Page 34 - Beyond Decommissioning

The fundamentals of industrial 2

redevelopment

Nowadays, there is a growing awareness that, instead of consuming virgin lands
(greenfields), public institutions and private companies should strive to redevelop
“brownfields,” instilling a new life in them, in order to achieve a sustainable setting.
Reed (2005) states: “nearly every significant new landscape designed in recent years
occupies a site that has been reinvented and reclaimed from obsolescence or
degradation.”
There are five basic concerns around this type of sites: their state of abandonment;
their state or suspected state of contamination; their potential for reuse; their former
use (limited to industrial use in this book); and their location. These concerns can
reflect in questions such as: What should be done with these sites? What functions
could the buildings take now and in the future? What makes these areas underutilized?
What hinders conversion? Any lurking surprises or snares? Who are the responsible
parties and their partners for the redevelopment? Who is going to pay for the conver-
sion process and who will take the benefits from the new use? Who is best qualified for
the redevelopment plan and execution? Does this process require single or multiple
disciplines? All these questions and others need to be answered. To this end, new eval-
uation methodologies may be needed. It is crucial to establish new strategies and
assessments in which the formerly industrial landscapes are redeveloped, taking into
account environmental impacts, historic and cultural aspects, funding, and socioeco-
nomic priorities (Fig. 2.1). This is the very scope of this book.
Unfortunately, an in-depth analysis of redevelopment case studies to this day
shows that there is a general lack of “strategic vision” in current planning activities
concerning local communities, towns, and green areas. In addition, the redevelopment
of industrial sites must take into consideration the prospective needs of future
generations.
The economic and social costs of unused properties are high. It is generally recog-
nized that unused properties attract vandals, homeless, squatters, and drug dealers, and
consequently drive down property values, taxes, and services, and discourage invest-
ments. Vacant properties impose financial and social burdens on the local municipal-
ities. In addition to reducing property values and tax revenue and attracting criminal
activities, they “strain the resources of local police, fire, building, and health
departments” (Virginia Polytechnic, 2005). The drainage of municipality resources
is especially detrimental since the vacant properties provide little return in taxes.
Nuclear and radiological facilities, and other facilities handling toxic substances,
are vulnerable to an even more serious risk, the theft or the loss of dangerous materials,
which could endanger those inadvertently exposed to such materials. The Goi^ ania
case in Brazil is exemplary in this regard (IAEA, 1988). Highly radioactive tele-
therapy sources had been left unattended in the abandoned premises of a hospital;
Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00002-6
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.