Current adaptation theory tends to consider individual buildings or the city level, which cannot address decisions related to masterplan developments on large brownfield sites. This paper investigates the drivers for building demolition or retention and adaptation decisions at the masterplan scale. Expert interviews and three case studies are used to explore how and why decisions to demolish, or to retain and adapt, are made at this scale. The research compared three different geopolitical contexts: Cambridge in the UK; Eindhoven in the Netherlands; and Sydney in Australia. Additional factors and complexities that should be considered at the masterplan scale are identified. The theoretical underpinnings of urban development processes are used to explain these complexities in relation to four existing models and demonstrate that no one model is adequate to describe the interactions. With increasing awareness of climate change impacts, it is critical that demolition decisions on masterplan developments are reviewed in the light of retaining carbon as well as heritage.

@en

Two key benefits of building retention and adaptation, over demolition and new build are identified in the academic literature as: the conservation of heritage, and reductions in embodied greenhouse gas emissions from construction materials. A four-year research project, including expert interviews, focus groups and three detailed case studies, developed extensive data on how these benefits are considered in decisions to demolish or retain buildings within larger urban development sites. The research found that heritage and embodied impacts are considered quite differently. Heritage is frequently a key driver towards retaining individual buildings, whilstembodied emissions are rarely key considerations. Where there are insufficient arguments based on heritage value, many buildings are therefore demolished and replaced rather than retained. To reduce the impact of construction on the environment it is crucial that we calculate the embodied as well as operational impacts of demolition decisions and retain and refurbish buildings where this is the lower carbon choice. Using heritage arguments as a basis, this paper proposes that the introduction of policy drivers for retention and against demolition, and the conversion of environmental value into economic uplift, are likely to be necessary conditions to encourage the retention of buildings for lower whole life carbon.

@en

Of the buildings we will have in 2050, 87 percent are already built. If predicted climate changes are correct we need to adapt existing stock sustainably. Reuse is an inherently sustainable option, which reduces the amount of waste going to landfill and limits the use of raw materials. Inevitably, settlements and areas undergo change, whereby land uses become obsolete and buildings vacant. At this stage, the options are either to demolish or to convert to another use. Although office to residential conversions are still few in number in various CBDs, cities such as Sydney show an emerging trend in conversion. Some 100,000 m2 of office space is earmarked for residential conversion as demand for central residential property grows and low interest rates create good conditions. With the Sydney market about to be flooded with the Barangaroo office supply in 2017, the conditions for residential conversion are better than ever. However, what is the level of sustainability in these projects? This chapter investigates the nature and extent of conversion in Sydney, as well as the political, economic, social, environmental, and technological drivers and barriers to successful conversion. Through international comparisons between cases in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Australia, this chapter identifies some key lessons that are applicable to other market and urban contexts worldwide. There is substantial potential to change the nature of the CBD with residential conversion of office space and this chapter explores this potential.@en

The continuous increase in the number and size of urban regions across the world pose great challenges for sustainable development. Given the connection between energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and the reality that the built environment emits around half of total emissions, the construction industry has considerable potential to reduce emissions and a key role in mitigating global warming. Other local challenges include for example loss of species and habitats, social degradation of neighborhoods, and an overall erosion of sustainability. Urbanisation patterns and the lifestyles of urban dwellers also affect the planet on wider scales and contribute to shaping bio-physical processes on planetary scales and affect how humans mentally connect with the Biosphere. However there is evidence our current understanding of the concept of sustainability, and thus sustainable development, is fragmented and unclear. There are a plethora of terms used to cover sustainable buildings, such as ecological, green, Gaian, zero energy, eco-friendly and environmental; all of which come in, and out, of fashion over time; do they mean the same thing or are they different? Furthermore, do the stakeholders within the built environment demonstrate a clear understanding of the concept of sustainability or; are they muddled and confused? The consequence of unclear thinking and a lack of understanding is that ultimately the built environment stakeholders are unlikely to deliver ‘sustainability’ efficiently or even at all, with the broader and more onerous consequences for society as a whole. In addition what are the implications for education and should academics be broadening the debate? This lecture examines the environmental, economic, social, political and philosophical thinking underpinning the concept of sustainable development and shows how different perspectives reflect very different ways of thinking about sustainability and sustainable development. It aims to create a better understanding while offering creative solutions.@en

The continuous increase in the number and size of urban regions across the world pose great challenges for sustainable development. Given the connection between energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and the reality that the built environment emits around half of total emissions, the construction industry has considerable potential to reduce emissions and a key role in mitigating global warming. Other local challenges include for example loss of species and habitats, social degradation of neighborhoods, and an overall erosion of sustainability. Urbanisation patterns and the lifestyles of urban dwellers also affect the planet on wider scales and contribute to shaping bio-physical processes on planetary scales and affect how humans mentally connect with the Biosphere. However there is evidence our current understanding of the concept of sustainability, and thus sustainable development, is fragmented and unclear. There are a plethora of terms used to cover sustainable buildings, such as ecological, green, Gaian, zero energy, eco-friendly and environmental; all of which come in, and out, of fashion over time; do they mean the same thing or are they different? Furthermore, do the stakeholders within the built environment demonstrate a clear understanding of the concept of sustainability or; are they muddled and confused? The consequence of unclear thinking and a lack of understanding is that ultimately the built environment stakeholders are unlikely to deliver ‘sustainability’ efficiently or even at all, with the broader and more onerous consequences for society as a whole. In addition what are the implications for education and should academics be broadening the debate? This lecture examines the environmental, economic, social, political and philosophical thinking underpinning the concept of sustainable development and shows how different perspectives reflect very different ways of thinking about sustainability and sustainable development. It aims to create a better understanding while offering creative solutions.

@en