyüce. In 2004, Eyüce joinedthe University of Bahçe şehir, Faculty of Architectureas part-time instructor and in 2005, became fulltime teaching member and still continues to hold thisposition. In 2010, she was promoted to the position ofadvisor for student affairs to the President. Eyüce hasmany articles and a book named Köprüler (Bridges)in Turkish. Dr. Eyüce’s research areas include 19th

C. architecture, adaptive re-use, and architecturaltechnology. she can be contacted at [email protected]

_________________

Ahmet EyüceProfessor Eyüce graduated from the Middle EastTechnical University in 1973. After receiving his doctoraldegree in 1979, his keen interest in teaching led himto take positions at various universities. Between 1981and 1988, Eyüce held teaching position in Saudi

Arabia. In 1995, Eyüce became Professor and helped

found the Department of Architecture at the IzmirInstitute of Technology. In 1998, Eyüce received theNational Architecture Award for the design of the

Izmir Aquarium with O.Eyüce. Between 1999 and 2004,he held a position as consultant for the Municipalityof Greater Izmir. In 2004, Eyüce joined the Universityof Bahçeşehir, Faculty of Architecture. He waspromoted to the position of Dean in 2006; a position hecontinues to hold. He has published extensively bothwithin Turkey and without, and has a large numberof realized architectural projects. Professor Eyüce’sresearch areas include vernacular architecture,adaptive re-use, and architectural theory.

dpc2093 design education for adaptive reuse

Documents