Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:609289 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Adaptive reuse
Adaptive reuse of heritage of heritage
buildings buildings
Peter A. Bullen and Peter E.D. Love
Department of Construction Management, School of the Built Environment,
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
411
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 social
benefits 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
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
building conservation has changed from preservation to being part of a broader strategy for urban
regeneration and sustainability. A growing body of opinion supports the view that adaptive reuse is a
powerful strategy for handling this change. Urban development and subsequent redevelopment has
a significant impact on the environment and the purpose of this paper is to investigate how the
conservation 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 heritage
buildings. In total, 60 semi-structured interviews were drawn from this stakeholder group to
investigate their current understanding of the sustainability issues associated with the adaptive reuse
of 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 which
is whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conserved or whether they are in fact eyesores
and unviable for adaptive reuse.
Originality/value – The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability has
not previously been explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest between the
preservation 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
Introduction
Heritage buildings form an integral part of Australia’s social capital. There is growing
acceptance within Australia that conserving heritage buildings provides significant
economic, cultural and social benefits (Bullen and Love, 2010). According to the
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH, 2004) heritage buildings provide a
valuable glimpse of the past and lend character to communities and therefore should
be conserved for future generations. The integration of historic conservation with
environmental concerns has become an innate feature of an agenda to support
sustainability (Stubbs, 2004; Bullen and Love, 2010). As part of a wider revitalisation
strategy to promote sustainability within the built environment, many buildings of
cultural and historical significance are being adapted and reused rather than being
subjected to demolition (Ball, 1999; DEH, 2004; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Wilkinson
et al., 2009; Bullen and Love, 2009).
To date there has been limited research that has examined the economic benefits of Structural Survey
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2011
heritage buildings (Bullen and Love, 2010). As a result, the retention of heritage pp. 411-421
buildings are often viewed as being “investment sinkholes” with issues associated with r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-080X
social and environment sustainability being ignored. In Western Australia, for DOI 10.1108/02630801111182439
SS example, the City of Perth (2011) has been advocating that significant financial savings
29,5 and returns can be made from the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in an attempt to
preserve 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 development
and expansion (Ball, 1999; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Bullen and Love, 2009). Adaptive
412 reuse can transform heritage buildings into accessible and useable places as well as
provide the added benefit of regenerating an area in a sustainable manner. Many cities
have begun to realise that reusing heritage buildings is an important part of any
regeneration programme (Ball, 1999). Yet, many building owners and developers still
regard the reuse of heritage buildings as being an unviable option as planning and
building regulations may restrict their functioning (Bullen and Love, 2010). In
addressing this issue, the Property Council of Australia (2005) has advocated that
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
heritage regulations should require the retention of only the best and most useful
features of an historic building. This paper examines practitioners’ views and
experiences associated with adaptive reuse of heritage buildings within the context of
urban regeneration, conservation and sustainability.
state where adaptive reuse is uneconomical or their layout may be inappropriate for
any 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 conservation
strategy is incorporated into the design (Ball, 1999; Douglas, 2002). The most
successful adaptive reuse projects are those that respect and retain a building’s
heritage significance as well as add a contemporary layer that provides value for
the future. When a building can no longer function with its original use, adaption is
the only way that a building’s fabric heritage significance can be preserved and
maintained. Some State agencies in Australia, such as Western Australia, are enacting
policies for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Such policies contain standard
criteria to ensure that an adaptive reuse project has minimal impact on a building’s
heritage 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 poor
imitation of the original historic style of the building; and
. seeking a new use for the building that is compatible with the immediate area.
Research methodology
The decision-making processes that owners and practitioners are confronted with
when considering adaptive reuse and issues pertaining to sustainability are diverse.
An interpretative research approach was therefore adopted as it can capture
information about the beliefs, actions and experiences of stakeholders involved in the
decision-making process surrounding adaptive reuse. Moreover, in considering the
viability 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 economic
nature.
Data collection
Interviews were chosen as the primary data collection mechanism as they an effective
tool for learning about matters that cannot be directly observed (Taylor and Bogdan,
1998). Interviews were used to understand the views and experiences associated with
adaptive reuse, which allowed a channel for “context” to be captured (Kvale, 1996). The
interview guide is the most widely used format for qualitative interviewing and was
SS adopted for this research (Patton, 1990). In this approach, the interviewer has an
29,5 outline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the wording and order of the
questions to some extent. The general themes that the interviewer focused on were:
. effectiveness of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a strategy to achieve
sustainability;
414
. attributes that make a heritage building suitable or unsuitable for adaptive
reuse;
. 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 period
with a stakeholder group comprising such as architects, developers and building
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
managers. Interviewees were chosen for their ability to contribute towards this
study through both tacit and explicit knowledge of adaptive reuse. Individual
representatives from firms from the metropolitan area of Perth were selected
using the technique of stratified random sampling and invited to participate in the
research.
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 information
from documents. Inferences from the data can only be drawn from the relationship with
what the data appear to have with their institutional, societal and cultural contexts
(Krippendorf, 1980). The text derived from the interviews was analysed using QSR
NVivo 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 researchers
to 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 developing
ideas (Kvale, 1996). These codings can be modified, integrated or migrated as the
analysis progresses and the generation of reports, using Boolean search, facilitates the
recognition of conflicts and contradictions. This process enabled the key themes
needed to be considered during the adaptive reuse or demolition decision-making
process to be identified.
were also identified. Noteworthy, “speeding up the planning processes” was considered
the 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 initially
plan and design buildings well so that they could be preserved and refitted later in their
lifecycle.
Stakeholder views
Orientation of building
Social sustainability
Environmental sustainability
Economic sustainability
Meeting SD benchmarks
Heritage significance
Cultural significance
Figure 1.
0%
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
10
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
Barriers to implementing
adaptive reuse Proportion of respondents identifying each
factor as a barrier
Factors considered during adaptive Adaptive reuse
reuse decisions
of heritage
Ability to aesthetically fit streetscape
Availability of materials to match existing
buildings
Benefits of reuse vs redevelopment
Community value of existing buildings
Compliance with building codes 417
Creative value compared to redevelopment
Demand for building after adaptive reuse
Heritage council guidelines
Impact on visual amenity
Increasing urban density
Market opportunity due to location
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0%
Figure 3.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
Benefits of implementing
Proportion of respondents identifying adaptive reuse
each factor as a benefit
Many barriers to adaptive reuse pertain to cost, as a perception existed that it was
more economical to demolish and construct a new building than to reuse. Compliance
with building codes (59 per cent) was deemed to be problematic as they were too rigid
and 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 the
availability and price of materials to match existing elements/fixtures/fittings was an
issue of concern. It was perceived that retaining older buildings rather than building
more new ones would create a more aesthetical environment for the community
(58 per cent).
While older commercial buildings often do not support passive environmental
techniques, it was perceived that existing buildings do provide opportunity to test
many new innovative technologies and develop diverse solutions to enhance
sustainability (65 per cent). The location of existing buildings was seen to be a critical
component of market opportunity, but opinion was fairly evenly divided with 54 per cent
seeing it as a barrier and 46 per cent seeing it as an opportunity for adaptive reuse.
%
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
sustainability objectives
Proportion of respondents identifying affect as negative
%
0%
reuse on sustainability
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
objectives
Proportion of respondents identifying affect as positive
Conclusion
The concept of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a component of sustainability
was strongly supported by respondents, but doubts remain about viability, particularly
of economic issues. To a large extent, sustainability of local communities depends on
the sense of place and value they place in their local community. Heritage invests local
communities with a powerful reason to look after their local environment and lead
more sustainable lifestyles as they have a powerful connection to their physical
environment through visual amenity and the intrigue and uniqueness offered by
heritage buildings and streetscapes. People feel a stronger sense of connection with
their local surroundings through heritage, which is quite different to the mentality
associated with new building stock, in that it can be, replicated anywhere and therefore
lends no specific connection to the local environment. Heritage buildings are cultural
icons and their preservation impacts on community well-being, sense of place and
therefore social sustainability. Due to the importance of these factors, it is preferable to
reuse heritage buildings rather than replace them regardless of bad plot ratios and lack
of efficiency. Old buildings can be a visual amenity that provides a sense of connection
with local surroundings through heritage.
The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability has not
been explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest between
the preservation of heritage values and progression of the sustainable urban design
agenda. In some cases it appears that the heritage requirements attached to buildings
may obstruct the use of new materials or techniques needed for adaptive reuse.
Any assessment that considers the reuse of heritage buildings should also
incorporate criteria that ensure the adaptive reuse will not affect heritage values of the
building. Despite presenting many positive outcomes in terms of sustainability, the
adaptive reuse of heritage buildings creates many problems. These tend to concentrate
around the technical difficulties that working on heritage buildings will generate.
Many of the materials and components used in heritage buildings are no longer readily
available and may have to be manufactured to special order. Even if the materials are
obtained there is no guarantee that suitably qualified craftsmen will be available
locally or even nationally. These problems will impact on the economic viability of
carrying out an adaptive reuse project and may prove totally impractical for
developers as an investment. In many cases, the only way that a heritage building will
SS present a viable opportunity as an adaptive refuse project will be if incentives
29,5 are available for developers. The ability to make heritage buildings attractive to
developers as viable reuse projects relies heavily on the introduction of legislation that
reduces building code and planning requirements and offers substantial financial
incentives in the form of tax concessions. The research has highlighted several broad
questions concerning the decision process for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings
420 not the least of which is whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conserved
or whether they in fact eventually become eyesores that are liabilities.
References
Ball, R. (1999), “Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
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 deliver
sustainability in Australia”, Structural Survey, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Corresponding author
Peter A. Bullen can be contacted at: p.bullen@curtin.edu.au
1. Tony Ma, Minmei YuAn Analysis of the Adaptive Re-use of Heritage Buildings in South Australia
1307-1316. [CrossRef]
2. Vivian W.Y. Tam, Ivan W.H. Fung, Michael C.P. Sing. 2016. Adaptive reuse in sustainable development:
An empirical study of a Lui Seng Chun building in Hong Kong. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
65, 635-642. [CrossRef]
3. Michael Paul Louw University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa TheoC. Haupt PINNACLE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS Parow Industria South Africa . 2016. The adaptive
reuse of industrial structures: revisiting the Thesen Islands power station project in South Africa. Journal
of Engineering, Design and Technology 14:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
4. Damla Mısırlısoy, Kağan Günçe. 2016. Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach.
Sustainable Cities and Society 26, 91-98. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 09:09 20 August 2016 (PT)
5. Sarah Hill Independent Consultant, Toronto, Canada AND Lord Cultural Resources, Toronto, Canada .
2016. Constructive conservation – a model for developing heritage assets. Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable Development 6:1, 34-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Kristy Dyson Department of Construction Management, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Jane
Matthews Department of Construction Management, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Peter E.D. Love
Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia . 2016. Critical success factors of
adapting heritage buildings: an exploratory study. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 6:1,
44-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Christopher D. Reeves. 2016. Policy for conservation of heritage railway signal boxes in Great Britain. The
Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 7:1, 43-59. [CrossRef]
8. Lilawati Ab Wahab, Noor Aishah Mohd.Hamdan, Nor Suzila Lop, Izatul Faritta Mohd Kamar. 2016.
Adaptive Re-Use Principles in Historic Hotel Buildings in Melaka And George Town. MATEC Web of
Conferences 66, 00030. [CrossRef]
9. Noorzalifah Mohamed, Kartina Alauddin. 2016. The Criteria For Decision Making In Adaptive Reuse
Towards Sustainable Development. MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00092. [CrossRef]
10. Yi-Ju Lee. 2015. Creating memorable experiences in a reuse heritage site. Annals of Tourism Research 55,
155-170. [CrossRef]
11. Deepjyoti Choudhury, Dibyojyoti Bhattacharjee. 2015. Salaried Employees and Adoption of e-Banking
Delivery Channel: A Literature Review. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management
and e-Learning 5:3, 153-164. [CrossRef]
12. George Agyekum‐MensahSchool of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent
University, Nottingham, UK Andrew KnightSchool of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK Christopher CoffeySchool of Architecture, Design and
the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. 2012. 4Es and 4 Poles model of
sustainability. Structural Survey 30:5, 426-442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]