Sustainable Building Adaptation

Authors Sara J. Wilkinson is Associate Professor of Property and Construction at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Hilde Remøy is Assistant Professor of Real Estate Management at Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Craig Langston is Professor of Construction and Facilities Management at Bond University, Queensland, Australia

• About the Authors xiPreface xiiiPart I Building Adaptation 1Sara J. WilkinsonChapter 1 Defining Adaptation 31.1 Introduction 31.2 Terminology 41.3 The Significance of Building Adaptation 41.4 Decision-Making Issues in Building Adaptation 101.5 Decision Options and Levels of Adaptation 111.6 Adaptation and Different Land Uses 131.7 Conclusion 14References 15Chapter 2 Drivers and Barriers for Adaptation 182.1 Introduction 182.2 Building Life Cycle Theory 182.3 Building Performance Theory 202.4 Building Adaptation Theory and Sustainability 212.4.1 Social Factors 222.4.2 Environmental Factors 272.4.3 Cost and Economic Factors 302.5 Other Attributes Associated with Adaptation 342.5.1 Physical Attributes 342.5.2 Locational and Land Use Attributes 362.5.3 Legal Attributes 372.6 Conclusion 38References 39Chapter 3 Assessing Adaptation Using PAAM 423.1 Introduction 423.2 Preliminary Assessment 423.3 Principal Component Analysis 473.4 Preliminary Adaptation Assessment Model 493.5 Illustrative Case Study 543.5.1 Building Description 543.5.2 Assessing a Building for ‘Alterations’ Adaptation 543.6 Conclusion 56References 58Chapter 4 Sustainable Adaptation: A Case Study of the Melbourne CBD 594.1 Introduction 594.2 The Context for Adaptation 594.3 Typical Sustainability Measures Used in Commercial Building Adaptation 604.4 Sustainable Adaptation Case Studies 624.4.1 131 Queen Street 624.4.2 Alto Hotel (636 Bourke Street) 644.4.3 247 Flinders Lane (Ross House) 664.4.4 490 Spencer Street 684.4.5 500 Collins Street 704.4.6 406 Collins Street 734.4.7 182 Capel Street 754.4.8 115 Batman Street 774.4.9 385 Bourke Street 794.4.10 530 Collins Street 814.5 Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Adaptation Measures 824.5.1 Owners 834.5.2 Age 834.5.3 Location 844.5.4 Aesthetics 854.5.5 Location of Vertical Services 854.5.6 Existing Land Use 854.5.7 Floor Area 864.5.8 Street Frontage 864.5.9 Historic Listing 864.5.10 Number of Storeys 874.5.11 PCA Grade 874.5.12 Attachment to Other Buildings 884.5.13 Site Access 884.6 Conclusion 89References 90Part II Adaptive Reuse 93Hilde RemøyChapter 5 Building Obsolescence and Reuse 955.1 Introduction 955.2 Conversion Research Worldwide 975.3 Building Lifespan and Obsolescence 1005.3.1 Technical Lifespan 1005.3.2 Functional Lifespan 1015.3.3 Economic Lifespan 1015.4 Obsolescence and Vacancy 1025.5 Quality and Obsolescence: User-Based Property Assessment 1045.6 The Physical Characteristics of Structurally Vacant Office Buildings 1065.6.1 Structure and Floors 1075.6.2 Floor Layout, Building Length and Depth 1075.6.3 Façade 1085.6.4 Stairs and Elevators 1085.6.5 Location Characteristics 1085.7 Selected Adaptive Reuse Projects 1095.8 Conclusion 117References 118Chapter 6 Reuse versus Demolition 1216.1 Introduction 1216.2 Decision-Making Criteria 1226.3 Tools, Scans and Instruments 1236.3.1 The Transformation Meter 1246.3.2 Programmatic Quick Scan 1276.3.3 Architectural Value 1276.3.4 The Architects’ Method 1286.3.5 The ABT Method: An Instrument Developed in Practice 1286.4 Decisions-Based on Financial Arguments 1296.5 Durability and Sustainability 1316.6 Conclusion 132References 133Chapter 7 Examples of Successful Adaptive Reuse 1357.1 Introduction 1357.2 Dutch Conversion Projects (Office to Residential) 1367.2.1 ‘Stadhouder’ in Alphen aan den Rijn 1377.2.2 ‘Lodewijk Staete’ in Appingedam 1377.2.3 ‘Enka’ in Arnhem 1387.2.4 ‘Schuttersveld’ in Delft 1397.2.5 ‘Westplantsoen’ in Delft 1397.2.6 ‘Wilhelminastaete’ in Diemen 1407.2.7 ‘Granida’ in Eindhoven 1417.2.8 ‘Residentie de Deel’ in Emmeloord 1417.2.9 ‘Twentec’ in Enschede 1427.2.10 ‘Eendrachtskade’ in Groningen 1437.2.11 ‘Billiton’ in Den Haag 1437.2.12 ‘Hof ter Hage’ in Den Haag 1447.2.13 ‘Churchill Towers’ in Rijswijk 1457.2.14 ‘Puntegale’ in Rotterdam 1457.2.15 Westerlaan Tower in Rotterdam 1467.3 Discussion 1477.3.1 Data Analysis 1477.3.2 Conversion Risks 1477.3.3 Conversion Opportunities 1507.3.4 Typology 1527.3.5 Structure and Floors 1527.3.6 Floor Layout, Building Length and Depth 1537.3.7 Façade 1537.3.8 Stairs and Elevators 1547.3.9 Location 1547.3.10 Building 1557.4 Conclusion 157References 158Chapter 8 Preserving Cultural and Heritage Value 1598.1 Introduction 1598.2 Historic Heritage 1598.3 The Value of Heritage 1608.3.1 The Value of Place 1608.3.2 Cultural Capital 1618.3.3 Benefits of Heritage Conservation 1628.4 Assessing Economic Value of Heritage 1638.4.1 The Market Value of Heritage 1638.4.2 Direct Market Value 1648.4.3 Indirect Value 1648.4.4 Indirect Value of Heritage Tourism 1658.4.5 Heritage as a Source of Skills and Competencies 1658.4.6 Private/Public Value 1668.5 Heritage Value and Adaptation 1668.6 Architectonic and Aesthetic Value 1678.7 Experience Value 1708.7.1 Familiar Ugliness 1708.7.2 Cultural–Historical Value 1708.7.3 Symbolic Value 1718.7.4 Traumatic Experience Value 1738.7.5 Value in Use 1748.7.6 Intrinsic Value (Highest and Best Use) 1748.7.7 Heritage as a Source of Social Value 1768.8 Conclusion 180References 181Part III Adaptation Decision-Making and Optimisation 183Craig LangstonChapter 9 Identifying Adaptive Reuse Potential 1879.1 Introduction 1879.2 ARP Model 1889.3 Obsolescence Rates 1919.3.1 Physical Obsolescence 1919.3.2 Economic Obsolescence 1929.3.3 Functional Obsolescence 1939.3.4 Technological Obsolescence 1949.3.5 Social Obsolescence 1949.3.6 Legal Obsolescence 1959.3.7 Political Obsolescence 1969.4 Case Study: GPO Building, Melbourne 1979.5 Discussion 2019.6 Conclusion 205Note 206References 206Chapter 10 MCDA and Assessing Sustainability 20810.1 Introduction 20810.2 Background 20910.3 A New Approach 21110.3.1 Conceptual Framework 21110.3.2 Value for Money 21310.3.3 Quality of Life 21410.3.4 Sustainability Risk 21510.4 Life-Cost Planning 21510.5 Case Study: Bond University Mirvac School of Sustainable Development (MSSD) Building, Gold Coast 21710.5.1 Method 21710.5.2 Return on Investment 21810.5.3 Energy Usage 22010.5.4 Functional Performance 22010.5.5 Loss of Habitat 22110.5.6 Sustainability Index 22110.6 Discussion 22310.7 Conclusion 227Notes 227References 228Chapter 11 Modelling Building Performance Using iconCUR 23011.1 Introduction 23011.2 Visual MCDA 23111.3 iconCUR Model 23211.4 Case Study: 88 George Street, Sydney 23511.4.1 Overview 23511.4.2 Before Intervention 23711.4.3 After Intervention 23911.5 Discussion 24111.6 Conclusion 247Notes 247References 248Chapter 12 Designing for Future Adaptive Reuse 25012.1 Introduction 25012.2 Rationale 25112.3 AdaptSTAR Framework 25412.4 International Case Studies 25912.4.1 1881 Heritage, Hong Kong SAR (PRC) 26112.4.2 Peranakan Museum, City Hall (Singapore) 26112.4.3 Corso Karlín, Prague (Czech Republic) 26212.4.4 Arsenal de Metz, Metz (France) 26212.4.5 The Candy Factory Lofts, Toronto (Canada) 26312.4.6 Punta Della Dogana Contemporary Art Centre, Venice (Italy) 26312.4.7 Andel’s Hotel, Lódz (Poland) 26412.4.8 Sugar Warehouse Loft, Amsterdam (The Netherlands) 26412.4.9 The Powerhouse, Long Island City (USA) 26512.4.10 John Knox Church, Melbourne (Australia) 26512.5 Discussion 26612.6 Conclusion 268References 268Index 273