PROPOSED PERIODICAL: CITY LAB

    On July 18, 2013, the city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. A city that once was bustling with citizens and a booming automotive industry has since suffered economic turmoil. Its people left after the success of the postwar years, a 63% decrease in population since 1950 (Hobbs and Stoop 2002). Most startling is the amount of unused, abandoned land. There are currently 78,000 structures accompanied by 66,000 lots currently sitting idle, falling to ruin in the city of Detroit. These abandoned sites become magnets for violent crimes, but through adaptive reuse they could see an alternative fate of bringing sustainability, cultural value, and economic development to Detroit. Rather than allowing old, industrial buildings to fall to ruin, the city of Detroit should incentivize private investors to revitalize these buildings to become sustainable and viable centers of activity through adaptive reuse.

    Detroit needs revitalizing through adaptive reuse. Adaptive reuse is the act of creating new built opportunities within existing built forms, often abandoned and in unceasing decay. Adaptive reuse can accommodate for the social, political and economic progress within a community. It is found most often that abandoned, industrial buildings are located in prime, dynamic spaces such as along a waterfront or in proximity to historic landmarks. It is a sustainable approach for architectural design, especially in cities such as Detroit.

    There are crucial steps to successfully implement adaptive reuse projects in Detroit. The first step is to evaluate existing conditions. Designers should thoroughly evaluate the existing fabric in order to make the most of the conditions and former structural, mechanical, electrical, architectural and landscape systems. The second step is to update systems to comply with current codes. Most issues with code compliance have to deal with energy standards, accessibility and fire regulations. The next step is to insert contextual program. The context must be highly considered in order to insert effective program. Industrial spaces are most effectively converted into to retail and community spaces.

Why is adaptive reuse the solution to Detroit?

An existing building has ecological, cultural, economic, and financial value. Instead of inevitably becoming a burden on a community, an industrial building can serve as a hub for urban life and create opportunities for natural urban development.

1. Sustainability. Reusing the existing structure decreases the environmental damage resulting from transportation and production of materials.
2. Improving cultural value and identity. Enhancing the identity of a culture maintains history and memory in place while providing new function for its survival. Bringing authenticity to a site also acknowledges the significance of an existing use and space.
3. Embracing development of economy. Repurposing a building helps accommodate cultural changes because “Adaptive re-use projects speak to a wider cultural shift – from an industrial and manufacturing based economy to one centered around services, education and cultural life” (Harrison 2014).
4. Net cost can be less than new construction. Consuming less energy and using fewer building materials, the net cost of an adaptive reuse project can be less than new construction (Thornton 2011). Although sometimes the initial cost of adaptive reuse is more, as the cost of energy continues to rise, new construction becomes a more expensive option when considering its life cycle.

    Other major cities have utilized adaptive reuse to capture these values that abandoned structures bring to urban life. Ghirardelli Square was the first successful example of adaptive reuse seen in the United States. In the 1960s, the existing factory buildings were 

purchased by William Roth, who hired Lawrence Halprin, landscape architect, and Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons architectural firm to create a design to accommodate retail spaces, offices, restaurants and a movie theater (Sharpe 2012). This project preserved the history and authenticity of the site, prevented the demolition of a storied building, and developed a new economic center, serving as a strong example of values 2 and 3. 

Across the country, the Brewery in Milwaukee presents a strong case for values 1, 2 and 3 in a very extensive and ambitious project that plans for the adaptive reuse and “environmentally sensitive restoration” amongst the remains of the Pabst Brewing Company (Benfield 2011).

The master plan of this project by Joseph Zilber includes residential lofts, a beer hall, office space, educational campuses, urban parks, senior living facilities, and medical campuses with more retail and luxury spaces to develop in the future. The success of this project relies on the cooperation between the developers, the city, and the LEED Neighborhood Development program. While this is a project under various stages of development, the existing structures that have been built have successfully brought community and life into a previously abandoned space.

    In Detroit, Michigan Central Station and Harbor Terminal offer great opportunity for adaptive reuse because of their size, space and location. Michigan Central Station is a critical structure for adaptive reuse. With a space large enough for a train on the ground floor and an 18 story tower with hotel and office space above, this is prime real estate sitting vacant. An approach like that of Ghirardelli Square would be ideal, so that the history of the site and building may be preserved, bringing back the heyday of Detroit with a new era of use, featuring offices, retail space, and residential living. This site would be an excellent opportunity for all four values. Reusing existing structure conserves materials and cost. The quality and ornateness of existing materials are so expensive in today’s market, that this saves a quantifiable amount of money and preserves the original beauty. The cultural improvement will be immediately evident through restoration with a visual link to the history of Detroit. The creation of new retail space allows the community to effortlessly embrace new economic development.

    Another potential site is the Harbor Terminal building. This huge warehouse currently sits vacant, but is an ideal candidate for adaptive reuse that could be turned into a multi-functional building with the creation of new waterfront urban space along the Detroit River as well. If the remains of the Pabst Brewing Company can be given a new life, why not this warehouse? While this could potentially be a more costly proposition, values 1, 2, and 3 could still be achieved. Materials would be conserved as the existing shell of the warehouse space allows for program to be directly inserted inside. By developing a new waterfront space, a new community center would be created along with a new economic hub and destination for not only residents of Detroit, but tourists as well.

    The obstacle to implementing adaptive reuse in Detroit is the financial commitment needed to update systems and meet today’s code requirements. While preserving the history of a site is a very integral component of design, to private investors this does not always make adaptive reuse worth the financial obligations. Adaptive reuse can be a very financially involved and time intensive project. It is not always as simple as taking an old building and moving in new program. The mechanical and HVAC systems of these abandoned buildings are often out of date (if they even still function) and require extensive updates and installation of new modern systems. These systems are expensive to install for large buildings, and become even more expensive with the increase of sustainable measures (Donofrio 2012). Additionally, older buildings often do not meet today’s code and accessibility requirements. This may involve moving existing walls and structural elements in an attempt to make it compliant. While designers may love the opportunity to bring back the glory of an old architectural wonder, investors will often only see the dollars signs associated with doing such a task. For many investors it is cheaper to tear down a building and start from scratch. With all the necessary updates and adjustments that require extensive funds and construction, many say why bother with adaptive reuse?

    Although the initial costs may be greater, the adaptive reuse of an existing building is the answer to revitalizing Detroit. For private investors who don’t see the value of cultural and historic preservation, there is a monetary incentive in place. For a site like Michigan Central Station on the National Register of Historic Places, a 20% income tax credit is available. Meanwhile, Harbor Terminal Building, being built before 1936, is eligible for a 10% income tax credit (U.S. National Park Service 2010). This program offered by the Internal Revenue Service and National Park Service encourages private sector investment in adaptive reuse that allows the preservation of historic sites, while creating jobs and revitalizing communities. Private investors and the local government can both benefit from a system like this.

    Through the designer’s efforts to evaluate existing conditions, meet code compliance, and insert contextual program, adaptive reuse will offer an opportunity for Michigan Central Station and Harbor Terminal to revitalize the city of Detroit. Seeing the success of great urban works in cities such as Milwaukee and San Francisco, we believe adaptive reuse is the future for the success of revitalizing cities in our coming generation. We can take these old buildings, install updated systems, insert new program, and create a sustainable, viable space for the community. We believe that adaptive reuse could be just the change Detroit needs. While proposals have been made for sites such as Michigan Central Station, no actual renovation has begun. Through tax incentives, local government support, and community engagement, adaptive reuse can revitalize Detroit.

 

REFERENCES

Benfield, Kaid. “A Green Neighborhood Brewing in Milwaukee.” CityLab. The Atlantic, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Binder, Melinda. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainable Design: A Holistic Approach for Abandoned Industrial Buildings.” University of Cincinnati, 2003.

Hobbs, Frank and Stoops, Nicole. “Demographic Trends in the 20th Century; Census 2000 Special Reports” Decennial Census of Population, 1900 to 2000.  U.S. Census Bureau, Nov. 2002. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Donofrio, Gregory. “Preservation by Adaptation: Is it Sustainable?” Change Over Time 2.2 (2012): 106-31.

Harrison, Stuart. Adaptive Re-use. Adelaide: Office for Design and Architecture, 2014. Odasa.sa.gov.au. Web.

Sharpe, Sara E., “Revitalizing Cities: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures” (2012). Mid-America College Art Association Conference 2012 Digital Publications. Paper 18.

Spivak, Jeffrey. “Adaptive Use Is Reinventing Detroit.” Urban Land Magazine. The Magazine of the Urban Land Institute, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.

Thornton, BJ. “The Greenest Building (Is The One That You Don’t Build!) Effective Techniques for Sustainable Adaptive Reuse/Renovation.” Journal of Green Building 6.1 (2011; 1901): 1-7.

U.S. National Park Service. “Tax Incentives—Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.

Featured Image by Zach Fein http://zfein.com/photography/detroit/mcs/index.html

Periodical: ArchDaily

Thesis:

Rather than leaving the subway system to go into disrepair, the city of Cincinnati should restore and renovate the abandoned system to create a hub for community activity and interaction through adaptive reuse.

Summary:

In the early twentieth century, the city of Cincinnati began an upgrade of their electric streetcar system by developing a series of tunnels for a subway transit system beneath the streets of the city. At the time, Cincinnati was one of the seven most populous cities in the US with an economic growth that rivaled New York and Chicago. The new subway system was to be the solution to the growing transit nightmare of the slow and outdated streetcar in a rapidly developing city. Construction was postponed in 1917 when the US entered World War I, which resulted in a temporary abandonment of the project. After the war ended in 1918, costs nearly doubled due to post war inflation, but construction began January 28, 1920. Over the course of seven years, funding ran out for the project with only seven miles of the tunnels dug and none of the tracks laid out. Plans to raise more funding for the project were struck down with the crash of the stock market in 1929. The project underwent a revival in 1939 by the Engineer’s Club of Cincinnati but was ultimately abandoned again due to World War II. Today, the subway system is recognized as the largest abandoned transit tunnel in the United States. Former Cincinnati mayor Mark Mallory has said, “Now more than forty percent of Cincinnatians do not know there is a subway system existing underneath Central Parkway Boulevard.” Rather than leaving the subway system to fall into further disrepair, the city of Cincinnati should restore and renovate the abandoned system to create a hub for community activity and interaction through adaptive reuse.

One of the greatest benefits of adaptive reuse is cost reduction. The reuse of the subway system would save the city millions of dollars in costs of demolition and re-grading the land that was dug into. In recent years, there have been proposals from city planners to demolish the tunnel system in order to create more residential and retail space in the city, however the city has struck down plans of demolition due to the high cost and time it will take. The structural work is already completed in the tunnels; all that would remain is updating the lighting and ventilation systems to be more sustainable and efficient for a public space of that size. Another benefit of reuse is it creates more sustainable buildings and spaces. Much of the architecture we have today has a finite longevity to its lifetime, only to be demolished and replaced by another building when the previous one could probably have served the new purposes. Transforming the abandoned subway into a hub for community activity would create a new framework for interaction and an opportunity to connect the surrounding neighborhoods that would otherwise remain separated from each other. This is important for the city because it can reduce the crime rate and territorial conflict by creating a more woven integrated community. This hub would also be an ideal space for small local businesses and farmer’s markets to set up and create local economic growth. An additional advantage to the tunnel system being reused is it is such a large space that it can be used for a wide range of temporary venues and activities.

Although there are a number of benefits of the adaptive reuse of older buildings, there are also some setbacks and people who advocate against its practice. One of the most common setbacks include updating the existing systems in the building to comply with present day codes. This particular issue is typically the main reason that many developers decide against adaptive reuse when deciding on a location for their project. They assess the original systems and structural elements installed in the building and determine the cost and time it will take for the updates they will need to make. In the case of the Cincinnati Subway System, the ventilation and lighting systems that were installed in the 1920’s are completely outdated and would need serious updating in order to meet todays standards. The cost of this alone in the several miles of tunnel is enough to turn away any developer from the idea of adaptive reuse.

This issue also segues into the matter of energy efficiency. It is one thing to put new systems into the building, but then comes the question of will they work efficiently with the structure? This becomes a difficult set of criteria to satisfy when it comes to an underground structure like the tunnel system. Lighting would be extremely intensive because of the nonexistence of natural light. However, this can be worked around with the incorporation of skylights or solar panels that would power the lighting. In addition to lighting comes ventilation, due to the intersecting paths of the tunnels, natural cross ventilation cannot be relied on.

One final opposition to practice of adaptive reuse is the client’s desire for something new. Human nature tells us that new is always better. As today’s technology advances, so does the way we look at architecture, and as a result so does the client’s. However, a major point that can be made in defense of adaptive reuse of older buildings is many states and private entities offer grants and federal tax credits that help cover up to twenty percent of the cost of development when it comes to reconditioning older, historic buildings. Most people would rather see something new and modern looking, than the restored beauty of an older building. In regards to historical buildings, Martin Johnson, CEO of Isles, a non profit community development and environmental organization said, “These buildings were designed to last. They were built in such a way that you know they are going to be there tomorrow.” There is something to be appreciated from the resilience of older buildings that use brick and masonry amidst the rapidly growing cityscapes of steel and glass.

The topic of abandoned transit tunnels is not unique to the city of Cincinnati, or even the United States for that matter. There are numerous subway tunnels all over the world that are abandoned and falling into disrepair that are perfect candidate sites for adaptive reuse projects. These massive underground structures provide a unique and dynamic space that can be utilized for all different kinds of programmatic use. For example, the London Underground, perhaps the most famous abandoned subway tunnel system in the world, is undergoing renovation projects in several of the tunnels. The most recent project was converting the space into a hydroponics center. This is an example of something that could easily be done in the Cincinnati tunnel system as well. Another example is the forsaken Paris Metro. These tunnels are currently in the planning stage and awaiting approval from the city. Current proposals for the tunnels include a restaurant, night club, performance center and theatre, a lap pool and installation spaces for art exhibits. All of these wide variety of programs are great examples of how flexible the spaces in the tunnels are for any possible idea of how they can be reused for new programmatic elements.

 

Proposals for Forsaken Paris Metro

Renderings: OXO Architecture + Laisné Architect

 

In conclusion, although adaptive reuse can have its negative aspects for some projects like cost and the hassle of updating the existing building systems, the benefits greatly outweigh them. When you choose to do adaptive reuse for a project such as the Cincinnati subway system, you create the opportunity to introduce sustainability into an older, historic structure by recycling the old building materials rather than importing new ones and alleviate the pressure on the carbon footprint of the building. Which in turn can create a healthy and positive effect on the community and leave it in a better state than it was in before. You also get the chance to restore a piece of the city’s history, and in this particular case, introduce a new space to the public that was never opened to them and allow them to discover a different side of their city that they never knew was there before.

 

Sources:

Boschmann, E. E. and Gabriel, J. N. (2013), “Urban sustainability and the LEED rating system: case studies on the role of regional characteristics and adaptive reuse in green building in Denver and Boulder, Colorado.” The Geographical Journal, 179: 221–233.

Bullen, Peter A., and Peter E.D. Love. “The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views from the Field.” The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views from the Field. Elsevier Publishing Co., 9 Apr. 2010. Web. 06 Sept. 2015.

Corral, Andrea. “Repurposing Old Buildings More Satisfying than Knocking them Down.” Las Vegas Business Press 31.29 (2014) ProQuest. Web. 6 Sep. 2015.

Carroon, Jean. “P.7-42; 47-55.” Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. N. page. Print.

Kaewket, Dachamont, “Power shift: a catalyst for architectural transformation: rapid transit, Cincinnati” (2015). Masters Theses. Paper 8.
http://digitalcommons.risd.edu/masterstheses/8

Karen, H. M. (2007). Adaptive reuse: A balancing act. Mercer Business, 83(10), 24-28. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/211664011?accountid=13158

Kersting, Jessica. “Integrating Past and Present: The Story of a Building Through Adaptive Reuse.” Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, 2006. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. 06 Sep 2015.

Rabun, J. Stanely. “Structural Analysis of Historic Buildings.” Google Books. John C. Wiley & Sons, Inc., n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2015.

Periodical: Architectural Research Quarterly

Society continuously evolves technology and embraces new trends and ideas. These advancements also bring the ability to expand the design process through the use of software. Unfortunately, the successful integration of 3D modeling software into architectural education programs has yet to occur. Continue reading Software in Architectural Education →