Let's pretend that you're approached by someone who says, "I've heard of adaptive reuse of older buildings. Can you explain to me why it's better to reuse them than to start all over with a brand new structure?"
I know we've covered this ground before, but I'm looking for a Tribune column idea for next week or perhaps the week after. Readers who are well versed in this notion, please comment ... and remember, we're not talking about specifics, just the general merits of adaptive reuse for the less cognizant among us. Thanks in advance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Let's say you have a building that used to be a bakery and through the years served as other entities. You take that building, instead of creating a new structure, and make yourself a brewery and pub with cuisine never before seen in these parts. That is adaptive reuse, right?
Hopefully Ted Fulmore and Dan Chandler will comment on this--both are particularly knowledgeable on this topic.
Wihle historic presevation is important, for me personally, environmental issues are MORE important.
Which would be more green, saving an old structure and keeping debris out of a landfill, or a new building that is built "green" to conserve more energy, be more efficient, and reuse as much material from the old structure as possible....
Using a building for something other than its intended use is adaptive reuse. And the bakery building is a great example of it. That building was ugly and vacant. Few can claim they had a good vision for reuse. While some fight change, Roger and team obviously embraced it. New Albany’s “quality of place” is obviously improved with the reuse of that building.
The benefits of AR are many. It’s green. It preserves the sense of place (by not removing structures). It is an example of smart growth. And while I hate broad generalizations, because each project/structure is unique, it can be more cost effective than new construction especially when factoring in incentives like tax credits available for historic structures.
While I’m not intending to argue CD’s point, I will state that is utterly impossible for the world to build its way to sustainability. Existing building stock is here and the challenge is to make it more energy efficient.
I strongly disagree with Chris D's point - Reusing, rehabbing, and retrofitting an existing historic building is about the greenest thing you can do. The energy, materials, etc. you use in a new building far exceed any energy savings. Not to mention that a lot of well-built historic buildings have passive heating and cooling features from back in the days before central air.
Additionally, historic structures have value far in excess of being "green." Chief of which is, as Ted mentioned, creating a unique sense of place.
We have plenty of empty lots for innovative, LEED certified, new construction. It makes no sense to tear down our historic fabric.
You also have to consider the energy embodied in existing structures. Given the energy used in production, construction, etc, every eight bricks in an existing building equals about a gallon of gasoline.
Australia has calculated that the energy embodied in its existing building stock is equivalent to the total energy needed to run the entire country for ten years.
On a larger scale, when preexisting buildings are reused, you're also reusing and maximizing the revenue generated by the preexisting infrastructure (streets, sewers, etc) that surround them. Positive economic impact and tax base increases occur with less public investment than would otherwise be required for new construction.
There is a government building in Munich that was a WWII era ruin the first time I visited in 1985. Over the next few years, I'd walk down to check it out as it was transformed. The remaining intact sections were incorporated into a new design, and the end result is both old and modern.
Do you think any taxpayers looked at this and dismissed it as an unnecessary expense, i.e., "we shoulda just pulled that down -- woulda been cheaper"?
Do you think any local politicians pandered to this position?
How does one go about educating both the public and the politician that an old bulding is an opportunity for reuse?
Thanks to both Daniel and ted for their comments about Bank Street.
I think we should get an award for best adaptive reuse of 1950s-era unused bakery thrift store buildings, LOL.
Here is a nice explanation of why "the greenest building is the one that already exists."
The Greenest Building is One that Already Exists
"I strongly disagree with Chris D's point - Reusing, rehabbing, and retrofitting an existing historic building is about the greenest thing you can do."
Please re-read my post. I posed a question, I did not stated a point.
The one point I did make for me personally is that environmental issues to me are MORE important than historic preservation.
I'd advise everyone reading this to follow Brandon's link above, which leads to a very persuasive case for preservation and green being precisely the same thing.
Sorry I misread you (I'm obviously passionate about this topic), I know we're on the same team.
The point is that historic preservation is an environmental issue, so no conflict.
Oh, and I forgot to include Brandon on our list of local experts--sorry :-)
"How does one go about educating both the public and the politician that an old building is an opportunity for reuse?"
Probably one of the best is to offer a cost/benefit analysis of the situation
For example cost of purchasing property, plus cost of demolition, plus cost of material removal and landfill, plus cost of new construction, plus cost of the large number of environmental impact reports, new services, etc.
Compared to:
Cost of purchasing property, plus cost of rehab, plus cost of upgrading existing systems, plus cost of probable historic documentation.
Of course presenting the public with examples of adaptive reuse is also a good way of showing what can be done with existing structures, some of the wonderful condos in older buildings in Louisville, Glassworks, Slugger Field, etc.
Cost benefit analysis are great if you’re a developer. Hard expenses and revenues are easy to quantify for the developer (or in this case, the City and County). When discussing land use issues, it’s more difficult to quantity in dollar terms both costs and benefits. Placing a price tag on not having a gapping hole in the streetscape can be as easy as pricing a sunset. I challenge anyone to stand up prove that sunsets don’t have real value. I also challenge anyone to stand up and affix a definitive number to that value. Many of the new city-county building users will drive in from the suburbs, do their business, and then drive away. It is the residents and business owners in the adjacent neighborhoods who will bare the costs of poor architecture and construction that does not age gracefully. The county saves the easily definable money; the city gets stuck with the more difficult to define externalities.
One of our clinics, which is housed in a "not historic", but none the less almost 40 year old building is about to get a major renovation and expansion to better house our operations.
As far as greeniness goes, the plans I am developing with the architects include the addition to be matched to the original building, connected with a covered breezeway (kepping the structure separate, but joined), the addition of HOPEFULLY solar water heaters for the original building, and possibly solar collection panels on the roof of the original.
HOWEVER, here is why we did not choose to add directly on to the existing building. ADA and fire codes have changed dramatically, and if the building changes ownership or major renovations, several things come around to slap you in the wallet.
All hallways must be at least 5 foot wide now, through out the entire building(s), if there are not presently an operational sprinkler system in the building, the areas with out them MUST be retrofitted to have them (about $5 per square foot for installation and equipment), back flow devices must be placed on all water service and sprinkler systems, additions of elevators for ADA compliancy, as well as firedoors, and asbestos and lead paint inspections and removal if need be.
The Indiana Department of Homeland Security can, on occassion, grant wavers to these conditions, but it is extremely rare, even more so in facilities operated by or funded by municipal, state or federal monies, and in even less cases where the general public will be granted access on a regular basis.
In order to better serve our clients, I have spent countless hours and TONS of money on inspections, recommendations, plans, permits, and upgrades, simply to get ready for expansion of an existing building.
Are the standards passed down on us harder because we are a medical facility and we are receiving TARP money, maybe...
But it does give on pause when considering changing an old car dealership to a municipal government center.
But none-the-less, even though it would be "cheaper" for us to build another facility instead of ugrading this one, I am proceding.
Just with out the luxury of such things as geo-thermal heating/cooling, etc.
But the plans do call for environmentally friendly paints, insulations, flooring, and all products used HAVE to made in America, and preferably recycled materials.
Of course once the final RFP's are done and submitted, I will post a link on my blog for anyone to see, as required by the feds!
Post a Comment