Page 53 - Beyond Decommissioning

34 Beyond Decommissioning

refurbishment and conversion costs; a financial return to the owner or developer; and
regular income to support care and maintenance costs.
To break the downward spiral of obsolescence; decline; depreciation; further
decline; and lack of interest, changes may be needed to occupation and functions.
“Functional restructuring” or “functional diversification” may—and probably should
in most cases—support the redevelopment of buildings and their sites. Public interven-
tion and subsidies can be justified for several reasons. First, to support preparatory
work of physical regeneration (e.g., removing accumulated garbage, scaffolding,
hovels, etc.) before viable redevelopment work can be undertaken; second to compen-
sate for legal restrictions (such as listing) that will impact costs by precluding certain
cheaper options; and third in recognition of the community’s economic growth and the
wider social and economic progress instigated by the redevelopment project.
At first glance, it may appear that the principle of development is in opposition with
the preservation of historic structures. The development requires buildings that are
safe, resilient, efficient, and accessible. But what about old buildings that stand in
the way of new developments? How do we fathom and balance the value of historic
buildings against the value of modern, sustainable buildings, for example, founded on
adequate steel reinforcement and airtight window frames? Some segments of the pub-
lic may find it much easier, almost obvious, to opt for cheaper, faster, and larger build-
ings than to invest in an existing building. The following guidelines were promulgated
by the TICCIH (2003).
“Conservation of the industrial heritage depends on preserving functional integrity,
and interventions to an industrial site should, therefore, aim to maintain this as far as
possible. The value and authenticity of an industrial site may be greatly reduced if
machinery or components are removed, or if subsidiary elements which form part
of a whole site are destroyed.
Preservation in situ should always be given priority consideration. Dismantling and
relocating a building or structure are only acceptable when the destruction of the site is
required by overwhelming economic or social needs.
The adaptation of an industrial site to a new use to ensure its conservation is usually
acceptable except in the case of sites of especial historical significance. New uses
should respect the significant material and maintain original patterns of circulation
and activity, and should be compatible as much as possible with the original or prin-
cipal use. An area that interprets the former use is recommended. Therefore, adaptive
reuse is not contradictory to preservation.
Continuing to adapt and use industrial buildings avoids wasting energy and con-
tributes to sustainable development. Industrial heritage can have an important role
in the economic regeneration of decayed or declining areas. The continuity that reuse
implies may provide psychological stability for communities facing the sudden end
long-standing sources of employment” (TICCIH, 2003). It should be recognized that
industrial monument preservation has typically to do with denuded factories and dete-
riorated industrial shells. A realistic preservation of such facilities can often by
allowed only by an economically acceptable new use. Adaptive reuse has given
enough evidence of being the most effective tool in industrial preservation, but the