Rockow, Z R (2020) Qualitative & quantitative analyses of existing buildings’ adaptability. PhD thesis, Clemson University, USA.
Abstract
In order to promote resiliency and sustainability, there is a benefit to making buildings more adaptable. Adaptable buildings are believed to be more likely to be modified, changed, or reused instead of being demolished. The research goals revolved around understanding what features, if any, can be implemented during the design phase to make a building more adaptable in the future. Three objectives were included for this research: 1. Compare qualitative data from real-world adaptation projects with Design for Adaptability (DfA) strategies reported in the literature. 2. Create a model for quantifying the “openness” of floorplans. 3. Measure the relationship (if any) between design-based adaptability (DBA), building condition (BC), historical/sentimental value (HS) and adapt/demo outcomes. This objective tests the null-hypothesis that HS, BC, or DBA are not significant predictors for the demolition and adaptation outcome of projects. The research presented in objective one was conducted to answer the question: Do empirical data from real-world projects align with the Design for Adaptability (DfA) strategies reported in the literature? To answer this question, a Thematic Analysis was used to evaluate qualitative data from 89 building adaptation projects. The research evidence suggests that when DfA strategies are present in a building design (intentionally or otherwise), they facilitate adaptation. Similarly, when the strategies are not present, the adaptation project is impeded. This research provides empirical support for implementing DfA strategies into new building designs. The second objective was the creation of the Areal Openness Model (AOM) to answer the question “how open is open in adaptable floor plans”, partly motivated by the link between openness and adaptability. Case study comparisons are presented to show proof of concept evaluation of AOM with adapted and demolished buildings. The proposed AOM provides a means of quantitatively measuring openness as it relates to adaptability. Future potential is for designers and owners to use the model to evaluate building design alternatives with respect to adaptability. The third objective was to measure the relationship (if any) between historical/sentimental status (HS), building condition (BC), and design-based adaptability (DBA) and adapt/demo outcomes. A quantitative assessment of demolished and adapted buildings was conducted using a logistic regression model of 88 projects that are either adapted or demolished. The assessment was particularly focused on evaluating the impact of design-based adaptability on adapt/demo outcomes. The research reveals that the historical and sentimental status of the building is statistically significant to the outcome of adaptation. Building condition and design-based adaptability are also positively related to adaption outcomes but not to a statistically significant level.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Ross, B E |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; new build; building design; reuse; designer; owner; thematic analysis; case study |
| Index terms: | design for adaptability, new build, designer, floorplan, adaptation, owner, building condition, case study, logistic regression, building design, design phase, adaptable building, strategy, quantitative analysis, evidence, adaptability, thematic analysis |
| Subjects: | user focus, evaluation and assessment methods, architectural design, professional practice, design process, asset management, design layouts, profession, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, construction integration, management, methods and analysis, sociology, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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