future-proofing historic buildings - a proposed rating system

FUTURE‐PROOFINGthe

HISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMaster of Architecture at the University of Washington

byBrian D. Rich

31 May 2016

Thesis Committee Members:

Jeffrey Ochsner, chair Kathryn Merlino Tyler Sprague

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction

2. Future‐Proofing – A Definition

3. Future‐proofing Applied to Historic Buildings

4. Initial Investigation

5. How Future‐Proofing Works on a Larger Scale

6. A Rating System

7. Case Studies

8. Conclusion

9. Future Research

Figure 1: The 1869 Belvedere Castle by Calvert Vaux in Central Park is obsolete, but timeless and holds our interest. Credit: Brian Rich, 2013

Future‐Proof – A Definition

Future‐proofing:

The process of anticipating the future and developing methods of minimizing the negative effects while taking advantage of the positive effects of shocks and stresses due to future events.

This definition is synthesized from multiple sources, including articles by M.C. Georgiadou, Craig Applegath, Thesis by JR Kerr, the “Future Proof Building” website, ResilientCity.org, Resilience Alliance, and other sources.

Selected Future‐Proof Attributes

• Flexible

• Reusable

• Expandable

• Not obsolete

• Durable materials

• Able to withstand impacts

• Adaptability

• Built to last

• Forward / long‐range planning

Figure 2: The collapsed I‐5 bridge at the Skagit River was “functionally obsolete.” Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:05‐23‐13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg

Selected Attributes of Resilience• Resilience transcends scales

• Diverse, durable, and redundant systems are inherently more resilient

• Higher durability, utility, and serviceability increase resilience

• Locally available, renewable, or reclaimed resources are more resilient

• Resilience is not absolute

• Engineered vs. Ecosystem Resilience

Figure 3: Spalled stone due to rust jacking at a railing. Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA. Credit: Brian Rich, 2013

Figure 4: Deteriorating brick, mortar and plaster at the barracks at La Citadelle de Quebec, Quebec, ON. Credit: Brian Rich, 2014

Introduction

• Future‐proofing is in response to our “disposable society”

• Future‐Proofing is about managing our built environment

• This research addresses the questions:

• How applicable is future‐proofing?

• Can the concepts be systematically applied?

• Can the concepts guide our designs?

Figure 5: Philopatrian Literary Institute, Philadelphia. Future‐proof despite the stone base deterioration? Credit: Brian Rich, 2013.

Richmond Laundry Building, Seattle, WA

Future‐Proofing Historic Buildings

• Manage our built heritage

• Guide design decisions in historic building renovations

• Promote thoroughly considered design decisions

Figure 6: Lewis & Clark High School in Spokane, WA, received a major renovation several years ago. Credit: Brian Rich, 2012.

Proposed Principles of Future‐Proofing

1. Prevent decay.

2. Stimulate flexibility and adaptability.

3. Extend service life.

4. Fortify!

5. Increase redundancy.

6. Reduce obsolescence.

7. Plan ahead.

8. Diversify.

9. Be local and healthy.

10. Consider lifecycle benefits.

11. Promote understanding.

12. Use cultural heritage policy documents.

Figure 8: The El Parador Ariston in a severely deteriorated state in 2014. Credit: moderndesign.org, 2014.

Figure 7: The El Parador Ariston by Marcel Breuer, 1946, Argentina. Credit: http://fotosviejasdemardelplata.blogspot.com, 2013.

The Proposed 12 Principles of Future‐Proofing

1. Prevent decay. Promote durable building materials and methods of construction that prevent premature deterioration of our built environment rather than accelerate deterioration. Interventions should use building materials of equal or greater durability than existing building fabric or design for disassembly and replacement.

2. Stimulate flexibility and adaptability. Flexibility and adaptability of our built environment and our attitudes toward it are essential to retention of our built environment in a disposable society.

3. Extend service life. Extend the service life of our built environment through regular inspections and maintenance so it may continue to contribute to our economy, culture, and sustainable society.

4. Fortify!Build engineered resilience by fortifying our built environment against climate change, extreme weather and natural hazards, and shortages of materials and energy.

5. Increase redundancy.Redundant systems provide backup in the event that a primary system fails and allow a building to continue to function.

6. Reduce obsolescenceDon’t accept planned obsolescence. Take a proactive approach to preventing physical, functional, aesthetic, and sustainable obsolescence.

7. Plan Ahead.Prevent demolition of existing building fabric by using optimum materials, construction phasing, and scalability through long range planning.

8. Diversify.Allow for multiple stable states, like ecologically resilient systems. Include different sources, uses, capabilities, and economic models rather than one dominant trait.

9. Be local and healthy.Incorporate non‐toxic, renewable, local materials, parts, and labor into our built environment to ensure materials and manufacturing capabilities will be readily available in the future for efficient repairs.

10. Consider life cycle benefits.Consider the long‐term life cycle benefits of interventions in our built environment as opposed to demolition and disposal of existing historic building fabric.

11. Take advantage of cultural heritage policy documents.

Typically applied during the design phases of a project, cultural heritage policy documents provide excellent guidance for the long‐term retention of an historic building.

12. Promote understanding. Renovation, rehabilitation and other types of alterations to existing buildings should allow for understanding of the built environment and its place in our built heritage through minimal interventions that remain distinguishable from the original structure. Construction should respect historic fabric and seek to protect it.

Example: Principle 1 ‐ Prevent Decay

Detailed development of this Principle includes promoting durable building materials and methods of construction that prevent premature deterioration of our built environment rather than accelerate deterioration. Interventions should use building materials of equal or greater durability than existing building fabric or design for disassembly and replacement.

Figure 9: The $45 million Haludovo Palace Hotel, Krk, Croatia, 1972 was declared bankrupt in 1973 and abandoned. Credit: Nate Robert, 2013.


Initial Investigations

• Literature review

• Arctic Building – walrus tusks

(FP 1, 3, 11 & 12)

• Life Cycle Analysis

(FP 11)

• Traditional Building Materials as a future‐proof sustainable building practice

(FP 9)

• Panarchy/Adaptive Cycles – long‐term future‐proofing

(FP 7 & 8)

• Implementation of Future‐Proofing

(FP 11 & 12)

• Future‐proofing – the Fort Lawton Historic District

(FP 1, 2, & 6)

Figure 10 & 11: Double walrus head at the corner of the Arctic Building, Seattle, WA. Credit: Brian Rich, 2013, drawing by Stickney&Murphy, 1982

Future‐Proofing:A Proposed Rating System

Goals of this rating system include:

• A system to numerically evaluate the success in meeting specific criteria

• A system with absolute and comparable results

• A system based on, and growing out of, existing rating systems, augmented with new criteria

• An adjustable system for regional requirements, owner or designer strategies, etc.

Thesis Case Studies

Figure 12‐15: Clark Hall (top left), Playouse Theater (top right), Savery Hall (bottom left), and the SIERR Building (bottom right).

• Building selection depended on the availability of data

• The case study buildings were used to test and calibrate the rating system

• Initially studied three UW buildings

• Did not anticipate the consistency of the future‐proofing scores for the UW buildings

• Added the fourth building (the SIERR Building in Spokane) for comparison

• Eliminated use of the Analytic Hierarchical Process of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis

• Considered and imposed limitations on the weighting percentages for each Principle to between 5% and 15%

• Moved the weighting of the Principles until after developing raw scores to discourage cheating by over‐weighting a select number of Principles.

• Considered and rejected use of negative points for credits reviewed but not achieved

Figure 16: South entrance to Savery Hall, UW Seattle Campus, ca. 1920. Credit: UW Special Collections, Neg. #UW6860, by A.A. Peterson.

Future‐Proofing:Rating System Adjustments

UW Case Study – Clark Hall

Figure 19: The 1896 Main Floor plan of Clark Hall designed by Josenhans& Allen. Credit: UW Facilities Services, 1896.

Figure 17: Clark Hall was the third building constructed on the UW Seattle campus north of the Montlake Cut. Credit: UW Special Collections, 1900.

Figure 20: An aerial view of the 2009 restoration reveals the new skylights on the roofs. Credit: Absher Construction, 2009.

Figure 18: The octagonal roofs over the towers flanking the main entry were destroyed in the 1969 fire bombing. Credit: UW Facilities Services, 1896.

UW Case Study – Playhouse

Figure 23: The courtyard outside the Playhouse Theater was filled in as part of the 2009 rehabilitation. Credit: UW Tyee Yearbook, 1958.

Figure 21: Floor plan of the Playhouse Theater showing the stage at the west. Credit: Vern Delgatty, 1966.

Figure 22: The rehabilitated theater boasts a thrust stage and seating for 210 people. Credit: Lara Swimmer, 2010.

Figure 24: The new lobby space in the courtyard allows for a larger thrust stage arrangement in the auditorum. Credit: uwworldseries.org, 2013.

UW Case Study – Savery Hall

Figure 27: The southwest side of Philosophy Hall in 1958. Credit: EF Marten, UW OUA, courtesy UW MSCUA

Figure 25: Savery Hall, first floor plan showing the new classroom configurations. Credit: SRG Architects, 2007.

Figure 26: View from the southwest looking towards Savery Hall. Credit: masoncontractors.org, 2009.

Figure 28: Aerial view of Savery Hall from the Northeast. Credit: mehvaccasestudies.com, 2009


UW Restore the Core – Case Study Results

Table 1: This table shows the raw scores for each of the 3 UW case study projects.



Table 2: This table shows the raw scores converted to percentages.



Table 3: This table shows the ranking and adjusted weighting percentages for each of the 12 Principles which are applied to each case study



Table 4: This table shows the rank and adjusted weighting for the 12 Principles, sorted by rank.



Table 5: This table shows the adjusted weighted scores as well as the rank and weighting percentage applied to each of the 3 UW case study projects.



Table 6: This table shows the adjusted weighted percentage scores for each of the 3 UW case study projects.

Case Study: The SIERR Building

Figure 31: The SIERR Building in it’s hey day, ca. 1909. Credit: www.evergreenrr.blogspot.com, 2012.

Figure 29: The SIERR Building from the southwest. The “L” shaped building serviced electric trolley trains. Credit: Dean Davis, 2011.

Figure 30: All of the doors and windows were reconstructed and minor modern curtainwall systems installed in the original brick. Credit: Dean Davis, 2011.

Figure 32: The massive train car maintenance spaces have been converted into offices for McKinstry. Credit: Dean Davis, 2011.


SIERR Building – Case Study Results

RAW SCORES ADJUSTED SCORES

Note: LEED Version 2.1 = 69 points possibleLEED Version 2009 = 110 points possible69/110 = 62.7%

Table 7: This table shows the raw scores, adjusted scores, and percentage scores for the Spokane and Inland Empire Railroad building.


SIERR Building – Case Study Results

Table 8: This table shows the weighting and ranks of the 12 Principles, adjusted weighted scores, and percentage scores for the Spokane and Inland Empire Railroad building.

Adjusted Adjusted


Conclusions

1. Attributes of a future‐proof object can be codified as a set of Principles.

2. Future‐Proofing embodies a broader definition of sustainability, resilient design, and life cycle assessment.

3. Future‐Proofing rating system is a valuable tool.

4. Future‐proof capacity can be measured by specific, objective criteria as well as subjective application of the Principles.

5. There is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution.

6. Continuous revision of the rating system is required.


Paths for Future Research

1. Can the Principles of Future‐Proofing be extended to larger and more varied types of built environments?

2. Do the criteria capture the intangible aspects of future‐proof structures?

3. How can a Future‐Proofing Rating System be integrated into practice?

4. Can recommended weightings for different building types, regions, or other factors be developed consistently to make the system easier to use?

5. Can there truly be a future‐proof building if deterioration is constant? Won’t the building eventually be unable to serve its functions?

6. When is a building future‐proof? After 100 years? 200? 500?


End

Thanks!

future-proofing historic buildings - a proposed rating system

Design