Baker, H; Moncaster, A; Wilkinson, S and Remøy, H (2023) Demolition or retention of buildings: Drivers at the masterplan scale. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 488-506. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Current adaptation theory tends to consider individual buildings or the city level, which cannot address decisions related to masterplan developments on large brownfield sites. This paper investigates the drivers for building demolition or retention and adaptation decisions at the masterplan scale. Expert interviews and three case studies are used to explore how and why decisions to demolish, or to retain and adapt, are made at this scale. The research compared three different geopolitical contexts: Cambridge in the UK; Eindhoven in the Netherlands; and Sydney in Australia. Additional factors and complexities that should be considered at the masterplan scale are identified. The theoretical underpinnings of urban development processes are used to explain these complexities in relation to four existing models and demonstrate that no one model is adequate to describe the interactions. With increasing awareness of climate change impacts, it is critical that demolition decisions on masterplan developments are reviewed in the light of retaining carbon as well as heritage.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptation; buildings; demolition; heritage; life cycle assessment; masterplan; planning; retrofit; reuse; urban development |
| Index terms: | Netherlands, case study, Australia, interaction, retention, climate change, interview, adaptation, urban development, complexity, life cycle assessment |
| Subjects: | Geography, data collection methods, climate science, management, systems engineering, environmental impact, urban design, user focus, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Design Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Human Resources, Geographical Context, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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