Housing preferences for adaptive re-use of office and industrial buildings: Demand side

Glumac, Brano; Islam, Nizamul

doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102379

Cited by 34 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These models obtain utility values corresponding to different element levels and assist decision-making by calculating the utility values of different adaptive reuse schemes for heritage buildings (Kroes and Sheldon 1988). Glumac and Islam (2020) use Eindhoven as a case study and use SP methods to generate a model (including six attributes of housing preferences) to measure users' preferences for adaptive reuses of heritage buildings. The research results show the occupants' preferences for space and experiences after renovations.…”

Section: Discussion Based On the Preference Measurement Model (Pmm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: a review

Zhao

Huang

et al. 2021

Built Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the growing trend towards preserving global architectural heritage, the adaptive reuse of built heritage buildings is becoming increasingly popular; as commentators have noted, this popularity can in part be attributed to the economic, cultural, and social benefits they provide to urban communities. In considering adaptive reuse, urban developers and planners seek to reach an equilibrium in the battle between time and space. Both academically and practically, the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings requires compatible, appropriate, and scientific means for assessing built heritage assets; however, currently, research in this area is still relatively meagre. To address this gap, this paper investigates research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods that concern the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage. In this paper, we examine the current literature on the paradigms for applying mixed methodologies: the multi-criteria decision model (MCDM) and the preference measurement model (PMM). Specifically, in examining the extant literature, we explore the ways in which these methods are discussed, compared, and evaluated, and the positive functions of these methods are also highlighted. In addition, this review examines a range of cases to better clarify the research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods used in the study of the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Based On the Preference Measurement Model (Pmm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: a review

Zhao

Huang

et al. 2021

Built Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further housing flexibility criteria and strategies are examined by Živković and Jovanović (2012) and Cellucci and Sivo (2015). Housing flexibility in terms of spatial indeterminacy is investigated by Montellano (2015) and Glumac and Islam (2020) present a performance-based framework for housing preferences in adaptive-re-use of office and industrial buildings. A practical instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings is cultivated by Geraedts (2016), identifying a number of flexibility key performance indicators, divided in the layers of site, structure, skin, facilities and space plan.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resilience of a building can be defined as the buildings capacity to adjust easily to natural disasters or changes, such as changes in use and is often dealt with under the concept of flexibility (Marjaba and Chidiac 2016). The concept of flexibility is a prerequisite for extending a buildings life cycle (Cellucci and Sivo 2015), for increasing the reuse potential of a building (Glumac and Islam 2020), and thus can contribute to sustainable development (Gosling et al 2009). However, existing sustainability assessment tools do not respect the metric of flexibility, though flexibility has become an increasingly important aspect in the design of industrial buildings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design space exploration for flexibility assessment and decision making support in integrated industrial building design

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrial buildings play a major role in sustainable development, producing and expending a significant amount of resources, energy and waste. Due to product individualization and accelerating technological advances in manufacturing, industrial buildings strive for highly flexible building structures to accommodate constantly evolving production processes. However, common sustainability assessment tools do not respect flexibility metrics and manufacturing and building design processes run sequentially, neglecting discipline-specific interaction, leading to inflexible solutions. In integrated industrial building design (IIBD), incorporating manufacturing and building disciplines simultaneously, design teams are faced with the choice of multiple conflicting criteria and complex design decisions, opening up a huge design space. To address these issues, this paper presents a parametric design process for efficient design space exploration in IIBD. A state-of-the-art survey and multiple case study are conducted to define four novel flexibility metrics and to develop a unified design space, respecting both building and manufacturing requirements. Based on these results, a parametric design process for automated structural optimization and quantitative flexibility assessment is developed, guiding the decision-making process towards increased sustainability. The proposed framework is tested on a pilot-project of a food and hygiene production, evaluating the design space representation and validating the flexibility metrics. Results confirmed the efficiency of the process that an evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm can be implemented in future research to enable multidisciplinary design optimization for flexible industrial building solutions.

show abstract

“…The flexibility of a building can be defined as its capacity to adapt to changes in use [43], while a flexible production enables the response to customer orders quickly, provides a broad product range, or introduces new products to the range effortlessly [44]. Various research defined concepts and metrics for flexibility in residential building design [17,[45][46][47] or the adaptive re-use of office and industrial buildings [48]. Slaughter [23] presents three general types of expected building changes: changes in the function of the space, changes in the load carried by the systems and changes in the flow of people or environmental forces.…”

Section: Flexibililty and Design Parameters In Iibdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Guideline for Flexible Industrial Buildings Integrating Industry 4.0 Parameters

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of Industry 4.0 can contribute to sustainable development, but most concepts have not yet received much attention in industrial building design. Industry 4.0 aims to realize production in batch size of one and product individualization on demand. Constant reconfiguration and expansion of production systems demand highly flexible building structures to prolong service life and reduce economic and environmental impacts. However, most research and tools focus on either production system or building optimization. There is a lack of holistic approaches that combine these two aspects. This paper presents a systematic design guideline for flexible industrial buildings towards the requirements of Industry 4.0, integrating building and production planning. The methodology employs literature research and a multiple case study based on expert interviews. The design guideline is presented in the form of a categorized parameter catalogue that classifies the results, on the one hand, into the levels of (O) objectives, (T) technical parameters and (P) planning process, and on the other hand, into (S) success factors, (I) suggestions for improvement and (D) deficits. The findings identify flexibility, structural design parameters and an integrated computational design approach at early design stage as potential success factors for integrated industrial building design (IIBD). The results set the basis to develop a multi-objective optimization and decision-making support tool for IIBD in future research.

show abstract

Housing preferences for adaptive re-use of office and industrial buildings: Demand side

Cited by 34 publications

References 56 publications

Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: a review

Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: a review

Design space exploration for flexibility assessment and decision making support in integrated industrial building design

Design Guideline for Flexible Industrial Buildings Integrating Industry 4.0 Parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About