Page 113 - Beyond Decommissioning

94 Beyond Decommissioning

The complexity associated with converting an old building into new uses is a major
factor potentially hindering adaptive reuse. This is because older buildings typically
do not provide voids or access ways and sufficient room to retrofit modern services
such as air conditioning. This issue may add to the design and reconstruction time
(Bullen and Love, 2011).
As a rule of thumb, adaptive reuse is not necessarily less expensive than new con-
struction, but its costs typically lie within the same order of magnitude making it a
viable and sustainable option. If the building is located in an undeveloped area then
the building and land might be really inexpensive, but it may be difficult to secure
lending and there might be little demand for the completed project. A common excep-
tion is when a reuse project costs far more than new construction, such as when unex-
pected costs arise. In fact, many developers recommend budgeting a large contingency
expense for both architectural and construction costs in case any unexpected structural
or contamination problems are considered possible. Many lenders require at least
10%–15% of the total construction costs as a contingency fund for unexpected
expenses. However, even when an adaptive reuse project costs more than new con-
struction, there is an intrinsic added value since the building could serve as a catalyst
for revitalization efforts and the creation of new jobs, preserves a historic resource,
and fosters sustainable practices. This is the field where new helpers (e.g., public bod-
ies) can come into play.
In the past, many developers eschewed historic preservation and adaptive reuse
projects lest cost overruns, lack of qualified labor, and unexpected problems should
make the project unprofitable. Currently, the increasing number of examples and
higher concern for sustainability have made adaptive reuse widely acceptable—finan-
cially, environmentally, and socially (Cantell, 2005).
Economic constraints to reuse can also lead to creative solutions that are in line
with the heritage goals of the project. For example, the budget for the conversion
of the Kingston Power House into the Canberra Glassworks did not allow for the
building fabric to be renovated. It was left “as found,” including existing cracks, holes,
and mismatched glazing; but the resulting contrast between the new use and the patina
of time had a special charm (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013).
As said elsewhere, redevelopment costs can be high and beyond the reach of the
owner or developer. Therefore, the use of alternative or additional funds is common
in redevelopment projects. These sources—often but not always granted by law—
include (British Property Federation, 2013):

l low-interest loans;
repair or restoration grants;
l
application of revolving funds;
l
lottery funding;
l
local authority funding;
l
national budget funding;
l
European funding (for EC countries);
l
l grants from independent trusts; and
l corporate or individual donations.