Conejos, S; Chew, M Y L and Yung, E H K (2017) The future adaptivity of nineteenth century heritage buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 35(4), pp. 332-347.
Abstract
Purpose Designing for the future sustainability and adaptability of building assets contributes to waste and emission reduction. Moreover, sustainable design and conservation principles are necessary for achieving sustainable and adaptable built heritage. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the improved adaptSTAR model in regards to maximising the future adaptive reuse and sustainability of existing built heritage and its surroundings. Design/methodology/approach A comparative study of two iconic nineteenth century heritage assets in Australia and Hong Kong is undertaken to highlight the need to forecast the future adaptation of heritage buildings in order to guarantee their continuous reuse and sustainability in an urban context. Findings Findings show that the functional, technological and legal attributes of these two nineteenth century heritage buildings require improvement so as to ensure their future adaptivity. The upgrading of heritage buildings for environmental sustainability is also deemed necessary. Originality/value The originality of this paper pertains to the advancement of the adaptSTAR tool in evaluating the future adaptivity of existing built heritage as well as new built environments whilst considering their economic, environmental and social values.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive reuse; built heritage; Australia; Hong Kong; building and urban sustainability; future adaptivity of buildings |
| Index terms: | environmental sustainability, methodology, heritage building, adaptability, upgrading, sustainable design, guarantee, future adaptivity of building, conservation, comparative study, social value, built environment, adaptive reuse, Australia, adaptation, Hong Kong, built heritage |
| Subjects: | contract structure, research methods, sustainable design, health safety and environment, Geography, design process, sociology, building performance, infrastructure and transport systems, heritage and conservation, strategic management, construction type, user focus, research design and methodology, environmental policy |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Procurement, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here