Reuse into housing: Italian and Dutch regulatory effects

Abstract

Purpose The need to speed up and simplify the practice of transformation and the topic of reuse is crucial in Italy. The purpose of this paper is to compare successful cases of reuse into housing in Italy and the Netherlands, in order to suggest improvements to the Italian situation. Design/methodology/approach Previous research at the University of Pavia showed the need to change living standards for new residential buildings. This research focusses on existing buildings and gives a comparative analysis of the Italian and Dutch legislation for residential buildings. Interviews with professionals have been conducted in Italy and the Netherlands to better understand the differences and problems related to housing regulations. Good examples of reuse into housing have been studied to define common guidelines for intervention. Findings The findings describe the building regulations in Italy and the Netherlands concerning adaptive reuse, and reveals differences between the two countries. Furthermore, the possibilities and barriers for the reuse of existing buildings are highlighted. Practical implications Lessons are drawn from both contexts, and finally suggestions for improvement of the regulatory system are made for Italy and the Netherlands. Originality/value This paper aims at revealing the opportunities and barriers of reuse in Italy and the Netherlands. So far, studies were performed to reveal the feasibility of adaptive reuse, though none of these focussed specifically on legal issues. No sufficient studies are performed so far on reuse into housing in Italy, and the comparison of the regulatory systems of the two countries is novel.

Factors contribute in development of the assessment framework for wheelchair accessibility in National Heritage Buildings in Malaysia

“…National Heritage Buildings are old buildings and were built before there were any building regulations and regulated specifications of wheelchair accessibility (Harun, 2017;Welage and Liu, 2011;Olivadese et al, 2017). In this research, there were four vital factors considered in developing the assessment framework for wheelchair user in National Heritage Building: physical built environment; financial resources, organizational behavior and structure, and legislative matters.…”

Circular Digital Built Environment: An Emerging Framework

“…• "Smart use of space": The main purpose of flexibility and adaptive reuse strategies is to capture value from the existing buildings or land by introducing new functions; otherwise, they will remain underutilised and lose value. These strategies might exist in different forms, including the transformation of vacant office spaces into housing units [97]; the modification of the building lay-out for a different function [59]; the retrofitting, rehabilitation and redevelopment of cultural heritage buildings [98]; building modular buildings temporarily on a vacant land [99]; and the short-term utilisation of empty spaces through lease agreements [99]. An example is Workfrom, an online platform that lists available cafes, co-working spots and alternative spaces for users, making use of under-occupied spaces in cities [100].…”

Analytical Schema

“…This occurs through fiscal incentives such as tax abatements or direct subsidies. Another strategy is to simplify or eliminate certain unnecessary regulations in order to stimulate redevelopment (Taylor et al 1992;Gu et al 2019;Moroni and Lorini 2017;Olivadese et al 2017…”

“…Procedural factors are those formal "constraints" on the possibility of bringing the property back into market circuits (for the exchange and/or transformation of the property:Merrett and Smith 1986;Accordino and Johnson 2000;Schilling 2009;Garda 2018). These factors depend on too strict or costly prescriptions, typically enforced by planning and governance agencies that control urban densification, and on connected bureaucratic procedures(Farris 2001;Talen 2012;Hong et al 2016;Olivadese et al 2017). 4.…”