Tag Archives: adaptive reuse

Adaptive Reuse is Better than New Construction

Adaptive Reuse is Better than New Construction.

With so many unused, abandoned, and historically significant buildings, why do we insist on demolishing them to build new ones? Today, there is an abundance of buildings including factories, houses, incomplete construction sites, stores, and ghost towns available to be re-adapted. Adaptive reuse is better than new construction because it is better for the environment, is an answer for poor living conditions, preserves the cultural energy of the place, and is an interesting design challenge for architects.


Environmental Benefits

Today, it is cheaper to demolish a building and create an entirely new project than it is to reuse a building that already exists. It may be monetarily less expensive, but at what cost to our living environment?

Demolition contributes heavily to industrial waste. Currently, waste generated from the construction and demolition industry is about 1.25 million tonnes per year (1 tonne is approximately 2,204.6 pounds) (Bergsdal 27). In past years, attempts have been made to start waste treatment, but these efforts are not enough. Approximately 44% of construction and demolition waste was sent to sorting, and of that 44%, 33% was recycled, 22% was energy recovered, and 34% was sent to landfill (Bergsdal 28). Even with the waste sent for treatment, 40% of that was unspecified. Some waste was sent directly to recycling companies while some of it was disposed of illegally (Bergsdal 28).

In addition to  the waste produced through construction and demolition waste, we must also remember that when constructing an entire building, materials do not magically appear. Materials need to be transported to the site and through the transportation, greenhouse gases are released into the air, harming our planet. In fact,  greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest contributor in the United States right after electricity in 2013 (“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”).  While, renovation does not completely eliminate the need for material, it can reduce it which in turn reduces the overall need to transport those materials.

In 2014, San Francisco based DPR Construction achieved the renovation of an office building that has reached net positive energy. This office produces as much, if not more energy than it consumes while also being a renovation project. The team researched, designed, permitted, and built the highly efficient 24,000 square foot space within 5 months. The building includes sustainable technologies such as 118kw photovoltaic system to produce renewable energy and provide power throughout the office, a rooftop thermal water heating system, solar powered automatic operable skylights, and nine eight-foot Essence and four “Big Ass Fans” that efficiently flow air within the office. Along with the addition of efficient technologies, the office completed a structural renovation to support the new photovoltaic array on the roof, three living walls throughout the building and a living wine bar, and many of the materials used in the project were reclaimed wood from nearby projects that had recently been deconstructed. DPR Construction in San Francisco is one of only twelve buildings in the United States that have been certified as net zero energy.

  • General Lobby with one of three living walls.


Low Income Housing Solution

Because it is less profitable, developers ignore the low income housing market and focus on the high end segment. Combine this with the fact that 200,000 rental housing units are destroyed annually. This adds up to a shortage in low income rental housing.

This is unfortunate because renting remains one of the most viable options for low income residents and many are stuck in older, lower-quality apartments close to the urban core (Joint Center for Housing Studies). This puts them farther away from well-paying jobs and other opportunities for advancement. Without more production of affordable rentals in the suburbs and community development in city centers, the economic prospects of the nation’s most disadvantaged are only going to get worse.

Albeit challenging, adaptive reuse is an option for this shortage because it provides financial incentives for developers and solves some issues for the residents (Joint Center for Housing Studies). Adaptive reuse projects usually are able to receive “historic rehabilitation tax credit” which would help offset the cost of reuse projects. If geared toward low income housing, they may also qualify for  “low income housing tax credit” and could double the tax savings (Schalmo 10).

Along with the benefits for developers, adaptive reuse projects, because they are often sited in older neighborhoods or even historic districts, can situate residents much closer to centers of employment (Schalmo 9). This would shorten residents’ commute to work and allow them to walk or take public transit to work which harkens back to the sustainable benefits of adaptive reuse. A good example of low income residential adaptive reuse is Grainger Place, by the Landmark Group completed in 2000. It was an old school that was converted into housing for the elderly that won awards for historical preservation and development. Compared to other new construction of a similar scale, the cost was about the same (Schalmo 10). This goes to show that successful projects like these are economically possible.

Screen Shot 2015-12-13 at 6.47.34 PM


Cultural Recycling

The very nature of adaptive reuse lends itself to creating an environment that has a sense of place and history. Demolition and construction waste “injures cities images and memories” and literally changes the way we see our world, wiping history clean and starting again (Cerkez 94).“When a building of historic merit is preserved or restored for adaptive reuse, its cultural energy is also recycled. Old buildings preserve the local culture and identity and create a sense of belonging. In a way, we recycle embodied human resource energy along with material energy. We bring alive the past to be a part of the future, creating valuable connections through time.” (Cerkez 94) When designing a building, architects have to consider the cultural and historical context. The identity of the place is then affirmed through the design. Unlike new construction, reuse projects don’t have to try and fit in- they are already part of the community.

There are times where renovations would have been a better option than new construction For example, the original Pennsylvania Station in New York City (1910) was demolished in 1963 and replaced with the modern underground structure that stands today. Much backlash was felt  when the building was demolished because it had stood as a historical monument. What is frustrating now is the difference in atmosphere and experience. The old building stood tall, above ground, and grand while the new one is underground, low, and oppressive.  

  • Interior view of Pennsylvania Station

Architectural Design Challenge

Using abandoned or already existing buildings creates interesting, compelling design challenges for architects. The constraint of an already existing building allows designers to become innovative and solve problems, while also respecting the history of the site. Architects give these buildings new life, new meaning, and a new function while respecting what had occurred before their project. This recycles the “cultural energy” of what was there before. This allows design to blend into the language of its surroundings, while still doing something new. This kind of work would not merely be a renovation, but the entire purpose of the building would be redefined to become whatever our society needs most.


Branded Buildings:

Branded buildings, such as McDonalds or CVS Pharmacy depend heavily on the shape and design of their building to reiterate the branding. Companies such as McDonald’s will demolish and rebuild for small reasons as simple as they are trying to update the look of their brand. Why do we allow for the pointless changes that create demolition and construction waste and so much more? Branded buildings can still be created and gain from adaptive reuse and renovation. Renovating, rather than demolishing, would allow for the business to stay open while renovations are being completed. It would also take less time to construct because there would not be demolition or construction from scratch.

Located in the Palisades, Washington, D.C. there is a CVS that defies the idea that branded buildings have to demolish and rebuild for their locations. This CVS is a converted old movie theater. The design keeps the integrity of the old movie theater while also having a recognizable brand.

CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.
CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.

Another, larger, example is the Bastard Store, located in Milan. Designed by Studiometrico, the shopfront, officers, warehouse, and skate bowl are located within a 1900’s cinema. It stays true to as much of the cinema as was possible, but also reflects the brand’s gnarly attitude toward snowboarding. The juxtaposition of the prior program and the current program is an idea that can be appreciated and is much more complex than if they had torn down the cinema and built a new, sleek, snowboarding headquarters.

  • Original Milan Theater


In Conclusion:

As sustainability is becoming a requirement rather than an option, we as designers have to ask ourselves if it is really worth building new. With a site that already has a building on it, there is no need for a new building because we can effectively reuse the building that is already there. Even without considering the environmental side of things, adaptive reuse presents many more benefits that new construction simply cannot imitate.



Baer, William C. “Empty Housing Space: An Overlooked Resource.”Policy Studies Journal 8.2 (1979): 220-27. Web.

Bergsdal, Håvard, Rolf André Bohne, and Helge Brattebø. “Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway.”Journal of Industrial Ecology 11.3 (2007): 27-39. Web.

Bullen, Peter A. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings.” Facilities 25.1/2 (2007): 20-31. Web.

Power, A. “Housing and Sustainability: Demolition or Refurbishment?”Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and Planning163.4 (2010): 205-16. Web.

“47-2061 Construction Laborers.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Joint Center for Housing Studies. “America’s Rental Housing: Homes for a Diverse Nation.” (Publication of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University). HARVARD JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES, 8 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Kellert, S. R. 2005. Chapter 4: Biophilic design in Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection.Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 123-177.

Power, Anne. “Does Demolition or Refurbishment of Old and Inefficient Homes Help to Increase Our Environmental, Social and Economic Viability?” Energy Policy 36.12 (2008): 4487-501. Web.

SCHALMO, Barbara Elwood. “COVERING THE COST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Exploring the Adequacy of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit to Cover the Increased Development Cost of Adaptive Reuse

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation Sector Emissions. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Projects for Affordable Housing.” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Tränkler, Josef O.v., Isa Walker, and Max Dohmann. “Environmental Impact of Demolition Waste — An Overview on 10 Years of Research and Experience.” Waste Management 16.1-3 (1996): 21-26. Web.

Adaptive Reuse of the Cincinnati Subway System

Adaptive Reuse of the Cincinnati Subway System

Proposed Periodical: ArchDaily


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.


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 newer is 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.



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. pag. Print.

Kaewket, Dachamont, “Power shift: a catalyst for architectural transformation : rapid transit, Cincinnati” (2015). Masters Theses. Paper 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.

Adaptive Reuse in Detroit


THESIS: Rather than allowing old, industrial buildings fall to ruin, the city of Detroit should revitalize these buildings to become sustainable and viable centers of activity through adaptive reuse.


On July 18, 2013, the city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. A city that once was bustling full of 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 and a 26% decrease since 2000. The unemployment rate varies from 27.8% (2009) to 10% (2015). It has the largest violent crime rate seen in any city in the United States. 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 to violent crimes with 60% of reported arson cases happening here. Rather than allowing old, industrial buildings fall to ruin, the city of Detroit should revitalize these buildings to become sustainable and viable centers of activity through adaptive reuse. Adaptive reuse is the act of creating new built opportunities within existing built forms. It involves the repurposing of a structure that is usually 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 these 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. By reusing the existing structure we decrease the environmental pressure resulting from transportation and production of materials. 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.

Adaptive reuse has proven successful in other industrial locations such as the Highline Park in New York City’s Meatpacking district, Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, and Station Square in Pittsburgh. The ability to bring life to these once booming industrial centers is key to bringing life to the city as a whole once more. 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. Another 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. Hotel Eddystone and Park Avenue Hotels are other great locations for adaptive reuse. These abandoned hotels can serve as the catalyst for creating a new residential community.

Seeing the success of great urban works in cities such as Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and New York City, we believe adaptive reuse is the future for the success of revitalizing cities in our coming generation. As students pursuing sustainability leadership degrees, the “greenness” of a building is a cause we support. 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. Action is needed.   


  • 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.
  • Meltzer, Emily. “Adaptive Reuse of the Seaholm Power Plant: Uniting Historic Preservation and Sustainable Practices.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2011.
  • Donofrio, Gregory. “Preservation by Adaptation: Is it Sustainable?” Change Over Time 2.2 (2012): 106-31.
  • Hollander, Justin B., Niall Kirkwood, and Julia L. Gold. Principles of Brownfield Regeneration: Cleanup, Design, and Reuse of Derelict Land. Washington: Island Press, 2010.
  • Green, Jessica M. “Adaptive Reuse in Post-Industrial Detroit: Testing the Viability of the Engine Works.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2008.
  • Ro, Sam. “11 Depressing Stats About Detroit.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 18 July 2013. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
  • Spivak, Jeffrey. “Adaptive Use Is Reinventing Detroit.” Urban Land Magazine. The Magazine of the Urban Land Institute, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.

Photograph of “The concourse, looking east” in Michigan Central Station                                                                                                               Photography: Zach Fein                                                                             Architects: Warren & Wetmore, Reed & Stem.


5 Theses: Ali Pugliese and Andrew Chesakis

The following five theses were written collaboratively by Andrew Chesakis and myself as well as finding and citing the six sources for each topic.

Thesis #1: Designing an environment that engages and stimulates its user through the five senses, leads to a more fulfilling and memorable experience.


1. Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. London: Academy Editions, 1996.

2. Stein, Sarah Noelle. “Architecture and the Senses: A Sensory Musing Park.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2013.

3. Malnar, Joy Monice. Sensory design. U of Minnesota Press, 2004.

4. Bahamón, Alejandro, and Ana María Alvarez. Light Color Sound: Sensory Effects in Contemporary Architecture. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2010.

5. Goodwin, Kate, et al. Sensing Spaces: Architecture Reimagined. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2014.

6. Holz, Heather. Sensory Architecture: Redefining How One Interprets Space. Fargo: North Dakota State U, 2011.

Thesis #2: Creating an environment that promotes health and well being aids in the healing process.


1. Mazuch, Richard, and Stephen Rona. “Creating Healing Environments: Humanistic Architecture and Therapeutic Design.” Journal of Public Mental Health 4.4 (2005): 48-52. ProQuest. Web. 4 Sep. 2015.

2. Malkin, Jain. Hospital Interior Architecture: Creating Healing Environments for Special Patient Populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.

3. Martin, Colin. “Architecture for Healing.” The Lancet 375.9731 (2010): 2066-.

4. Lawson, Bryan. Healing Architecture. 211 Vol. London: Emap Limited, 2002.

5. Saini, Balwant. “Healing through Architecture and Music.” Architecture + design 26.3 (2009): 26-36.

6. Aripin, S. Healing Architecture: A Study of Daylight in Hospital Design. University Publications Centre (UPENDA), 2006.

Thesis #3: Repurposing old, forgotten structures can bring  life back into a community.


1. Bullen, Peter A. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings.” Facilities 25.1 (2007): 20-31. ProQuest. Web. 1 Sep. 2015.

2. BINDER, MELINDA. “ADAPTIVE REUSE AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN: A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR ABANDONED INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.” Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, 2003. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. 01 Sep 2015.

3. Mozas, Javier, and Per, Aurora Fernandez. Reclaim Remediate Reuse Recycle. A+T architecture publishers, Spring- Autumn 2012. Issue 39-40. Print.

4. Zhang, Song. “Conservation and Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage in Shanghai.” Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China 1.4 (2007): 481-90. ProQuest. Web. 2 Sep. 2015.

5. Stratton, Michael. Industrial Buildings: Conservation and Regeneration. London: E&FN Spon, 2000. Print.

6. Cantell, Sophie Francesca. “The Adaptive Reuse of Historical Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices, and Case Studies.

Thesis #4: With the popularity of video games children need an outdoor space to use their imagination and be active.


1. Kite, James, Merom, Dafna, Rissel, Chris, Wen, Li Ming. “Time spent playing outdoors after school and its relationship with independent mobility: a cross-sectional survey of children aged 10–12 years in Sydney, Australia.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. BioMed Central. 2009. Web. 3 Sep. 2015.

2. Heseltine, Peter, and Holborn, John. Playgrounds: the Planning, Design And Construction of Play Environments. New York: Nichols Pub. Co., 1987. Print.

3. Vorderer, Peter; Bryant, Jennings. Playing Video Games : Motives, Responses, and Consequences. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012. Ebook Library. Web. 03 Sep. 2015.

4. Helick, R Martin, and Watkins, Margaret T. Elements of Preschool Playyards. Swissvale: Regent Graphic Services, 1973. Print.

5. Hammond, DE, et al. “Growing Minds: The Relationship between     Parental Attitudes Toward their Child’s Outdoor Recreation and their Child’s Health.” HORTTECHNOLOGY 21.2 (2011): 217-24. Web. 03 Sep. 2015.

6. Stigsdotter, Ulrika K., et al. “Evidence-Based Playground Design: Lessons Learned from Theory to Practice.” Landscape Research 40.2 (2015): 226-46.

Thesis #5: All newly built homes should be smaller and energy efficient.


1. Stang, Alanna, Christopher Hawthorne, and National Building Museum (U.S.). The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture. 1st ed. Washington, D.C; New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.

2. Tombazis, A. N., and S. A. Preuss. “Design of Passive Solar Buildings in Urban Areas.” Solar Energy 70.3 (2001): 311-8.

3. Ryker, Lori. Off the Grid: Modern homes + Alternative energy. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2005. Print.

4. Goldsmith, Sara. Vitamin Green. New York: Phaidon Press Inc. 2012. Print.

5. Tucker, Lisa M. “Net Zero Housing: The Architects’ Small House Service Bureau and Contemporary Sustainable Single‐Family House Design Methods for the United States.” Journal of Interior Design 37.1 (2012): 1-15.

6. Perkins, Anne. “CONSERVATION: ZERO NET ENERGY HOMES FOR LOW‐INCOME FAMILIES.” Zygon 46.4 (2011): 929-41.