Adaptive Reuse: Explaining Collaborations within a Complex Process
Loading...
Date
2011-06
Authors
Bond, Christina
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management, University of Oregon
Abstract
Every building, if allowed the chance, will one day become old. Some will individually be deemed
“historic” for special cultural, historical, or aesthetic qualities. Others may simply add to the general
historic backdrop of a neighborhood as a “contributing resource” to a historic district, but are not
necessarily of exceptional value on their own. Some buildings are lovingly maintained throughout the
course of time, only incurring minor changes here and there to bring the building up to modern
standards and tastes, while others are left to slowly fade away and deteriorate after (often)
withstanding alterations inside and out for modernization. Whether lovingly maintained or deteriorated,
withstanding minor to substantial alterations, many of our old buildings are worthy of some level of
preservation. Aside from the rare exceptions which are worthy of a very high level of “preservation” in
the strict sense of the word—usually pristine examples of a particular time period or style— most old
buildings will require some amount of adaptation and creativity to allow for a return to functional
viability while stimulating a new resonance for history and the built environment with the public.
I became particularly fascinated with the adaptive reuse development process when working as an
intern at a private historic tax credit consulting firm during the summer of 2010. There I learned firsthand
how complicated and complex the real estate development process can be not only in general, but
particularly for historic buildings that are subject to special rules and regulations. This is especially an
issue when tax credits and other forms of financial incentives are used for a project, adding extra layers
of review and regulation. I witnessed, at times, high levels of frustration between various participants in
the development process and at various stages, whether trying to find the right balance between
adaptation and preservation, adhering to certain historic design standards, maintaining the timing and
pace needs for a project to remain financially viable, or arguing over whether or not a project should be
awarded the tax credits that its completion was hinged on. Of course I always formed my own opinions
on each issue and project that I came aware of, but my eyes were quickly opened to other
perspectives—other needs, desires, and motivations, and those unique points of view of the wide
variety of people who are typically involved in the development process for an adaptive reuse project.
My educational background includes a focus in both historic preservation and planning, and the dualnature
of my studies has allowed me to approach historic preservation issues with a broader
perspective. This, along with my internship experiences, has prompted me to seek a more complete
understanding of how people view historic preservation—in particular, the adaptive reuse of
commercial buildings and others used for income-producing purposes, and the development process for
such activities. In my opinion, due to the frustration and conflict that I became aware of, there clearly
seemed to be a problem with the way that the adaptive reuse development process typically occurs. The
more I considered this “problem”, the more I saw it as an inherently complex, collaborative problem
that might benefit from an analysis as such, including delving into the underlying motives, desires, and
ideals of the key stakeholders, deconstructing the problem through the lens of collaborative planning,
and suggesting solutions for how the process might be improved for everyone involved.
On a personal level, I am strongly in favor of preserving, rehabilitating, and adaptively reusing as many
of our existing old and historic buildings as possible for a multitude of reasons; but now, I realize just
how important it is that every stakeholder and participant in the development process be able to work
together, communicate effectively and constructively, and be willing to make compromises while
considering what is best not only for the building in question, but for its community at large. Historic
preservation is not an isolated activity, and as such should be understood for its meanings and effects to
others outside of the “preservationist world” in order to gain a broader and deeper support base with
the hope of strengthening “preservation” as a true value of the American core. It does not matter if
historic preservation has different meanings and values attached to it for different people—historical
and cultural value, aesthetic value, economic development value, revitalization and sustainability value,
and even the opportunity to profit—but what does matter is that each of these values is fulfilled for
each participant in the adaptive reuse process so that adaptive reuse may thrive as a strategy to
improve our communities and leave thoughtful, lasting legacies of our past.
It is with this impetus that I embarked on my research, with the ultimate goal that I might be able to
positively influence the adaptive reuse development process by providing a broader understanding of
the approaches of its key stakeholders and participants. My wish is to see historic preservation as a
value, a practice, and a goal flourish and thrive into the 21st century—but in order for that to happen,
the complexities and conflicts in approach to the adaptive reuse of our old and historic buildings must
be more completely understood and constructively assessed so that the development process might be
improved for all.
Description
Examining committee: Gerardo Sandoval, chair, Kingston Heath