Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CITATIONS
READS
720
2 AUTHORS:
Peter A. Bullen
Curtin University
Curtin University
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
411
Abstract
Purpose There is growing acceptance that heritage buildings are an important element of
Australias 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
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 Australias 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
heritage buildings (Bullen and Love, 2010). As a result, the retention of heritage
buildings are often viewed as being investment sinkholes with issues associated with
social and environment sustainability being ignored. In Western Australia, for
Structural Survey
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2011
pp. 411-421
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-080X
DOI 10.1108/02630801111182439
SS
29,5
412
example, the City of Perth (2011) has been advocating that significant financial savings
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
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
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.
Adaptive reuse and the conservation of heritage buildings
Adaptive reuse involves converting a building to undertake a change of use required
by new or existing owners (Latham, 2000; Wilkinson et al., 2009). The change of use
may require refurbishment and/or complete renovation of existing buildings or
structures. In most States of Australia, adaptive reuse is a process that invariably
involves physically changing the function of a disused or ineffective building (DEH,
2004). Changes to buildings can involve major internal space reorganisation and
service upgrades or replacement. Alternatively, adaptive reuse may simply require
minor restoration works where nothing changes except the buildings functional use.
When adaptive reuse is applied to heritage buildings, it not only retains the building
but conserves the effort, skill and dedication of the original builders (Love and Bullen,
2009). Adaptive reuse also conserves the architectural, social, cultural and historical
values (Latham, 2000). Accordingly Bromley et al. (2005) have advocated that adaptive
reuse is essentially a form of heritage conservation. There has been a shift away from
confining heritage value to prestigious, monumental or historically significant
buildings. Buildings of more vernacular origins such as redundant offices or obsolete
community halls are seen to have heritage value (Hamer, 2000). The practical outcomes
of adaptive reuse and the conceptual values of conservation support the reuse of
heritage buildings as a sustainable strategy. Cooper (2001) suggests that the outcomes
of adaptive reuse include improvements in material and resource efficiency
(environmental sustainability), cost reductions (economic sustainability) and
retention (social sustainability).
Maintaining heritage buildings
The act of conserving parts of cities as history, and then reusing those spaces for a
variety 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 key
driver of regeneration (Pendlebury, 2002; Strange and Whitney, 2003). Pickard (1996)
contends that sustainable historic environments should:
.
discouraging facadism that is, gutting the building and retaining its facade;
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
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
413
SS
29,5
414
adopted for this research (Patton, 1990). In this approach, the interviewer has an
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:
.
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
415
%
10
0
90
%
80
%
%
70
60
%
50
%
40
%
30
%
%
20
10
%
0%
Cultural significance
Figure 1.
Factors affecting adaptive
reuse decision making
SS
29,5
416
10
0%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
10
%
20
%
Figure 2.
Barriers to implementing
adaptive reuse
0%
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
10
0%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
417
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.
Impact of adaptive reuse on sustainability
According to 73 per cent of respondents adaptive reuse would impact sustainability by
reducing the amount of demolition. However, only 61 per cent felt the impact would be
beneficial as shown in Figure 5, while 12 per cent felt it would have a negative impact
as 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 in
terms of sustainability objectives. But it would only be viable if costs and benefits were
factored in over the life of the building. Although adaptive reuse was seen as a
more sustainable option than redevelopment, the decision would be case sensitive, with
Figure 3.
Benefits of implementing
adaptive reuse
SS
29,5
418
0%
%
90
10
60
%
70
%
80
%
40
%
50
%
30
%
20
%
10
%
Figure 4.
Negative effects of
adaptive reuse on
sustainability objectives
10
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
Figure 5.
Positive effects of adaptive
reuse on sustainability
objectives
increase urban density, it had other benefits in this context such as visual amenity and
cultural 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 in
terms 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 sustainability
of a building should be enhanced by adaptive reuse.
Adaptive reuse was seen to be effective because 75 per cent of the respondents that
referred to economic viability, felt the costs to demolish outweighed the costs to
improve the building. Out of the 62 per cent of respondents identifying eco-efficiency as
a factor, 55 per cent referred to case studies that show eco-efficiency of buildings is
increased during adaptive reuse by using efficient heating, insulation and low-impact
materials. It would appear from the respondents generally that utilising existing
buildings through adaptive reuse provides the opportunity to make the total built
environment more aesthetically pleasing and productive, while retaining streetscapes
and our sense of place.
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
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
419
SS
29,5
420
References
Ball, R. (1999), Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant
buildings, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 140-8.
Ball, R. (2002), Reuse potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regeneration issue
in 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 through
residential 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 from
the 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 reuse
decision-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 United
States, Planning Perspectives, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-22.
Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Newbury
Park, 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, Newbury
Park, 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.
Pickard, R.D. (1996), Conservation in the Built Environment, Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow.
Property Council of Australia (2005), Tax incentives could transform civic and town
centres, available at: http://propertycouncil.gravitymax.com.au/nat/page.asp (accessed
19 July 2006).
Strange, I. and Whitney, D. (2003), The changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation in
the UK, Planning, Practice and Research, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-29.
Stubbs, M. (2004), Heritage-sustainability: developing a methodology for the sustainable
appraisal 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 office
buildings: 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 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
Adaptive reuse
of heritage
buildings
421