People and the Planet 2013 Conference...

People and the Planet 2013 Conference Proceedings This article was first presented at the People and the Planet 2013 Conference: Transforming the Future, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 2-4 July. All articles published in this collection have been peer reviewed.

Title: Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future Author(s): Anupa Manewa1, Christine Pasquire2, Alistair Gibb3, Andrew Ross1 and

Mohan Siriwardena4 Institution(s): 1 Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom

2 Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom 3 Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom 4 University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom

Email(s): [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Publisher: Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Year: 2013 Editor(s): Paul James, Chris Hudson, Sam Carroll-Bell, Alyssa Taing Series URL: http://global-cities.info/news-events/conferences-forums/conferences-proceedings

Copyright © 2013 Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University. All rights reserved. This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Material, which is reproduced from this publication, in whole or in part, must be clearly attributed to the author and source.

Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future ANUPA MANEWA, CHRISTINE PASQUIRE, ALISTAIR GIBB, ANDREW ROSS and MOHAN SIRIWARDENA

Abstract: Built environment challenges appear in the areas of ‘environment considerations’, ‘innovations in technology’, ‘planning and policy issues’, ‘social requirements’, ‘political forces’ and ‘economic considerations’. To respond to these macro level challenges, buildings need to change in terms of the ‘function’ they house, the ‘capacity’ to achieve the performance required for the population they hold and the ‘flow’ of reacting to internal and external forces. Proactive solutions to respond to future potential changes are rare in previous and current building designs, which make these buildings prematurely obsolete or require substantial refurbishment or demolition. However, scrapping and building anew is not always appreciated within the sustainability agenda. At present, curiosity about adaptable buildings is spreading among building owners, developers and policy makers. This paper examines design strategies for adaptability in buildings, thereby facilitating a sustainable built environment. First, the paper investigates how the uses and function of the built environment, along with its supporting infrastructure, has changed over a period of 100 years, based on two case studies. Secondly, it explains how adaptable buildings could respond to those changes in a sustainable manner. Findings of the case studies were used to establish the ‘need’ for designing future-proofed buildings while emphasizing the enormous contribution of adaptable buildings towards a sustainable future. Keywords: Adaptable buildings, sustainability, change of use, obsolescence

1. Background A revolution in agricultural and industrial sectors in the 18th century wrought a remarkable change in social, cultural and economic life styles in the United Kingdom (UK). As a result, major changes could be seen in patterns of land ownership and land use during the last century (Butlin 1994). Today, the UK Government tends to promote optimum use of the existing building stock through mixed use in urban centres and encourages conversion of redundant office and retail space into leisure, service and/or residential uses rather than renewal (Davison et al. 2006). However, the endeavour of upgrading older maladaptive buildings to meet present day user needs seems economically expensive and technically unjustifiable. In the developed world, there is an increasing need to adapt obsolete or redundant buildings to continue the same use or to modify them for new uses (Douglas 2006), which seems like

2

an economically sound solution for minimizing building redundancy. Sometimes these conversion processes are uneconomical and demolition seems unsustainable, thus making it more economical to maintain the original space as redundant until demand for a potential use reappears. Therefore it is important to analyze ways of utilizing the existing building stock as mixed or sole use developments, because building functions have limited life, they are expensive to build, and the cost of replacement is high and clearly unnecessary when they are physically robust and adaptable. This is encouraging greater innovation in the design of new buildings to allow for change of use throughout the structure’s lifetime. The existing building stock in the UK is subjected to different challenges of the built environment. These challenges appear in the areas of ‘environment considerations’ (Geraedts 2008, Kincaid 2000), ‘innovations in technology’ (Nutt 2000), ‘planning and policy issues’, ‘social requirements’, ‘political forces’ (Gann and Barlow 1996) and ‘economic considerations’ (Arge 2005, Douglas 2006). To respond to these macro level challenges, buildings need to change in terms of the ‘function’ they house, the ‘capacity’ to achieve the performance required for the population they hold and the ‘flow’ of reacting to internal and external environmental forces (Slaughter 2001). However, buildings that are unable to cope with the aforementioned challenges will become prematurely obsolete or require substantial refurbishment or demolition, where neither option may lead towards a sustainable future. In essence adaptable buildings are widely recognized as intrinsic to a sustainable built environment (Kendall and Ando 2005) and they might focus on bespoke solutions which, wherever possible, are flexible to varying customer needs. However, a constraint to the implementation of a policy of life span adaptability is the difficulty of understanding the sustainable considerations over long time scales. There is therefore a growing need to design new buildings that are adaptable and flexible over their life span whilst at the same time improving user satisfaction. 2. Research methodology Two case studies were studied to explain the typical changes of buildings over a period of 100 years. The town of Loughborough study, focused on the change of use of buildings within a relatively smaller geographical area. The city of Liverpool study, focused on the same aspect but within a relatively large geographical area. These two cases were used to identify and understand the changes of buildings over the last century. Loughborough is a typical small rural town in the heart of England (East Midlands) and Liverpool is a large city in the North West of England. Historic maps and documents were collected from record offices (Leicester and Liverpool), and public libraries. An extensive Morphological Analysis was carried out within the area to study how building functions have changed and to establish the factors behind those changes. A previous research study using Morphological Analysis was undertaken by Ariga (2005) on adaptable physical settings and flexible mixtures for livable urban communities in the city of San Francisco. It focused on functional clusters and their adaptability with the changing conditions. Similarly, Morphological Analysis is used to identify the pattern of change in building functions in selected building clusters in Loughborough and Liverpool during the last century. A morphological analysis is a general method for non-quantified modelling, consequently, it is considered as a classification system made up of categories that divide some aspects of the world into parts (Ariga 2005). In this sense, the same method is used by the research described in this paper to investigate the space use pattern in buildings (either mixed or sole use) and their surrounding structures.

Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

3

The main types of building were identified as residential, commercial, industrial, social and leisure categories. Residential included detached, semi-detached, houses and apartment blocks. Commercial comprised offices, banks, public houses, hotels and retail categories. Industrial included buildings for manufacturing and warehouses. Social covered schools, churches, clubs, hospitals and buildings which were built for community wellbeing. Leisure included parks and other recreational facilities. Historic maps to a scale of 1 inch = 88 feet and for the years 1886, 1890, 1901, 1921, 1924, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1989, 2004, 2008 and 2010, were used to study the pattern of functional transformations of buildings over the years. Among those maps, critical differentiations of functional uses of buildings were identified from 1886, 1921, 1970, 1989, 2008 (Loughborough) and 1890, 1924, 1988, 2004, 2010 (Liverpool). Other historic documents were also accessed to identify the factors behind the transitions. A total of seven semi structured interviews (two in Loughborough and five in Liverpool) were conducted with different professionals (a development and control officer, senior planner, quantity surveyor and four academics: two from quantity surveying, one from architecture and one from structural engineering) with more than 15 years of experience in their disciplines, to obtain the platform data for the study and to identify the economic, social and environment impacts derived from the changes observed. The main reason for selecting those clusters was their frequent changes in space and their representation of all the functional units better than the other possible clusters. The selected clusters are located at the commercial hub of the town of Loughborough and Liverpool city centre. Moreover, direct observations of the existing building stock within the selected clusters were carried out to identify their most recent uses. These observations revealed which buildings had been replaced in recent times as the construction technology was clearly less than 60 years old and helped to estimate the percentage of alterations in buildings and their functions. 3. Data collection and analysis The industrial revolution in the 19th century caused rapid developments in the town/city based on various manufacturing and engineering industries. Although relatively undamaged physically by the First and Second World Wars in the first half of the 20th century, there was a disruption to the growth pattern of both Loughborough town and Liverpool city during these periods whilst the growth of public policies in the late 20th century has favoured changes in space use patterns. Two case studies were carried out to identify the pattern of building change in Loughborough and Liverpool. The cluster areas were selected through preliminary surveys, which identified the maximum number of multi-functional (residential, commercial, industrial, social, leisure) units within a single area. The cluster areas referred to in this paper are surrounded by roads and reveal remarkable changes in both the functional and spatial transitions. Building change of use in the selected clusters over the century was noted by comparing each building with its previous use. Colours (yellow: social, light green: commercial, purple: industrial, sky blue: residential, pink: leisure and recreational, grey: buildings with no change of use, and white: open/vacant space) were assigned to represent the change of use in buildings with comparison to their previous use. Table 1 illustrates the pattern of building use change in Loughborough and Liverpool during the last century. The findings of Loughborough case study were published as a chapter (Manewa et al. 2009) of the book ‘Smart Building in a Changing Climate’.

A. Manewa et al.

4

Table 1: Pattern of Building Transitions in Loughborough and Liverpool L

ough

boro

ugh

1886 1921 1970 1989 2008

Liv

erpo

ol

1890 1924 1988 2004 2010

Source: Manewa (et al. 2009)

3.1 Loughborough case study The case study covers the area bounded by High Street to the North, Woodgate to the East, South Street to the South and Market Place to the West. In 1886 the residential buildings were placed along Woodgate and South Streets as semi-detached houses. Most of the detached houses were scattered over the middle part of the cluster. The town hall and police court can be identified under the Social category. There were commercial buildings, such as banks, hotels, small shops and a few public houses with industrial buildings surrounded by the residential units at the centre. Spatial extensions in social (Town hall) and commercial buildings (bank, hotels) could be easily identified through the 1921 map. A new cinema and National Westminster bank were added to the social and commercial building networks respectively. But no remarkable alteration to the remaining building stock could be seen in 1921. Moreover, there were no noticeable impacts from the First World War (1914–18). By 1970 many changes could be easily identified. Since 1921, new buildings and extensions had taken place in all the functional categories. Specific new construction (Corporation Yard, Woolworths, Police Station) and conversions of existing buildings (Part of an existing police station became a Magistrates Court, Midland Horticultural Works became Clemerson’s Storage), could be highlighted during this period. More spaces were also allocated for commercial, social and industrial buildings. Some of the Victorian residential buildings were demolished and some were converted to other functions. The cluster started to commercialize after the Second World War adding growing employment opportunities for the people at Loughborough. As a result, the town economically and socially stabilized in 1970. It can be seen that more spaces were added to the existing commercial stock after 1970. All the residential buildings were replaced by the other functional units. A larger area has been allocated as open space in 1989 than in 1970. There is no evidence of significant development in the existing stock or new construction. When analyzing the historical maps


5

throughout the last century, a remarkable growth in commercial, social and open spaces can be identified in 2008. Approximately half of the area is developed as commercial buildings and the remaining area is allocated for social and open spaces. 3.2 Liverpool case study The selected cluster from the historic maps of Liverpool is a triangular shaped area, which is bounded by Church Street to the top, Hanover Street to the right and Paradise Street to the left. The 1890 map shows the Church of England and its graveyard, theatre, club and a hotel along Church Street. Bluecoat school (also referred to as Bluecoat hospital) was placed in the centre of the cluster which provided easy access to all the other streets. A few public houses were placed along the Hanover and Paradise Streets. Residential houses were scattered everywhere within the cluster. The cluster accommodated social and commercial facilities. The Bluecoat school was moved away from the cluster in 1906 and the space was used to accommodate Bluecoat art gallery and the museum. In 1923 the cathedral was demolished and graveyard was removed to the outskirts of Liverpool. A new building was built on the same site and used for clothing retail (Woolworths and HMV). In 1988 the cluster was fully commercialized by adding two banks (Barclays, Lloyds), Boots chemist, retails for clothing (Dorothy Perkins, Littlewoods, Burton, C&A clothing etc.). Bluecoat art gallery remained at the same point at the middle of the cluster. An increase in vacant spaces (approximately 10 per cent from the 1927 map) is noted. The 2004 map showed more parking spaces and the demolition of some of those vacant buildings which were noted on the 1988 map. This evidenced the spending power of people as they tended to use privately owned/hired vehicles to come to the city for social and commercial activities. Partial renovation was undertaken inside the Bluecoat gallery and the internal space accommodated a restaurant, office and a cafeteria. Next (a clothing retailer) was moved into the C&A clothing premises. In 2010 there were no major changes to commercial facilities of the cluster except Littlewoods retail was shifted away and the building space was occupied by Primark clothing. Fewer vacant buildings could be identified within the 2010 map compared to the 2004 map. An impact from the 2008 economic crisis was remarked, however, it could be assumed the impact was lessened by Liverpool being selected as the city for the European capital of culture 2008. The Morphological Analysis illustrates a demand for various buildings in different time periods. A growing trend in the industrial sector a century ago demanded a change in building type to fit for new purpose. The historical maps indicate that in the 19th and early 20th centuries many of the buildings were utilized for manufacturing products along with heavy industries such as iron foundries, corn mills, warehousing and goods handling on canal wharves. It would appear that these industrial buildings were very large, spacious and well-engineered to accommodate the heavy machinery and large work force. By the turn of the 21st century however, it could be seen that most of these industrial buildings had been converted to other functional units such as residential, commercial, social and retail facilities with certain improvements (eg. Towles Mill Building—Loughborough; Dockland Building—Liverpool). However, designing buildings for adaptation is one of the present day’s solutions for a knowledge based, profit orientated economy with rapidly changing product ranges. Reusability created by adaptability of buildings will significantly contribute to economic, social and environmental sustainability.

A. Manewa et al.

6

3.3 Adaptable buildings for sustainable futures A recent consideration has been given to identify how the new building stock could be adapted to face the 21st century challenges (Henehan and Woodson 2003, Sheffer and Levitt 2010), which requires an understanding of the extent of changes required to the existing building stock and the lessons learnt for designing buildings to be sustainable in the future. Sustainable buildings have an in-built ability to adjust to changing circumstances and technologies, without excessive waste and conflict (Kendall and Ando 2005). In its simplest form, sustainable futures are ones in which the basic means of human livelihood get easier, human opportunities become richer, and nature’s diversity is more sustained and not only in the rich parts of the world (Holling 2000). In this sphere, adaptable buildings can be defined as ‘dynamic systems that carry the capacity to accommodate a set of evolving demands regarding space, function, and components’ thus maximizing the through life value (Adaptable Futures 2012). A maladaptive building is one that cannot match the new demand placed upon it, whether it is technically unviable or cost-inefficient. The line between the two can often become blurred and depends on a set of exogenous and endogenous demands that can be determined through careful evaluation. Correspondingly, open building design (Habraken 1980, Kendall 1999) provides a similar conceptual philosophy but falls short of providing clear criteria for evaluation, focusing primarily on the separation of long and short-term components. Beyond the ability of change of use (ie. convertible), adaptable buildings are incorporated with different design strategies as noted in Framecycle (Figure 1), which was developed by Adaptable Futures Project in 2012. With regard to the framecycle, the ‘adjustable’ strategy relates to the ability of buildings to change their tasks. This considers alterations of furniture type, coordinated connections and module systems. ‘Versatility’ explains the ability to change the internal space of a building. The strategy takes into account up-to-date service systems, changeable panels, demountable/portable and stackable units, oversized structures, modular units and easy connections. ‘Refitability’ describes the ability to change building components, which considers detachable, degradable, mobile, movable and collapsible components. The term ‘convertible’ determines the ability of buildings to shift between different uses/functions. This requires internal and external alterations to buildings. Considerations are given to managing large spaces, renewable materials, ceilings and open spaces to facilitate those uses. The ability to change the size of the building is reflected by ‘scalability’. ‘Extendible’, ‘elasticity’, and ‘expandable’ also have similar meanings to scalability. This considers such alterations as reusable components, renewable services, recycled materials, insulated buildings and kits of parts. The ability to change location is explained through ‘movability’. This encourages system buildings, standard components, product families, and prefabricated and parallel processes. However, semantic permutations/dependencies between some of the aforementioned strategies create difficulties in clustering them into specific individual categories. For example, design for potential change of use (convertible) connects with the scalable and refitable aspects of building components. Brand (1994) provides strong evidence that buildings are not just static objects but that they are dynamic. For instance, Brand presents a model (shearing layers of change) on the way a building can be altered over time. Hence, designing a building to adapt to a potential change of use means allowing its hierarchical layers to change; each in its own time scale.


7

Figure 1: Design strategies for adaptability in buildings

Source: Adaptable Futures (2012) Among the six design strategies for adaptability the priority is given in this paper to explain the ability of adaptable buildings to survive in the change of use scenario. The current building stock in the UK only vaguely fits the evolving needs of businesses and users. The likely reason for this is that the original design cannot adjust to the potential changes. This leads buildings to be demolished, renewed, refurbished or redundant (Arja et al. 2009) which might create negative impacts to the environment, economy and the society. Maintaining a redundant building stock is economically unviable and a socially unacceptable solution, as these buildings generate no income while the building owners are liable to pay taxes for the buildings. Also, scrapping and rebuilding relatively young buildings is neither economically nor socially desirable and does not correspond with the demand for durability and sustainability (Remoy and Voordts 2009). ‘Sustainability’ has been an important element of all real estate developers’ agendas, regardless of time and market perspective (Arge 2005). If buildings were designed for potential adaptations, it would be possible to successfully respond to the aforementioned built environment changes. On the other hand, sustainability will be a major criterion in judging future buildings and their installations. Among the factors that play a role here are savings in base materials, minimizing waste production, ease of dismantling, adaptability and deposit money arrangements. Flexible buildings and installations that are readily adaptable to changing conditions respond to this trend (Geraedts 2008). Buildings designed to maximize the potential for adaptation to accommodate different uses are required, together with appropriate transportation and communication infrastructures (Gann and Barlow 1996). ‘The construction industry must respond by creating new buildings that are adaptable, allowing their operating facilities managers to readily respond to changing space use demands throughout their life’ (Webb et al. 1997, p. 318). A building that is ‘unfit for purpose’ leads to it being redundant in its functional tenures. In this light, either design for adaptations (DfA) or design for short lifespans can be considered. However, the latter is not yet appreciated in the sustainable agenda as many of the construction materials are economical in

A. Manewa et al.

8

long structural lifespans, although reusable solutions have not been very well practiced in the construction history recently. Hence, this paper promotes the potential for extending the functional lifecycles of buildings through DfA. However, the future-proof endeavour seems complicated and risky because the decisions taken today need to be justifiable tomorrow, and perhaps these decisions may only vaguely fit tomorrow’s requirements. In this regard, spending too much over budget for an unattainable target could also be considered a waste. The literature reveals adaptable buildings as a nascent but strong and practical solution to defeating the problem of building redundancy (Adaptable Futures 2012, Douglas 2006, Kronenburg 2007). However, the critical challenge to building designers/owners/developers is the inability to prepare for unforeseeable futures, mainly because of the difficulty in predicting future uncertainties, risks and the costs of changes (Ellingham and Fawcett 2006). Property developers are more concerned with the returns on their investments in adaptable properties; however, economic evaluation for adaptable buildings needs to be conducted to provide the needed ‘hard’ evidence to show that these buildings provide a more economically sound answer than a typical fit-to-use solution. Thus, there is a need to respond to the increasing pressures of rapid changes in user needs, technological shifts, altered working and living patterns and other forces that render buildings obsolete before the depletion of their service lives (Fernandez 2003). 4. Results and discussions Geraedts (2008) states the current building stock is more towards long structural, short functional life and more concerned to fit the sustainable agenda. His evidence further illustrates the existing building stock is no longer meeting the present day user’s needs and this leads to an increasing number of vacant buildings. As a solution for this dilemma, he suggests an effective means to incorporating adaptable, recyclable, sustainable, consumer orientated, flexible and open building concepts should be found. It is valid for the selected clusters too. The Morphological Analysis shows that most of the buildings, around 80–85 per cent faced functional transitions during their sole structural life span. However the result further illustrates that approximately 30 per cent of total demolitions were carried out in the clusters during the last century. From this, it is obvious that designing buildings which can change without physical damage to the structure is also a way of optimizing sustainable goals by reusing the existing resources. In particular, in the findings generated from the Loughborough case study, all the functional mixes could be identified within the cluster in 1886. However the cluster started to become commercialized in 1970. Residential buildings were totally removed from the cluster and more commercial and social buildings were accommodated. Policy makers were striving to separate the residential sector from the market segment. As a result, some of the existing residential houses were converted to offices or public houses and some were totally replaced by 1970. The growth in local population, increase of spending power, implementation of new planning policies, sustainable concerns, changing user demands and building obsolescence can be identified as key factors behind those transitions. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the sudden growth in all the sectors in Loughborough is highly remarkable. The shifting of houses to discrete residential zones and the mushrooming developments in commercial zones are significant. The improvements in spaces for banking show the growth in monetary transactions from the earlier periods. In 1886 only Lloyds Bank can be found on the map, in 1921 the Westminster Bank was added to the commercial network. In 1970 the expansion of


9

both banks can be seen and another branch of Westminster bank is added to the cluster, by 2008 HSBC, National Westminster and Lloyds Bank are in the cluster. So the growth in banking and some expansion in social structures could be highlighted within the cluster. Those improvements affected the economic booms in Loughborough during the periods. Having analyzed the historic maps of Liverpool, it can be concluded that many of the functional mixes could be identified in the 1890 and 1927 maps. In 1988, the cluster attracted more commercial and recreational facilities. Historic maps of 2004 and 2010 showed a complete picture of a commercialized cluster which reflects the buying/spending power of people in Liverpool and their continuous enthusiasm towards socialization. Having evaluated those clusters it can be said that the economic, social, environmental parameters and obsolescence are the key demanding factors for building space. Either factor can create significant demand for space. However, new buildings which can be adapted to new functional goals have been identified as a solution to cater to growing demand. It is clear that the term ‘adaptable’ is a multifaceted concept, which is about managing ‘change’ in the context of buildings towards a sustainable delivery. Conclusion The demand for functional transformation of buildings rather than structural transformation was identified from the Morphological Analysis. Most of the original structures have converted to alternative and/or multi functions during the studied time spans. But it was found that some conversions were not fit for purpose and as a result they were demolished, and new buildings were constructed. The main difficulty faced by practical changes/conversions arose because early design was not focused on future flexibility. This emphasized the importance of incorporating design level strategies of adaptability in future new buildings which provide economically, socially and environmentally sustainable solutions for the whole country. However, obsolescence and its effects on the economics of the development and the society are identified as two of the critical areas to be studied further. The trend towards various building functions and proper balance between supply and demand for such functions is of paramount importance in a profit orientated economy. High frequency in changes of user needs and obsolescence are the most significant drivers for adaptability in the 21st century. Therefore, buildings need to be designed to overcome those challenges in the future and they also need to become more economically viable, environmentally appreciated and socially acceptable than the renewal. However, existing planning policies, building regulations, industry guidelines and government strategies appear to be key limitations for designing buildings towards potential adaptations; thus these standards urgently require revitalization if such adaptation is to be enabled in the future. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the significant contribution of Robert Schmidt-III, Research Associate at Loughborough University and Upeksha Madanayake, Postgraduate research student at LJMU.

A. Manewa et al.

10

References Adaptable Futures (2012), [online], <http://www.adaptablefutures.com>. Arge, K. (2005), ‘Adaptable office buildings: Theory and practice’, Facilities, vol. 23, no. 3–4, pp. 119–27. Ariga, T. (2005), ‘Morphology, Sustainable Evolution of Inner-Urban Neighbourhoods in San Francisco’, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 143–50.

Arja, M., Sauce, G. and Souyri, B. (2009), ‘External Uncertainty Factors and LCC: A Case Study’, Building Research and Information, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 325–34.

Butlin, R. (1994), ‘Landscape and Land Use 1750–1900’, in K. Boucher, ed., Loughborough and its Region, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, pp. 89–95.

Brand, S. (1994), How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built, Penguin, USA. Davison, N., Gibb, A. G., Austin, S. A. and Goodier, C. I. (2006), ‘The Multispace Adaptable Building Concept and its Extension into Mass Customisation’, in F. Scheublin and A. Pronk, eds, in Proceedings of the Joint CIB, IASS International Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction (Adaptables2006), Eindhoven University of Technology. Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, 2nd edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Ellingham, I. and Fawcett, W. (2006), New Generation Whole Life Costing: Property and Construction Decision Making under Uncertainty, Taylor and Francis, Oxon.

Fernandez, J. E. (2003), ‘Design for Change: Part 1: Diversified lifetime’, Architectural Research Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 169–82.

Gann, D. M. and Barlow, J. (1996), ‘Flexibility in Building Use: The Technical Feasibility of Converting Redundant Offices into Flats’, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55–66. Geraedts, R. (2008), Design for Change Flexibility Performance Indicators, in 1st I3CON Conference, Loughborough, [online], <http://www.i3con.org/files/conference-1/1-Industrialised_Adaptable/Session_1-Paper_1-Geraedts-Flexibility%20Keys%20140508.pdf>.

Habraken, N. J. (1980), ‘Design for Adaptability, Change and User Participation’, in L. Safran, ed., Housing: Process and Physical Form, Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Philadelphia, pp. 23–9. Henehan, D. and Woodson, R. D. (2003), Building Change of Use: Renovating, Adapting and Altering Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Properties, McGraw–Hill Professional, New York.

Kendall, S. (1999), ‘Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture’, Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–16.

Kendall, S. and Ando, M. (2005), ‘Theory and Methods in Support of Adaptable Buildings’, in Action for Sustainability–The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, pp. 3017–21. Kincaid, D. (2000), Adaptability Potentials for Buildings and Infrastructure in Sustainable Cities, Facilities, vol. 18, no. 3–4, pp. 155–61. Kronenburg, R., (2007), Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, Laurence King, London.


11

Nutt, B. (2000), ‘Four Competing Futures for Facility Management’, Facilities, vol. 18, no. 3–4, pp. 124–32. Manewa, R. M. A. S., Pasquire, C. L., Gibb, A. G. and Schmidt–III, R. (2009), Towards Economic Sustainability Through Adaptable Buildings, in A. van den Dobbelsteen, M. Dorst and A. van Timmeren, eds, Smart Building in a Changing Climate, Techne Press, Amsterdam, pp. 171–85. Sheffer, D. A. and Levitt, R. E. (2010), How Industry Structure Retards Diffusion of Innovations in Construction: Challenges and Opportunities, Working paper 59, Collaborators for Research on Global Projects, Stanford.

Slaughter, E. S. (2001), ‘Design Strategies to Increase Building Flexibility’, Building Research and Information, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 208–17.

Remoy, H. and Voordt, T. (2009), Sustainability by Adaptable and Functionally Neutral Buildings, in A. van den Dobbelsteen, M. Dorst and A. van Timmeren, eds, 3rd CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, pp. 159–70.

Webb, R. S., Kelly, J. R. and Thomson, D. S. (1997), ‘Building Services Component Reuse: An FM Response to the Need for Adaptability’, Facilities, vol. 15, no. 12–13, pp. 316–22.

Maps and Official Planning Documents Leicester Record Office, Historic city planning map of the city of Loughborough. Scale 1:88”, 1901, 1921.

Liverpool Record Office, Historic city planning map of the city of Liverpool. Scale 1:88”, 1890, 1924, 1988, 2004, 2010.

Public Library Loughborough, Historic city planning map of the city of Loughborough, Scale 1:88”, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1989.

People and the Planet 2013 Conference...

Documents

Transcript of People and the Planet 2013 Conference...