People and the Planet 2013 Conference Proceedings

This article was first presented at the People and the Planet 2013
Conference: Transforming the Future, RMIT University, Melbourne,
Australia, 2-4 July.
All articles published in this collection have been peer reviewed.

Title: Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

Author(s): Anupa Manewa1, Christine Pasquire2, Alistair Gibb3, Andrew Ross1 and
Mohan Siriwardena4
1
Institution(s): Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
2
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom
3
Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
4
University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom
Email(s): R.M.Manewa@ljmu.ac.uk, Christine.Pasquire@ntu.ac.uk,
A.G.Gibb@lboro.ac.uk, A.D.Ross@ljmu.ac.uk, M.L.Siriwardena@salford.ac.uk
Publisher: Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Year: 2013
Editor(s): Paul James, Chris Hudson, Sam Carroll-Bell, Alyssa Taing

Series URL:
http://global-cities.info/news-events/conferences-forums/conferences-proceedings

Copyright 2013 Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University.

All rights reserved. This article may be used for research, teaching and
private study purposes. Material, which is reproduced from this
publication, in whole or in part, must be clearly attributed to the author
and source.
Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a
Sustainable Future
ANUPA MANEWA, CHRISTINE PASQUIRE, ALISTAIR GIBB,
ANDREW ROSS and MOHAN SIRIWARDENA

Abstract: Built environment challenges appear in the areas of environment

considerations, innovations in technology, planning and policy issues, social
requirements, political forces and economic considerations. To respond to
these macro level challenges, buildings need to change in terms of the function
they house, the capacity to achieve the performance required for the population
they hold and the flow of reacting to internal and external forces. Proactive
solutions to respond to future potential changes are rare in previous and current
building designs, which make these buildings prematurely obsolete or require
substantial refurbishment or demolition. However, scrapping and building anew is
not always appreciated within the sustainability agenda. At present, curiosity
about adaptable buildings is spreading among building owners, developers and
policy makers. This paper examines design strategies for adaptability in buildings,
thereby facilitating a sustainable built environment. First, the paper investigates
how the uses and function of the built environment, along with its supporting
infrastructure, has changed over a period of 100 years, based on two case studies.
Secondly, it explains how adaptable buildings could respond to those changes in a
sustainable manner. Findings of the case studies were used to establish the need
for designing future-proofed buildings while emphasizing the enormous
contribution of adaptable buildings towards a sustainable future.

Keywords: Adaptable buildings, sustainability, change of use, obsolescence

1. Background

A revolution in agricultural and industrial sectors in the 18th century wrought a remarkable
change in social, cultural and economic life styles in the United Kingdom (UK). As a result,
major changes could be seen in patterns of land ownership and land use during the last
century (Butlin 1994). Today, the UK Government tends to promote optimum use of the
existing building stock through mixed use in urban centres and encourages conversion of
redundant office and retail space into leisure, service and/or residential uses rather than
renewal (Davison et al. 2006). However, the endeavour of upgrading older maladaptive
buildings to meet present day user needs seems economically expensive and technically
unjustifiable.

In the developed world, there is an increasing need to adapt obsolete or redundant buildings
to continue the same use or to modify them for new uses (Douglas 2006), which seems like
an economically sound solution for minimizing building redundancy. Sometimes these
conversion processes are uneconomical and demolition seems unsustainable, thus making it
more economical to maintain the original space as redundant until demand for a potential use
reappears. Therefore it is important to analyze ways of utilizing the existing building stock as
mixed or sole use developments, because building functions have limited life, they are
expensive to build, and the cost of replacement is high and clearly unnecessary when they are
physically robust and adaptable. This is encouraging greater innovation in the design of new
buildings to allow for change of use throughout the structures lifetime.

The existing building stock in the UK is subjected to different challenges of the built
environment. These challenges appear in the areas of environment considerations (Geraedts
2008, Kincaid 2000), innovations in technology (Nutt 2000), planning and policy issues,
social requirements, political forces (Gann and Barlow 1996) and economic
considerations (Arge 2005, Douglas 2006). To respond to these macro level challenges,
buildings need to change in terms of the function they house, the capacity to achieve the
performance required for the population they hold and the flow of reacting to internal and
external environmental forces (Slaughter 2001). However, buildings that are unable to cope
with the aforementioned challenges will become prematurely obsolete or require substantial
refurbishment or demolition, where neither option may lead towards a sustainable future. In
essence adaptable buildings are widely recognized as intrinsic to a sustainable built
environment (Kendall and Ando 2005) and they might focus on bespoke solutions which,
wherever possible, are flexible to varying customer needs. However, a constraint to the
implementation of a policy of life span adaptability is the difficulty of understanding the
sustainable considerations over long time scales. There is therefore a growing need to design
new buildings that are adaptable and flexible over their life span whilst at the same time
improving user satisfaction.

2. Research methodology

Two case studies were studied to explain the typical changes of buildings over a period of
100 years. The town of Loughborough study, focused on the change of use of buildings
within a relatively smaller geographical area. The city of Liverpool study, focused on the
same aspect but within a relatively large geographical area. These two cases were used to
identify and understand the changes of buildings over the last century. Loughborough is a
typical small rural town in the heart of England (East Midlands) and Liverpool is a large city
in the North West of England. Historic maps and documents were collected from record
offices (Leicester and Liverpool), and public libraries. An extensive Morphological Analysis
was carried out within the area to study how building functions have changed and to establish
the factors behind those changes. A previous research study using Morphological Analysis
was undertaken by Ariga (2005) on adaptable physical settings and flexible mixtures for
livable urban communities in the city of San Francisco. It focused on functional clusters and
their adaptability with the changing conditions. Similarly, Morphological Analysis is used to
identify the pattern of change in building functions in selected building clusters in
Loughborough and Liverpool during the last century. A morphological analysis is a general
method for non-quantified modelling, consequently, it is considered as a classification system
made up of categories that divide some aspects of the world into parts (Ariga 2005). In this
sense, the same method is used by the research described in this paper to investigate the space
use pattern in buildings (either mixed or sole use) and their surrounding structures.

2
 Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

The main types of building were identified as residential, commercial, industrial, social and
leisure categories. Residential included detached, semi-detached, houses and apartment
blocks. Commercial comprised offices, banks, public houses, hotels and retail categories.
Industrial included buildings for manufacturing and warehouses. Social covered schools,
churches, clubs, hospitals and buildings which were built for community wellbeing. Leisure
included parks and other recreational facilities. Historic maps to a scale of 1 inch = 88 feet
and for the years 1886, 1890, 1901, 1921, 1924, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1989, 2004,
2008 and 2010, were used to study the pattern of functional transformations of buildings over
the years. Among those maps, critical differentiations of functional uses of buildings were
identified from 1886, 1921, 1970, 1989, 2008 (Loughborough) and 1890, 1924, 1988, 2004,
2010 (Liverpool). Other historic documents were also accessed to identify the factors behind
the transitions. A total of seven semi structured interviews (two in Loughborough and five in
Liverpool) were conducted with different professionals (a development and control officer,
senior planner, quantity surveyor and four academics: two from quantity surveying, one from
architecture and one from structural engineering) with more than 15 years of experience in
their disciplines, to obtain the platform data for the study and to identify the economic, social
and environment impacts derived from the changes observed. The main reason for selecting
those clusters was their frequent changes in space and their representation of all the
functional units better than the other possible clusters. The selected clusters are located at the
commercial hub of the town of Loughborough and Liverpool city centre. Moreover, direct
observations of the existing building stock within the selected clusters were carried out to
identify their most recent uses. These observations revealed which buildings had been
replaced in recent times as the construction technology was clearly less than 60 years old and
helped to estimate the percentage of alterations in buildings and their functions.

3. Data collection and analysis

The industrial revolution in the 19th century caused rapid developments in the town/city based
on various manufacturing and engineering industries. Although relatively undamaged
physically by the First and Second World Wars in the first half of the 20th century, there was
a disruption to the growth pattern of both Loughborough town and Liverpool city during
these periods whilst the growth of public policies in the late 20th century has favoured
changes in space use patterns. Two case studies were carried out to identify the pattern of
building change in Loughborough and Liverpool. The cluster areas were selected through
preliminary surveys, which identified the maximum number of multi-functional (residential,
commercial, industrial, social, leisure) units within a single area. The cluster areas referred to
in this paper are surrounded by roads and reveal remarkable changes in both the functional
and spatial transitions. Building change of use in the selected clusters over the century was
noted by comparing each building with its previous use. Colours (yellow: social, light green:
commercial, purple: industrial, sky blue: residential, pink: leisure and recreational, grey:
buildings with no change of use, and white: open/vacant space) were assigned to represent
the change of use in buildings with comparison to their previous use. Table 1 illustrates the
pattern of building use change in Loughborough and Liverpool during the last century. The
findings of Loughborough case study were published as a chapter (Manewa et al. 2009) of
the book Smart Building in a Changing Climate.

3
A. Manewa et al.

Table 1: Pattern of Building Transitions in Loughborough and Liverpool

1886 1921 1970 1989 2008
Loughborough

1890 1924 1988 2004 2010

Liverpool

Source: Manewa (et al. 2009)

3.1 Loughborough case study

The case study covers the area bounded by High Street to the North, Woodgate to the East,
South Street to the South and Market Place to the West. In 1886 the residential buildings
were placed along Woodgate and South Streets as semi-detached houses. Most of the
detached houses were scattered over the middle part of the cluster. The town hall and police
court can be identified under the Social category. There were commercial buildings, such as
banks, hotels, small shops and a few public houses with industrial buildings surrounded by
the residential units at the centre. Spatial extensions in social (Town hall) and commercial
buildings (bank, hotels) could be easily identified through the 1921 map. A new cinema and
National Westminster bank were added to the social and commercial building networks
respectively. But no remarkable alteration to the remaining building stock could be seen in
1921. Moreover, there were no noticeable impacts from the First World War (191418). By
1970 many changes could be easily identified. Since 1921, new buildings and extensions had
taken place in all the functional categories. Specific new construction (Corporation Yard,
Woolworths, Police Station) and conversions of existing buildings (Part of an existing police
station became a Magistrates Court, Midland Horticultural Works became Clemersons
Storage), could be highlighted during this period. More spaces were also allocated for
commercial, social and industrial buildings. Some of the Victorian residential buildings were
demolished and some were converted to other functions. The cluster started to commercialize
after the Second World War adding growing employment opportunities for the people at
Loughborough. As a result, the town economically and socially stabilized in 1970. It can be
seen that more spaces were added to the existing commercial stock after 1970. All the
residential buildings were replaced by the other functional units. A larger area has been
allocated as open space in 1989 than in 1970. There is no evidence of significant
development in the existing stock or new construction. When analyzing the historical maps

4
 Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

throughout the last century, a remarkable growth in commercial, social and open spaces can
be identified in 2008. Approximately half of the area is developed as commercial buildings
and the remaining area is allocated for social and open spaces.

3.2 Liverpool case study

The selected cluster from the historic maps of Liverpool is a triangular shaped area, which is
bounded by Church Street to the top, Hanover Street to the right and Paradise Street to the
left. The 1890 map shows the Church of England and its graveyard, theatre, club and a hotel
along Church Street. Bluecoat school (also referred to as Bluecoat hospital) was placed in the
centre of the cluster which provided easy access to all the other streets. A few public houses
were placed along the Hanover and Paradise Streets. Residential houses were scattered
everywhere within the cluster. The cluster accommodated social and commercial facilities.
The Bluecoat school was moved away from the cluster in 1906 and the space was used to
accommodate Bluecoat art gallery and the museum. In 1923 the cathedral was demolished
and graveyard was removed to the outskirts of Liverpool. A new building was built on the
same site and used for clothing retail (Woolworths and HMV). In 1988 the cluster was fully
commercialized by adding two banks (Barclays, Lloyds), Boots chemist, retails for clothing
(Dorothy Perkins, Littlewoods, Burton, C&A clothing etc.). Bluecoat art gallery remained at
the same point at the middle of the cluster. An increase in vacant spaces (approximately 10
per cent from the 1927 map) is noted. The 2004 map showed more parking spaces and the
demolition of some of those vacant buildings which were noted on the 1988 map. This
evidenced the spending power of people as they tended to use privately owned/hired vehicles
to come to the city for social and commercial activities. Partial renovation was undertaken
inside the Bluecoat gallery and the internal space accommodated a restaurant, office and a
cafeteria. Next (a clothing retailer) was moved into the C&A clothing premises. In 2010 there
were no major changes to commercial facilities of the cluster except Littlewoods retail was
shifted away and the building space was occupied by Primark clothing. Fewer vacant
buildings could be identified within the 2010 map compared to the 2004 map. An impact
from the 2008 economic crisis was remarked, however, it could be assumed the impact was
lessened by Liverpool being selected as the city for the European capital of culture 2008.

The Morphological Analysis illustrates a demand for various buildings in different time
periods. A growing trend in the industrial sector a century ago demanded a change in building
type to fit for new purpose. The historical maps indicate that in the 19th and early 20th
centuries many of the buildings were utilized for manufacturing products along with heavy
industries such as iron foundries, corn mills, warehousing and goods handling on canal
wharves. It would appear that these industrial buildings were very large, spacious and well-
engineered to accommodate the heavy machinery and large work force. By the turn of the 21st
century however, it could be seen that most of these industrial buildings had been converted
to other functional units such as residential, commercial, social and retail facilities with
certain improvements (eg. Towles Mill BuildingLoughborough; Dockland Building
Liverpool). However, designing buildings for adaptation is one of the present days solutions
for a knowledge based, profit orientated economy with rapidly changing product ranges.
Reusability created by adaptability of buildings will significantly contribute to economic,
social and environmental sustainability.

5
A. Manewa et al.

3.3 Adaptable buildings for sustainable futures

A recent consideration has been given to identify how the new building stock could be
adapted to face the 21st century challenges (Henehan and Woodson 2003, Sheffer and Levitt
2010), which requires an understanding of the extent of changes required to the existing
building stock and the lessons learnt for designing buildings to be sustainable in the future.
Sustainable buildings have an in-built ability to adjust to changing circumstances and
technologies, without excessive waste and conflict (Kendall and Ando 2005). In its simplest
form, sustainable futures are ones in which the basic means of human livelihood get easier,
human opportunities become richer, and natures diversity is more sustained and not only in
the rich parts of the world (Holling 2000). In this sphere, adaptable buildings can be defined
as dynamic systems that carry the capacity to accommodate a set of evolving demands
regarding space, function, and components thus maximizing the through life value
(Adaptable Futures 2012). A maladaptive building is one that cannot match the new demand
placed upon it, whether it is technically unviable or cost-inefficient. The line between the two
can often become blurred and depends on a set of exogenous and endogenous demands that
can be determined through careful evaluation. Correspondingly, open building design
(Habraken 1980, Kendall 1999) provides a similar conceptual philosophy but falls short of
providing clear criteria for evaluation, focusing primarily on the separation of long and short-
term components.

Beyond the ability of change of use (ie. convertible), adaptable buildings are incorporated
with different design strategies as noted in Framecycle (Figure 1), which was developed by
Adaptable Futures Project in 2012. With regard to the framecycle, the adjustable strategy
relates to the ability of buildings to change their tasks. This considers alterations of furniture
type, coordinated connections and module systems. Versatility explains the ability to
change the internal space of a building. The strategy takes into account up-to-date service
systems, changeable panels, demountable/portable and stackable units, oversized structures,
modular units and easy connections. Refitability describes the ability to change building
components, which considers detachable, degradable, mobile, movable and collapsible
components. The term convertible determines the ability of buildings to shift between
different uses/functions. This requires internal and external alterations to buildings.
Considerations are given to managing large spaces, renewable materials, ceilings and open
spaces to facilitate those uses. The ability to change the size of the building is reflected by
scalability. Extendible, elasticity, and expandable also have similar meanings to
scalability. This considers such alterations as reusable components, renewable services,
recycled materials, insulated buildings and kits of parts. The ability to change location is
explained through movability. This encourages system buildings, standard components,
product families, and prefabricated and parallel processes. However, semantic
permutations/dependencies between some of the aforementioned strategies create difficulties
in clustering them into specific individual categories. For example, design for potential
change of use (convertible) connects with the scalable and refitable aspects of building
components. Brand (1994) provides strong evidence that buildings are not just static objects
but that they are dynamic. For instance, Brand presents a model (shearing layers of change)
on the way a building can be altered over time. Hence, designing a building to adapt to a
potential change of use means allowing its hierarchical layers to change; each in its own time
scale.

6
 Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

Figure 1: Design strategies for adaptability in buildings

Source: Adaptable Futures (2012)

Among the six design strategies for adaptability the priority is given in this paper to explain
the ability of adaptable buildings to survive in the change of use scenario. The current
building stock in the UK only vaguely fits the evolving needs of businesses and users. The
likely reason for this is that the original design cannot adjust to the potential changes. This
leads buildings to be demolished, renewed, refurbished or redundant (Arja et al. 2009) which
might create negative impacts to the environment, economy and the society. Maintaining a
redundant building stock is economically unviable and a socially unacceptable solution, as
these buildings generate no income while the building owners are liable to pay taxes for the
buildings. Also, scrapping and rebuilding relatively young buildings is neither economically
nor socially desirable and does not correspond with the demand for durability and
sustainability (Remoy and Voordts 2009).

Sustainability has been an important element of all real estate developers agendas,
regardless of time and market perspective (Arge 2005). If buildings were designed for
potential adaptations, it would be possible to successfully respond to the aforementioned built
environment changes. On the other hand, sustainability will be a major criterion in judging
future buildings and their installations. Among the factors that play a role here are savings in
base materials, minimizing waste production, ease of dismantling, adaptability and deposit
money arrangements. Flexible buildings and installations that are readily adaptable to
changing conditions respond to this trend (Geraedts 2008). Buildings designed to maximize
the potential for adaptation to accommodate different uses are required, together with
appropriate transportation and communication infrastructures (Gann and Barlow 1996). The
construction industry must respond by creating new buildings that are adaptable, allowing
their operating facilities managers to readily respond to changing space use demands
throughout their life (Webb et al. 1997, p. 318). A building that is unfit for purpose leads
to it being redundant in its functional tenures. In this light, either design for adaptations
(DfA) or design for short lifespans can be considered. However, the latter is not yet
appreciated in the sustainable agenda as many of the construction materials are economical in

7
A. Manewa et al.

long structural lifespans, although reusable solutions have not been very well practiced in the
construction history recently. Hence, this paper promotes the potential for extending the
functional lifecycles of buildings through DfA. However, the future-proof endeavour seems
complicated and risky because the decisions taken today need to be justifiable tomorrow, and
perhaps these decisions may only vaguely fit tomorrows requirements. In this regard,
spending too much over budget for an unattainable target could also be considered a waste.

The literature reveals adaptable buildings as a nascent but strong and practical solution to
defeating the problem of building redundancy (Adaptable Futures 2012, Douglas 2006,
Kronenburg 2007). However, the critical challenge to building designers/owners/developers
is the inability to prepare for unforeseeable futures, mainly because of the difficulty in
predicting future uncertainties, risks and the costs of changes (Ellingham and Fawcett 2006).
Property developers are more concerned with the returns on their investments in adaptable
properties; however, economic evaluation for adaptable buildings needs to be conducted to
provide the needed hard evidence to show that these buildings provide a more economically
sound answer than a typical fit-to-use solution. Thus, there is a need to respond to the
increasing pressures of rapid changes in user needs, technological shifts, altered working and
living patterns and other forces that render buildings obsolete before the depletion of their
service lives (Fernandez 2003).

4. Results and discussions

Geraedts (2008) states the current building stock is more towards long structural, short
functional life and more concerned to fit the sustainable agenda. His evidence further
illustrates the existing building stock is no longer meeting the present day users needs and
this leads to an increasing number of vacant buildings. As a solution for this dilemma, he
suggests an effective means to incorporating adaptable, recyclable, sustainable, consumer
orientated, flexible and open building concepts should be found. It is valid for the selected
clusters too. The Morphological Analysis shows that most of the buildings, around 8085 per
cent faced functional transitions during their sole structural life span. However the result
further illustrates that approximately 30 per cent of total demolitions were carried out in the
clusters during the last century. From this, it is obvious that designing buildings which can
change without physical damage to the structure is also a way of optimizing sustainable goals
by reusing the existing resources.

In particular, in the findings generated from the Loughborough case study, all the functional
mixes could be identified within the cluster in 1886. However the cluster started to become
commercialized in 1970. Residential buildings were totally removed from the cluster and
more commercial and social buildings were accommodated. Policy makers were striving to
separate the residential sector from the market segment. As a result, some of the existing
residential houses were converted to offices or public houses and some were totally replaced
by 1970. The growth in local population, increase of spending power, implementation of new
planning policies, sustainable concerns, changing user demands and building obsolescence
can be identified as key factors behind those transitions. In the aftermath of the Second World
War, the sudden growth in all the sectors in Loughborough is highly remarkable. The shifting
of houses to discrete residential zones and the mushrooming developments in commercial
zones are significant. The improvements in spaces for banking show the growth in monetary
transactions from the earlier periods. In 1886 only Lloyds Bank can be found on the map, in
1921 the Westminster Bank was added to the commercial network. In 1970 the expansion of

8
 Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

both banks can be seen and another branch of Westminster bank is added to the cluster, by
2008 HSBC, National Westminster and Lloyds Bank are in the cluster. So the growth in
banking and some expansion in social structures could be highlighted within the cluster.
Those improvements affected the economic booms in Loughborough during the periods.

Having analyzed the historic maps of Liverpool, it can be concluded that many of the
functional mixes could be identified in the 1890 and 1927 maps. In 1988, the cluster attracted
more commercial and recreational facilities. Historic maps of 2004 and 2010 showed a
complete picture of a commercialized cluster which reflects the buying/spending power of
people in Liverpool and their continuous enthusiasm towards socialization. Having evaluated
those clusters it can be said that the economic, social, environmental parameters and
obsolescence are the key demanding factors for building space. Either factor can create
significant demand for space. However, new buildings which can be adapted to new
functional goals have been identified as a solution to cater to growing demand. It is clear that
the term adaptable is a multifaceted concept, which is about managing change in the
context of buildings towards a sustainable delivery.

Conclusion

The demand for functional transformation of buildings rather than structural transformation
was identified from the Morphological Analysis. Most of the original structures have
converted to alternative and/or multi functions during the studied time spans. But it was
found that some conversions were not fit for purpose and as a result they were demolished,
and new buildings were constructed. The main difficulty faced by practical
changes/conversions arose because early design was not focused on future flexibility. This
emphasized the importance of incorporating design level strategies of adaptability in future
new buildings which provide economically, socially and environmentally sustainable
solutions for the whole country. However, obsolescence and its effects on the economics of
the development and the society are identified as two of the critical areas to be studied
further. The trend towards various building functions and proper balance between supply and
demand for such functions is of paramount importance in a profit orientated economy. High
frequency in changes of user needs and obsolescence are the most significant drivers for
adaptability in the 21st century. Therefore, buildings need to be designed to overcome those
challenges in the future and they also need to become more economically viable,
environmentally appreciated and socially acceptable than the renewal. However, existing
planning policies, building regulations, industry guidelines and government strategies appear
to be key limitations for designing buildings towards potential adaptations; thus these
standards urgently require revitalization if such adaptation is to be enabled in the future.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the significant contribution of Robert Schmidt-III, Research

Associate at Loughborough University and Upeksha Madanayake, Postgraduate research
student at LJMU.

9
A. Manewa et al.

References

Adaptable Futures (2012), [online], <http://www.adaptablefutures.com>.

Arge, K. (2005), Adaptable office buildings: Theory and practice, Facilities, vol. 23, no. 3
4, pp. 11927.
Ariga, T. (2005), Morphology, Sustainable Evolution of Inner-Urban Neighbourhoods in
San Francisco, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
14350.
Arja, M., Sauce, G. and Souyri, B. (2009), External Uncertainty Factors and LCC: A Case
Study, Building Research and Information, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 32534.
Butlin, R. (1994), Landscape and Land Use 17501900, in K. Boucher, ed., Loughborough
and its Region, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, pp. 8995.
Brand, S. (1994), How Buildings Learn: What Happens after Theyre Built, Penguin, USA.
Davison, N., Gibb, A. G., Austin, S. A. and Goodier, C. I. (2006), The Multispace Adaptable
Building Concept and its Extension into Mass Customisation, in F. Scheublin and A. Pronk,
eds, in Proceedings of the Joint CIB, IASS International Conference on Adaptability in
Design and Construction (Adaptables2006), Eindhoven University of Technology.
Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, 2nd edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Ellingham, I. and Fawcett, W. (2006), New Generation Whole Life Costing: Property and
Construction Decision Making under Uncertainty, Taylor and Francis, Oxon.
Fernandez, J. E. (2003), Design for Change: Part 1: Diversified lifetime, Architectural
Research Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 16982.
Gann, D. M. and Barlow, J. (1996), Flexibility in Building Use: The Technical Feasibility of
Converting Redundant Offices into Flats, Construction Management and Economics, vol.
14, no. 1, pp. 5566.
Geraedts, R. (2008), Design for Change Flexibility Performance Indicators, in 1st I3CON
Conference, Loughborough, [online], <http://www.i3con.org/files/conference-1/1-
Industrialised_Adaptable/Session_1-Paper_1-Geraedts-Flexibility%20Keys%20140508.pdf>.
Habraken, N. J. (1980), Design for Adaptability, Change and User Participation, in L.
Safran, ed., Housing: Process and Physical Form, Aga Khan Award for Architecture,
Philadelphia, pp. 239.
Henehan, D. and Woodson, R. D. (2003), Building Change of Use: Renovating, Adapting and
Altering Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Properties, McGrawHill Professional,
New York.
Kendall, S. (1999), Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture, Journal of
Urban Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 116.
Kendall, S. and Ando, M. (2005), Theory and Methods in Support of Adaptable Buildings,
in Action for SustainabilityThe 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, pp.
301721.
Kincaid, D. (2000), Adaptability Potentials for Buildings and Infrastructure in Sustainable
Cities, Facilities, vol. 18, no. 34, pp. 15561.
Kronenburg, R., (2007), Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, Laurence King,
London.

10
 Adaptable Buildings: Striving Towards a Sustainable Future

Nutt, B. (2000), Four Competing Futures for Facility Management, Facilities, vol. 18, no.
34, pp. 12432.
Manewa, R. M. A. S., Pasquire, C. L., Gibb, A. G. and SchmidtIII, R. (2009), Towards
Economic Sustainability Through Adaptable Buildings, in A. van den Dobbelsteen, M. Dorst
and A. van Timmeren, eds, Smart Building in a Changing Climate, Techne Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 17185.
Sheffer, D. A. and Levitt, R. E. (2010), How Industry Structure Retards Diffusion of
Innovations in Construction: Challenges and Opportunities, Working paper 59, Collaborators
for Research on Global Projects, Stanford.
Slaughter, E. S. (2001), Design Strategies to Increase Building Flexibility, Building
Research and Information, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 20817.
Remoy, H. and Voordt, T. (2009), Sustainability by Adaptable and Functionally Neutral
Buildings, in A. van den Dobbelsteen, M. Dorst and A. van Timmeren, eds, 3rd CIB
International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands, pp. 15970.
Webb, R. S., Kelly, J. R. and Thomson, D. S. (1997), Building Services Component Reuse:
An FM Response to the Need for Adaptability, Facilities, vol. 15, no. 1213, pp. 31622.

Maps and Official Planning Documents

Leicester Record Office, Historic city planning map of the city of Loughborough. Scale
1:88, 1901, 1921.
Liverpool Record Office, Historic city planning map of the city of Liverpool. Scale 1:88,
1890, 1924, 1988, 2004, 2010.
Public Library Loughborough, Historic city planning map of the city of Loughborough, Scale
1:88, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1989.

11