Page 61 - Beyond Decommissioning

42 Beyond Decommissioning

surrounding environment” (Sugden, 2017). Criteria that define a successful adaptive
reuse project may include one (or ideally more) from the following list:
l contributing a positive aesthetics to the landscape;
l maintaining the appearance and identity of the former structure building;
l conserving meaningful artifacts with a focus on historical elements;
l representing a pleasant and recognizable environment;
l creating a living environment that is friendly to inhabitants (or depending on reuse mode, a
friendly reception to visitors and tourists);
l carefully using scale and proportion, old and new materials, light and shades;
l being in an ideal location;
l contributing to sustainability of the structure itself and its environment;
l maintaining economic viability of the reused structure including:
▪ the capital costs of the adaptation works;
▪ the running costs of the reused structure (now and in the future);
▪ the potential market for the reused structure and expected revenues; and
▪ the financial sources required to undertake the redevelopment.
A number of indicators have been proposed and can be found in the literature. For
example, Pinto et al. (2017) presents the results of a research on the impacts of the
reuse of heritage building. The aim was to help to select the preferable design solution
among several alternatives. The method uses multi-criteria approaches to assess
design alternatives capable of maintaining and improving a building’s performance
while preserving heritage identity. This requires defining the users’ needs to be
met by the new functions of the building and identifying structural and cultural con-
straints to its transformation. In general, the application of a multi-criteria evaluation
method is structured in phases. First, the planners determine the objectives pursued.
Second, they determine alternative ways to pursue these objectives. These alternatives
must be defined in detail, otherwise no comparison between alternative solutions is
possible. Third, a set of evaluation criteria is drawn up and these criteria are used
for a comparative assessment of the alternatives. These criteria must be such as to
make the assessment possible, using quantitative or qualitative information related
to suitable indicators. In different approaches, evaluation criteria have different rela-
tive importance and are hence weighted differently. Fourth, the criteria are applied and
this yields a ranking of the alternatives. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed.
Another case study making use of indicators is given in National Trust for Historic
Preservation (2011).
While redevelopment indicators are country and site specific, some guidelines can
be provided. As a general example, indicators of the success of a redevelopment pro-
ject (or program)—intended also to address contentious issues—are enumerated
below, including offsite impacts of economic and social value (BPF, 2013) (note read-
ily quantifiable indicators are identified by a star*):
property value*;
l
l improvement to the physical fabric of areas;
l improvements in personal safety and reduction of crime*;
l community involvement and wide sense of ownership;
l employment (no. of direct and indirect jobs)* during and after reuse;