Laefer, D F and Manke, J P (2008) Building reuse assessment for sustainable urban reconstruction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(3), pp. 217-227. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Building reuse is a linchpin to managing solid waste. Despite the various benefits beyond contributing to sustainability that can be realized through building reuse, including direct and indirect cost savings, truncated construction schedules, and reduced site disruptions, little formal consideration has been given to this topic, which places professional engineers at a disadvantage when considering this as a design option. As each building project has its own specific requirements, reuse is not always the most economical solution, but, in cases where reuse is in part motivated by other factors such as heritage protection, substantial economic and environmental savings can be realized in tandem. Based on nearly two decades of professional experience, a generalized assessment method for reuse is proposed to facilitate benefit maximization. Applying this 10-step method, the costs related to building replacement and sustainable reuse are compared using two case histories and a theoretical building. A clear correlation is shown with the potential for savings as a function of project size.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | demolition; pile foundations; reconstruction; rehabilitation; renovation; sustainable development; urban areas |
| Index terms: | engineer, savings, reconstruction, indirect cost, option, renovation, sustainable development, maximization, pile foundation, history, replacement, urban area |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, architectural and construction history, profession, materials science, decision analysis, building construction, cost management, structural engineering, renovation and retrofit, urban form and morphology, algorithms, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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