MSc Dissertation - XLacson by Xander Lacson

8°C

a case study of Smithfield Market [ LONDON EC1A 9PS ]

Investigating the Obsolescence of Heritage Property through the Adaptive Reuse Potential Model

DAVID XANDER LACSON MSc Sustainable Heritage Dissertation 2016 – 2017 BENVGBE7 (60 credits) 10778 words / 01 September 2017 SUPERVISORS: Dr. Kalliopi Fouseki Dr. Katherine Curran

8°C ‘In England, Wales and Northern Ireland food that is likely to support the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms or the formation of toxins must be kept at a temperature of 8°C or below. The requirement applies to the temperature of the food, not the surrounding air. The requirement applies to foods, including raw materials and ingredients, at all stages of preparation, processing, transport, storage and display for sale within the manufacture, retail and catering sectors.’ (Chilled Food Association, 2017; Food Standards Agency, 2016)

AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY In Smithfield Market, meat and poultry products are stored from ‘delivery to sale’ in a sealed and temperature-controlled environment. In my investigation of obsolescence, I have come to ask the question: Is there a way to prevent obsolescence from happening to heritage structures? Just like the meat traded in Smithfield, are we expected to freeze them in time and seal them away from contamination?

Abstract of the Dissertation

[ 169 words ]

London – and the rest of England, hosts an abundance of built heritage assets. Due to the effects of urbanisation and development, it is unfortunate that some of these assets are neglected, disused and obsolete. Obsolescence or the process of becoming obsolete, is a loss of utility caused by changing user expectations and needs. This dissertation asks the question – Why and how does built heritage become obsolete? To answer this, the dissertation uses Langston’s ARP Model and obsolescence criteria combined with related literature to form a hypothetical framework. This hypothetical framework was tested on the case study of Smithfield Market – London’s largest and oldest wholesale meat market. It is the only one left to remain in its original and historic location in Farringdon, and it slated to be the new home of the Museum of London. The findings and conclusion to this dissertation have yielded to certain recommendations to ‘renovate’ the Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) Model in order to strengthen it as a tool in decision-making in adaptive reuse practice.

Key Words Obsolescence. Smithfield Market. Adaptive Reuse. Built Heritage. Museum of London.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my main dissertation supervisor – Dr. Kalliopi Fouseki and my complimentary advisor –Dr. Katherine Curran who both have patiently guided me through this dissertation and all throughout the coursework for my MSc in Sustainable Heritage. Their words of advice have always reassured me and have always reopened dead-ends. I would like to thank Historic England for providing me the information I requested. I would like to thank my colleagues in our course programme at UCL ISH – Sally, Rasa, Carla and Nicola who have always inspired me to do better each time, Andrew and Bianca who had suggested I go with Smithfield Market as a case study. I would like to thank my friends at International Hall – Jennifer, Garima, Samara & Violeta, Anna Mamanova and Sudhir who have been with me, answered my unending queries or read through my work. I would like to thank my London friends – Meg, Sean & Carnell, Ara, Tita Amy and Alfredo who have supported me through the summer. Finally, I would like to thank Ranier, Karin & Peter and mom without whom this whole experience would not have been possible.

Xander 01 September 2017 Dublin (though mostly in London)

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Background of the Dissertation

Adaptive Reuse Potential Significance and Rational of the Dissertation

2 3

3 Methodology & Overview of Sources

4 Review of Related Literature

What is Obsolescence? When does Obsolescence occur? Obsolescence: Human action. Building Usefulness. Time. Obsolescence versus Deterioration. Depreciation. Redundancy. Types of Obsolescence O1. Physical Obsolescence O2. Economic Obsolescence O3. Functional Obsolescence O4. Technological Obsolescence O5. Social Obsolescence O6. Legal Obsolescence O7. Political Obsolescence Environmental Obsolescence

5 Case Study: Smithfield Market

5 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 12

Physical Considerations Economic Considerations Functional Considerations Technological Considerations Social Considerations Legal Considerations Political Considerations Environmental Considerations

14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17

6 Discussion & Analysis

7 Conclusion & Recommendations

Retrospective Evaluation and Limitations

8 References

9 Photography & Miscellaneous References

Appendix A: Adaptive Reuse and the ARP Model i-xxxi Appendix B: Smithfield Poultry Market Listing Advice xxxii-xxxiv Appendix C: Smithfield General Market Listing Advice xxxv-xl Appendix D: Smithfield Fish Market Listing Advice xli-l

‘Smithfield Market Aerial View’ [ Burns, 2017 ]

‘Inside Smithfield Market’ [ Another Header, 2010 ]

‘London Smithfield’ [ Bank, 2010 ]

Introduction Remarkably, 99.3% of England’s population live within a one mile radius of the country’s 407,289

designated historic assets (Historic England, 2015). In addition, around 80% of the population agree that this heritage brings benefits to their communities (HLF, 2015 cited in Historic England, 2015). Unfortunately, the 2016 Heritage at Risk Register of Historic England (2017c) contains 5,341 entries, London’s 682 entries coming second to England’s South West. About half of the Grade I and II* structures in this register were described as ‘capable of beneficial use’ (Historic England, 2017b). With Heritage at Risk entries categorised as ‘in danger of decay, neglect or inappropriate development’ and yet ironically, some of which are ‘capable of beneficial use,’ have these historic assets become irrelevant or less valuable? Are they ultimately, obsolete heritage?

Rapid urbanisation as a result of economic development and population growth weighs heavy on built heritage (Getty Conservation Institute, 2012a). In 2014, 50% of the world’s population and 73% of Europe’s population had already been urbanised (United Nations, 2014). With a significant number of heritage sites in urbanised areas like London, the agenda of urban development and heritage conservation should mutually reinforce each other. Moreover, the social, cultural and economic value of heritage may be well-established. However, the heritage sector still continues to seek the balance between heritage conservation and its environmental sustainability, especially with regard to energy use and climate change (Getty Conservation Institute, 2012b). In light of these circumstances, there are two key issues within heritage conservation that this dissertation explores, (1) the obsolescence of built heritage and (2) the social, cultural, economic and environmental agenda of sustainable heritage.

To this day, it is not unlikely to encounter abandoned, derelict and disused urban heritage structures even at the core of vibrant city centres such as Central London. Indeed, urbanisation comes with its challenges such as inequality, congestion, social and demographic change (BBC, 2017). These challenges ultimately play a role in obsolescence or the ‘becoming obsolete’ of built heritage, that leads to its disuse and abandonment. A design strategy widely practiced to revalue these obsolete architecture is adaptive reuse, as stated by Abramson (2016). By revaluing, Abramson suggests that in adapting and reusing an obsolete structure for a new use, stakeholders reassign its worth and relevance. In this definition it is implied that obsolescence connotes a loss of value that comes with a loss of usefulness. If adaptive reuse restores the value and usefulness of obsolete built heritage, then this practice unites heritage conservation with the social, cultural, economic and environmental agenda of sustainable heritage. Evidently, successful, timely adaptive reuse is crucial for the survival of obsolete built heritage (Kurul, 2003; Jäger et al., 2010). In order to achieve this, the concept of obsolescence should be explained in the context of adaptive reuse. This dissertation attempts to answer the core research question:

Why and how does built heritage become obsolete?

Background of the Dissertation This section discusses the concept of obsolescence within the context of adaptive reuse. In the built

environment, the obsolescence of structures produces three main outcomes: demolition, preservation or adaptation (Thomsen and Van Der Flier, 2011; Wong, 2016). Demolition becomes the definitive end of a building’s existence whereas, preservation and adaptation, including permutations such as renovation or upgrading, extend its life-cycle. Preservation maintains the status quo of a structure; as a result, it mitigates the expected after-effects of obsolescence like neglect or abandonment (Abramson, 2016). However, it is widely accepted that adaptation (or adaptive reuse) is the most economically and environmentally sensible (Powell, 1999; Douglas, 2002; Abramson, 2016;). Adaptive reuse is transforming an unused, underused or obsolete structure to accommodate a new use (Niesewand, 1998; Latham, 2000; Bollack and Frampton, 2013; Wong, 2016). This is akin to recycling an existing and finite resource, potentially saving finances and materials. In fact, adaptation and obsolescence are cyclical processes in the built environment. Obsolescence is a catalyst for innovation and adaptation. In turn, adaptation circumvents obsolescence by continuing and maximising a building’s usefulness (Abramson, 2016; Wong, 2016) and embodied energy (Douglas, 2002; Kincaid, 2002). Hence, it is not surprising that in the last century, obsolescence was an agent for creativity (Abramson, 2016), continually challenging industry professionals’ response to users’ evolving expectations and needs.

Adaptive Reuse Potential

Within the practice of adaptive reuse, heritage structures are considered to have varying degrees of potential that determine the conversion project’s feasibility and success. In a previously unpublished source (see Appendix A) by the author of this dissertation, Lacson’s (2017) comparative review of the research studies of Shipley, Utz and Parsons (2006); Bullen and Love (2011); and Dyson, Matthews and Love (2016) revealed parallel views on the factors that determine adaptive reuse potential of a building. Such potential of a structure can be assessed based on the identified benefits, challenges and critical success factors extracted from interviews and surveys with local industry professionals and stakeholders in the practice. Common to their findings were (1) physical characteristics of the building such as aesthetic, condition, morphology and location; (2) compatibility of old and new functions intended for the structure; (3) financing opportunities and risks; (3) local community or government support; (4) legal hindrances; (5) availability of information, materials and skilled workers; and finally, (6) the design and innovation.

Similarly, Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) developed the Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) Model as a possible quantitative tool for property portfolio managers to rate a structure’s potential for adaptation and reuse i.e. ARP rating. Through this model, indexing the portfolio’s assets would then be possible based on the ARP rating thereby, providing insight and guidance on which of the properties shall receive priority for adaptive reuse projects. This section provides a brief overview of the ARP Model.

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) proposes that a building’s usefulness over time and useful-life expectancy is determined by the collective effect of seven obsolescence criteria, expressing useful life of a building as a fraction of its physical life. Useful life expectancy is calculated using a discount method where the rate of discount is the combined ratings for the seven obsolescence namely - physical, economic, functional, technological, social, legal and political obsolescence. These types of obsolescence will be discussed in detail in the succeeding section (see Review of Related Literature). Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) further state that when the structure reaches the end of useful-life, (1) the structure’s ARP is at its peak and (2) such is the opportune time for the structure to undergo adaptive reuse. This is further substantiated in the model’s formulae that express the linear progression of a structure’s ARP to increase from zero potential (i.e. when a structure has been turned over after construction) to a maximum point at the end of useful life, and thereafter decreases back to zero potential at the end of physical life (i.e. when a structure is demolished).

In the previously mentioned unpublished source, Lacson (2017) recommended a few areas for further research and investigation. Lacson’s findings suggest that in order to strengthen the ARP Model, it is necessary to investigate the validity of the increasing and decreasing APR trend line, as well as the correlations of ARP rating with reusability and with useful life. Furthermore, improvements are needed in the ARP model due of the following issues; (1) the results of the model change depending on the timing of assessment since factors surrounding a building constantly change (i.e. social, cultural, economic, environmental), (2) the results of the model change depending on the arbitrary estimation of physical life and finally, (3) the obsolescence criteria should be developed further and made more comprehensive to include environmental obsolescence. Therefore, to answer the main research question of – ‘Why and how does built heritage become obsolete?’ this dissertation uses the ARP Model’s Obsolescence Criteria in investigating the obsolescence of built heritage. Therefore, the following supporting research questions will help in tackling the main research question:

Are Langston’s et al. seven types of obsolescence comprehensive?

Are Langston’s et al. evaluation criteria for each obsolescence type precise, accurate and conclusive?

Significance and Rationale of the Dissertation

This section discusses the supporting motivation for this research study. Firstly, the currency of adaptive reuse of cultural heritage is favoured by the European Commission (2017) which in November 2016, opened a call for funding to support adaptive reuse projects with a focus on innovative financing and governance models. The European Commission recognises that finding ways to respond to ‘investment gaps’ is crucial for cultural heritage conservation through adaptive reuse. It further highlights that (1) the redundancy of heritage assets happens as a result of ‘economic problems and social changes’ and (2) the development of tools and methods that support the decision-making process is vital for successful adaptive reuse practice (European Commission, 2017). Secondly, in line with the aforementioned highlight, Langston’s et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) ARP Model has great potential as a decision-making tool for professionals and stakeholders to efficiently

allocate resources and attention to heritage assets in a systematic and methodical process. Interestingly enough, it has only been Wilkinson (2011) and Grover and Grover (2015) who have noted the ARP Model ever since it was proposed in 2007 by Langston and Shen. Thirdly, among the fundamentals of the ARP Model, the issue of obsolescence (categorisation and evaluation) is the primary focus of this dissertation as obsolescence is the main determinant of the model in estimating a structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s useful-life expectancy. This also determines the opportune timing in which a structure is considered ripe for conversion. Moreover, the investigation of obsolescence provides insight for adaptive reuse and heritage conservation practice in anticipating and counteracting obsolescence being the main contributing factor for built heritage disuse and abandonment.

Methodology & Overview of Sources This section discusses the method and provides an overview of the sources used to answer the

research questions. This dissertation is supported by a review of related literature on obsolescence in the context of the built environment, heritage conservation and adaptive reuse. As obsolescence and heritage are rooted in the workings of society (Nutt et al., 1976; Latham, 2000), they may not be easily quantifiable. Therefore, this dissertation constructs qualitative working hypotheses to guide the case study. This dissertation draws upon various strands of literature on obsolescence in the next section to lay out the hypotheses. (see Review of Related Literature). Using the obsolescence criteria proposed by Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014), the succeeding review synthesises the different perspectives and evaluations from different sources, for each of the seven types of obsolescence in order to deduce a hypothetical framework. Concepts from literature on property management and heritage sustainability supplement the deductions. Therefore, this qualitative research applies a deductive approach (Bryman, 2012) by formulating a hypothetical framework and hypotheses in order to test this onto the investigation of the case study.

The literature research on obsolescence and auxiliary concepts was accomplished from June to July of 2017 with online sources and library resources of UCLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources in London. In order to apply and test the findings of this dissertation, an exploratory view into the case study of Smithfield Market was accomplished in August of 2017 (see Case Study). Exploring this representational case study provided a confirmation of the deductions from the hypothetical framework (Yin, 2009 cited in Bryman, 2012). Historical and background information on the case study was collated entirely from online sources such as news articles, magazine and gazette articles, heritage blogs and forums, documentary programmes, official organisational websites, mayoral decisions, legislation and their supporting appendices to create a brief historical outline pertinent to the obsolescence and consequent abandonment of some of the buildings in the cluster of heritage structures collectively known as Smithfield Market in London. The historical events and circumstantial evidence were juxtaposed to the hypotheses from the review of related literature in order to form the discussion and conclusion of this dissertation. An official request for access to visit Smithfield Market was not

considered necessary as the operating portions (i.e. the Poultry Market and the West and East Meat Market) are open to the public. Onsite visual and informal observations supplemented the findings of the research study.

Review of Related Literature This section discusses the related literature that has been dedicated to the theory of obsolescence,

specifically within the context of the built environment. Obsolescence will be discussed through the following ways; (1) defining the meaning of obsolescence, (2) identifying when obsolescence occurs within the building’s life cycle, (3) describing obsolescence as a function of human action, building usefulness, and time, (4) differentiating obsolescence versus cognate concepts of redundancy, depreciation and deterioration and lastly, (5) classifying the different categories of obsolescence and identifying their respective indicators. This review aims to provide a hypothetical framework on the process of obsolescence, specifically relating to built heritage.

What is Obsolescence? When does Obsolescence occur?

Most literature define obsolescence or “the process of becoming obsolete” (Merriam-Webster, 2017), as the point in time when the useful life of a structure has come to an end (Thomsen and Van Der Flier, 2011). In this sense, obsolescence demarcates the beginning of the last phase of a building’s life cycle i.e. end-of-life phase. From a construction industry point of view, a building’s life cycle begins on the drawing boards and ends with the wrecking ball. In this timeline, the simplified stages of a building’s life cycle are the (1) design phase, (2) construction phase, (3) usage phase (or service life) and lastly, (4) the end-of-life phase. During the last phase, the building’s end-of-life is triggered by obsolescence, when its users have ceased to consider the structure useful. This is also known as the end of its service life, giving way to a structure’s disuse.

Obsolescence: Human action. Building Usefulness. Time.

Bearing in mind its definition and its role in the building life cycle, the onset of obsolescence in the built environment is difficult to predict (Baum, 1991; Ashworth, 1999 cited in Douglas, 2002, p.30). In addition, it has been viewed as inevitable (Thomsen and Van Der Flier, 2011), and treated as a natural phenomenon (Abramson, 2016). However, in order to discredit obsolescence’s unpredictability and inevitability, obsolescence should be rationalised as a function of three factors. Firstly, obsolescence is a function of human action (Nutt et al., 1976; Douglas, 2002; Thomsen and Van Der Flier, 2011). A structure’s obsolescence is dependent on the users’ evaluation of expectations and needs. A state of obsolescence is theorised to occur after a time when the users realise that a structure falls short of their expectations and does not satisfy their needs.

Secondly, obsolescence is a function of building usefulness (Thomsen and Van Der Flier, 2011). The sources define obsolescence in various ways, mostly relating to functionality. The most common terms related to obsolescence are ‘outmoded’ or ‘disused.’ In relation to its function of human action, Thomsen and Van Der

Flier (2011) have profoundly expressed that obsolescence is the divergence of two elements; (1) the performance of the structure in fulfilling (2) the expectations of its users. The sources expound that in the process of obsolescence, building performance and functionality decline; and inversely, user expectations increase over time. This concept that obsolescence is defined by the relationship of users’ expectations with building performance support the second argument that obsolescence is a function of the building’s usefulness.

Thirdly, obsolescence is a function of time (Lemer and Iselin, 1993). If the common thread for the preceding functions relates to user expectation and building utility, Lemer and Iselin (1993) defined obsolescence as the ‘fourth dimension’ for buildings. In a three-dimensional space having length, breadth and depth, obsolescence is the fourth dimension that equates to time. From this, it can be deduced that obsolescence occurs as result of constant change in technology, economics, society and land use (Abramson, 2016). Undoubtedly, the dimension of time is crucial to obsolescence though, it is human interaction that serves as a catalyst for its occurrence. In summary, it can be concluded that obsolescence relies on the interaction of users with the structure in a particular point in time.

Obsolescence versus Deterioration. Depreciation. Redundancy.

Deterioration is the physical process of decay as a result of time and use (Barras and Clark, 1996); in addition, it is inevitable, predictable and to an extent, controllable (Ashworth, 1999 cited in Douglas, 2002, p.2). Deterioration leads to obsolescence as it weakens a structure’s usefulness. In fact, Nutt et al. (1976) articulated that obsolescence was first viewed as physical deterioration. Douglas (2002) states that deterioration and obsolescence are intertwined. This is supported by Nutt et al. (1976) as both classified deterioration as physical obsolescence. Although, Baum (1991) argues that physical deterioration is completely separate from obsolescence, emphasising that changes that lead to obsolescence are extraneous to the building. It can be deduced that if obsolescence is a loss in utility, deterioration is a loss in physicality or quality. Another deduction possible is that if obsolescence is a loss in utility based on human perception, deterioration is a loss in utility though based on physical decay.

Depreciation is an accounting tool devised to distribute the cost of an asset over the period of its useful life (Grover and Grover, 2015). It is also a decline in market value of a building asset or property investment over a certain period of time (Nutt et al., 1976; Baum, 1991; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), 2017). Moreover, according to Baum (1991) and McElhinney and Baum (2000), the combination of obsolescence (a non-physical manifestation i.e. social obsolescence) and deterioration (a physical manifestation i.e. wear and tear) produces depreciation. In this sense, it can be deduced that depreciation is a function of time and use. Where obsolescence correlates to a loss in utility, depreciation correlates to a loss in economic value.

Redundancy at times can also be interchanged with obsolescence. Although the latter predisposes buildings to the former, redundancy within the built environment represents a surplus stock of a certain building

type that is no longer needed in the current economy or society. It shares a similar outcome as obsolescence, the long-term under-utilisation or disuse of the redundant structure (Douglas, 2002). In the same vein, Kincaid (2002) correlates existing building stock that are used or disused (waiting to be reused) as the ‘supply-side’ versus the users of such structures (i.e. industry, government, businesses etc.) as the demand-side. Therefore, where obsolescence is a loss in utility based on the broad strokes of human decision and changing expectations, redundancy is a loss in utility solely on the premise of over-supply of a particular building type.

Types of Obsolescence

As Nutt et al. (1976) have explained, obsolescence was first viewed mainly as physical deterioration, which later on evolved to be viewed mainly as an ‘economic phenomenon,’ and later on still, as a behavioural and social interpretation. These evolving views coincide with the three primary types of obsolescence identified by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2017) and Reed and Warren-Myers (2010) as physical, economic and functional obsolescence. On the other hand, Baum (1991) identifies only two primary types of obsolescence namely, aesthetic or visual obsolescence and functional obsolescence. Baum further elaborates that functional obsolescence covers the subsets of legal and social obsolescence. From these core categories run the gamut of permutations for different obsolescence types, as any factor that detracts from a structure’s utility contributes to its obsolescence (Douglas, 2002). As concurred by Douglas (2002) and Thomsen and Van Der Flier (2011), these factors can be classified into two types; (1) endogenous factors that directly relate to the structure i.e. poor maintenance yielding physical deterioration and (2) exogenous factors that are external to the structure i.e. market influences. To provide a structure for this review, this point forward uses the seven obsolescence types enumerated by Langston and Shen (2007), Langston et al. (2008), Langston (2011) and Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston (2014) for guidance.

O1. Physical Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) define physical obsolescence as ‘accelerated deterioration,’ resulting from inadequate maintenance and repair regimes. Though Langston et al. do not explicitly define accelerated deterioration, the term is commonly used to mean a normal rate of decay caused by exposure to natural elements over time, compounded further by additional ‘wear and tear’ caused by regular usage. Furthermore, Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) propose that physical obsolescence in their ARP model should be measured by examining a building’s maintenance policy specifically, the budget allocation for routine maintenance and repair.

The RICS or Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2017) describes physical obsolescence as a loss in utility caused by the physical deterioration of an asset as a consequence of age and use. Nutt et al. (1976) similarly define this and expound further by enumerating the components of a building that may be affected by deterioration of the physical fabric (Little, 1964 cited in Nutt et al., p.6). These include internal area and morphology, structural ability, floor load-bearing condition, and building performance. Moreover, Douglas

(2002) includes weather-tightness performance to these. According to Reed and Warren-Myers (2010) and the RICS (2017), physical obsolescence can be subdivided into two main categories; (1) curable physical obsolescence (or deterioration) also known as ‘deferred maintenance,’ i.e. periodic maintenance such as the replacement of lighting, carpeting etc. and (2) incurable physical obsolescence (or deterioration) which relate to items in the building that need repair or replacement that are not part of the deferred maintenance i.e. (water) piping, structural components etc.

Grover and Grover (2015) define physical obsolescence as a loss in utility due to either unforeseen defects owing to faulty construction methods or materials; or worse, a catastrophic failure due to instances including force majeure. This is when the cost to refurbish such a building asset to restore its utility exceeds the cost of a new and modern equivalent. In comparison, the earlier definition postulates that physical obsolescence occurs as a result of time and usage (wear and tear) over its service life; whereas the other does not. The definition postulated by Grover and Grover (2015) emphasises the significance of two factors; (1) construction (referring to the pre-usage phase) methods and materials that enables a structure to render a good service life (usage phase) and (2) uncontrollable events such as natural disasters or armed conflict that may prevent a structure from continuing its service life.

Based on the above, this dissertation proposes that the scope of physical obsolescence should cover all aspects that contribute to a structure’s physical ability to sustain usefulness i.e. (1) sound construction (preusage phase) and (2) good maintenance (during usage phase). In this regard, it is further proposed that Langston’s et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) evaluation of physical obsolescence through maintenance policy should include examination of the quality of construction and specifications employed for the structure as well.

O2. Economic Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) define economic obsolescence as a failure to produce an operating surplus or income stream, versus cost stream. They stress that economic obsolescence can be evaluated by a building’s relative proximity to a central business district. Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) further state that a building is deemed economically obsolete if the building’s location is within a low population density area.

The RICS (2017) defines economic obsolescence as a loss in utility caused by external, economic or locational factors to the building asset. It is measured by juxtaposing the cost of an existing building or subject asset with the estimated cost of its hypothetical replacement. In contextual terms, the cost of a hypothetical replacement refers to a property’s redevelopment value; whereas, the cost of the existing building refers to a property’s capital value (Nutt et al., 1976; Douglas, 2002). Therefore, an existing building is economically obsolete if the potential value of a property is high enough to justify redevelopment (Nutt et al., 1976). The economic rationale of comparing costs is supported by Lemer and Iselin (1993) and Wilkinson (2011), who state

that economic obsolescence is reflected in the changes in monetary or market value of real property. Douglas (2002) further states that such changes in monetary value of a building are also reflected in the following: cost effectiveness of operational expenses, rental income (or income depreciation) and rate of return of investment.

Reed and Warren-Myers (2010) and the RICS (2017) describe economic obsolescence as either temporary or permanent. In most cases, it could be incurable (Pomykacz, 2009 cited in Reed and Warren-Myers, 2010, p.4). The external factors that contribute to this type of obsolescence are similar to the same that Douglas (2002) enumerated for redundancy namely: oversupply of a particular building typology, population relocation, and adverse changes in manufacturing base (labour or raw material) or in the demand for the products produced by the building. This is corroborated by Douglas (2002), Grover and Grover (2015) and the RICS (2017). Therefore, it can be deduced that redundancy is a precursor to economic obsolescence. In conclusion, economic obsolescence is the impact of a changing economic market (Grover and Grover, 2015) and the impact of costs and returns (Nutt et al., 1976).

Even though location is a significant factor for economic activity, this dissertation postulates that location cannot be the prime indicator for economic obsolescence. It is possible to identify numerous built heritage structures that were economically obsolete not pertaining to location or population density. For example, the Tate Modern was economically obsolete mainly owing to adverse changes in oil-fired power generation i.e. an oil price increase due to the Middle East Crisis (Murray, 2010). In addition, the High Line was economically obsolete mainly owing to the rise of the trucking industry that made transportation of goods via rail redundant (The High Line, 2017). According to Remsha (2010), quantification techniques for economic obsolescence require a cost comparison of the existing asset versus that of a baseline equivalent. Therefore, this dissertation proposes that evaluating a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic obsolescence should entail a comparison of existing values to baseline values from any of the following financial data: real property value, capital investment, or (rental or business) income versus expenditure.

O3. Functional Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) define functional obsolescence as a result of poor design or inflexibility of spatial layout to a change of use. They imply that lack of flexibility renders a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s incapacity to accommodate possible changes to usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; method of usage, behaviour or organisation. The sources therefore propose that functional obsolescence is evaluated by churn cost, or the cost to convert a spatial configuration.

The RICS (2017) defines functional obsolescence as any loss of utility caused by inefficiencies in the subject asset such as its design (i.e. spatial configuration), specification (materials and installation) or technology (other non-structural components i.e. heating, ventilation etc.) being outdated. Reed and Warren-Myers (2010) echo this same definition, with an emphasis on flaws in the structure, materials or design as significant factors.

Their classifications put together (RICS, 2017; Reed and Warren-Myers, 2010) include (1) excess capital cost versus (2) excess operational cost and (3) curable versus (4) incurable functional obsolescence.

Moreover, there is an underlying common thread in identifying building morphology (i.e. spatial configuration) as a primary cause for a building’s decline or inadequacy to fulfil its purpose effectively, as stated by Nutt et al. (1976), Salway (1986 cited in Baum, 1991, p. 65), Lemer and Iselin (1993), Douglas (2002) and Grover and Grover (2015). From these sources, functional obsolescence overlaps into locational obsolescence especially when a particular structure’s function depends on its location or locational amenities (Nutt et al., 1976; Douglas, 2002). These is also an overlap into physical obsolescence (Lemer and Iselin, 1993), technological obsolescence (Baum, 1991; Douglas, 2002; Grover and Grover, 2015), and social and legal obsolescence (Baum, 1991). Despite the overlaps, there is a persuasive argument arising from all of the above sources that functional obsolescence results from a change in user behaviour, expectations, requirements, organisation, or method of use. Based on the above, this dissertation concurs that Langston’s et al. proposal to evaluate functional obsolescence through churn cost of spatial configuration is sufficient and appropriate to delineate it from other categories.

O4. Technological Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2008) define technological obsolescence as a result of a building or its component no longer being technologically superior to current or more advanced alternatives. In such a scenario, they state that a replacement for a technologically obsolete building or its component would be necessary in order to provide lower operating costs and greater efficiency. Equating this efficiency to operational energy consumption, Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) suggest that technological obsolescence should be evaluated by a building’s consumption of operational energy. Therefore, operational energy consumption according to Langston et al. (2011) is a gauge of technological reliance in buildings. As follows, a high operational energy consumption reflects high reliance on technology; conversely, a low energy consumption reflects low reliance on technology in a building (Langston et al., 2011). They further state that lower technology systems (i.e. solar power, natural lighting) demand lower energy consumption. Are Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) suggesting that a building’s high operational energy consumption leads to technological obsolescence and a low energy consumption otherwise?

As Lemer and Iselin (1993) have similarly stated, technological obsolescence occurs when the efficiency of a building is potentially reduced on the basis of new and improved alternatives. This idea of reduced building efficiency and utility resulting from continuous technological innovation has also been concurred by Dixon et al. (1999 cited in Grover and Grover, 2015, p. 305). Such could be the same reason why Salway (1986 cited in Baum, 1991, p. 65) has defined technological obsolescence as being integral to functional obsolescence. That being said, it is deduced that technology in today’s terms is crucial for a building’s ability to fulfil its purpose. Using energy consumption as a basis for determining technological obsolescence would instigate a

technologically adverse sentiment. Based on the above, this dissertation proposes that energy consumption is not a clear indicator of technological obsolescence. As such, the role of energy consumption will be discussed in the succeeding section of Environmental Obsolescence. Furthermore, this dissertation proposes that in order to determine technological obsolescence, the efficiency offered by more technologically advanced building components should be assessed versus the efficiency of the existing technology installed in the building.

O5. Social Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2008) define social obsolescence as a result of changes in fashion or style, leading to aspects of a building being outmoded. They state that these social changes are caused by shifts in population demographics, user behaviour etc. In addition, Langston et al. (2011) stated that currency and market / social relevance of a building’s usefulness is a determinant of social obsolescence. That being said, Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) propose that in evaluating social obsolescence, market relevance is equated to ownership; where a fully-leased building would be considered socially obsolete versus a fully-owned building.

Social obsolescence has also been coined as ‘style’ obsolescence by Meyerson, Terret and Wheaton (1962 cited in Nutt et al., 1976, p. 6). From this source, style obsolescence occurs when a social group determine the worth and relevance of a building based on visual or stylistic qualities. Further to this definition, Salway (1986 cited in Baum, 1991, p. 65), and Grover and Grover (2015) have concurred the same, with the addition of social obsolescence caused by increasing user demands for improved facilities or user-environment. Further to social relevance, stylistic qualities, user satisfaction and expectancy, Lemer and Iselin (1993) and Douglas (2002) included cultural factors and political agenda as factors that contribute to social obsolescence.

Based on the above, this dissertation suggests that although lease versus ownership of buildings can be a determinant for social relevance, it would be more crucial to assess occupancy rates. As stated by Abramson (2016), indicators such as blight illustrate social obsolescence, causing occupiers to leave such locales. It is put forward in this dissertation that occupancy could be a determinant of user preference and market relevance, where a high occupancy demonstrates high social relevance and a low occupancy demonstrates low social relevance.

O6. Legal Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) define legal obsolescence as a failure to comply with existing or newly promulgated rules and regulations, standards or legal requirements. Legal and statutory requirements address issues such as fire safety, disabled access, material toxicity, energy performance targets etc. (Grover and Grover, 2015). Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) conclude that complying to these legalities involves good quality design. Consequentially, the sources justify that assessing good quality design can be equated to assessing construction cost per square meter, in order to avoid the subjectivity of assessing ‘good quality.’

Nutt et al. (1976) and Douglas (2002) concur that the term legal obsolescence can be used interchangeably with ‘control’ obsolescence. Coincidentally, Salway (1986 cited in Baum, 1991, p. 65) and Lemer and Iselin (1993) have categorised legal obsolescence as part of social obsolescence, owing to the fact that changes to legal and statutory requirements are a result of changing social trends and agenda. With the foregoing, this dissertation agrees that compliance with legal and statutory requirements does involve good quality design, in order to address the aforementioned issues. However, this dissertation stipulates that construction costs alone cannot be a reliable determinant for good quality design, much less legal obsolescence. Therefore, this dissertation proposes that legal obsolescence should be determined based on a qualitative assessment of a building’s current state and its surrounding circumstances to ascertain if such a building complies with legal requirements or not.

O7. Political Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2011; 2014) define political obsolescence as a result of community or public sentiment surrounding a building and its function. In this sense, sentiment can also be related to interference, where the public or influential personalities can interfere positively (support) or negatively (opposition) with a building especially with regard to potential projects for reuse and redevelopment. While Lemer and Iselin (1993) and Douglas (2002) consider political influence as a form legal obsolescence, Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston (2014) argue that if legal obsolescence were to cover legal and statutory compliance, then a separate category should encompass the significance of public interest and political influence in relation to reuse projects. They further assert this for heritage property which usually incite public attention. Based on the above, this dissertation accepts the argument of Langston et al. (2011; 2014) for political obsolescence and its scope.

Environmental Obsolescence

Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) suggest that environmental obsolescence can be integrated into other categories instead of on its own. They state that environmental obsolescence can be embedded when assessing for (1) technological obsolescence in terms of energy performance, (2) social obsolescence in terms of environmentally inclined public sentiment, (3) legal obsolescence in terms of energy efficiency standards, and (4) political obsolescence in terms of political mandate. Reed and Warren-Myers (2010) agree with this, though this source suggests that it can be an independent category in future.

However, Grover and Grover (2015) stress a salient point that environmental impact being the main concern for environmental obsolescence, should be considered. The concept of environmental obsolescence covers energy efficiency, quality of life, and equitable resource allocation (Douglas, 2002). In fact, Dyson, Matthews and Love (2016) expressed the addition of energy efficiency of the building fabric as a concern for heritage structures. As Abramson (2016) pointed out, sustainability will replace the catalysing role for change and development that obsolescence has once provided in present day capitalism. Therefore, this dissertation proposes that environmental obsolescence should indeed by categorised as an independent obsolescence. This

dissertation also suggests that energy efficiency and equitable resource consumption during pre-usage phase and during usage phase should be assessed in evaluating environmental obsolescence.

In conclusion, this section has brought about two significant outcomes through a critical review of literature. (1) It has laid out the hypotheses that will be tested using the case study in the next section. The hypothetical framework is that (a) physical obsolescence is evaluated by investigating construction and specification quality and on-going maintenance, (b) economic obsolescence is evaluated by comparing values of existing and baseline financial data, (c) functional obsolescence is evaluated by estimating churn costs, (d) technological obsolescence is evaluated by comparing efficiencies of existing and the latest available technology, (e) social obsolescence is evaluated by assessing occupancy rates, (f) legal obsolescence is evaluated by assessing compliance to requirements and finally, (g) political obsolescence is evaluated by reviewing political and public interest. Lastly, (2) this section has identified that there is indeed a need to categorise environmental obsolescence. Moreover, environmental obsolescence is evaluated by assessing energy efficiency and resource consumption.

CASE STUDY: Smithfield Market [LONDON EC1A 9PS] This section highlights events and circumstances that leads to answering the research questions of this

dissertation. In order to provide a local and heritage specific contextual analysis, this dissertation selected the representational case study of Smithfield Market in London for several reasons. (1) Smithfield Market is the City of London Corporation’s last remaining food market still operating in its original historic location (BBC, 2012c), following the relocation of Billingsgate Market in 1982 (BBC, 2012a; City of London Corporation, 2016) and New Spitalfields Market in 1991 (BBC, 2012b; City of London Corporation, 2016) amongst others. As such, this also offers a view into the possible on-going obsolescence of a Grade II* and II listed heritage property in London. (2) The abandoned structures in the cluster of buildings at Smithfield Market were selected in 2015 – 2016 to be the new location of the Museum of London (Moore, 2016; Greater London Authority, 2015a), and (2) in 2017, this relocation and adaptive reuse project was granted funding by the Greater London Authority and the City of London Corporation (Greater London Authority, 2017). As such, this case study offers a view into the adaptive reuse site selection of a high-profile institution such as the Museum of London. Therefore, the foregoing circumstance justify the currency of Smithfield Market as the selected case study.

Smithfield Market is located in Farringdon, within the City of London’s Square Mile. It holds the monopoly for meat trading, being Britain’s largest and oldest wholesale meat and poultry market (BBC, 2012c). Once the location of London’s main livestock market in the 12th century (City of London Corporation, 2009), the market plays host to 42 meat traders, employing approximately 500 employees. During the Market’s heyday in the 1950’s to the 1980’s, Smithfield benefitted from unchallenged market monopoly (BBC, 2012c). It supplied to caterers, hotels, restaurants and butcher shops. Despite its modernisation refurbishment in the 1990’s,

Smithfield has suffered a decline in market share due to changing consumer behaviour. Unlike before, supermarkets, catering and butcher business are increasingly procuring meats straight from the abattoirs or slaughterhouses (BBC, 2012c). This point forward details the highlights of the research for the case study of Smithfield Market, according to the obsolescence framework in the preceding review of related literature.

Physical Considerations

The cluster of buildings collectively known as Smithfield Market was designed by the City of London architect Sir Horace Jones, who also was the designer for Tower Bridge, Billingsgate Market and Leadenhall Market (City of London Corporation, 2009). In this cluster, the market buildings that are still operational as originally intended are the following: (1) the East and West Market buildings built in 1867 to 1868, which are Grade II* listed, (2a) the former Poultry Market building built in 1837 to 1876, which burned down completely in 1958 (Del Giudice, 2005), (2b) the replacement Poultry Market building (see Appendix B), built in 1962 to 1963 designed by Sir Thomas Bennett, which is Grade II listed (Greater London Authority, 2015b). From the sources, Smithfield Market was established by Act of Parliament being the 1860 Metropolitan Meat and Poultry Act.

When the first structures were built (East and West Market buildings), the budget allocation nearly totalled £1 million. Smithfield Market was served by a railway underneath in order to receive deliveries directly via rail. Consequently, the replacement structure for the Poultry Market was conceived and co-designed by Ove Arup & Partners, one of the world’s highly renowned engineering consultancy practices. This particular structure was at that time, Europe’s largest clear spanning dome, with a construction cost of £1.8 million. Until today, these market structures are fully operational, with East and West Market receiving a major £70 million upgrade in the 1990’s to modernise them. With ‘constant cleaning of all surfaces and vigilant maintenance,’ Smithfield Market is at par to modern hygiene and sanitation standards (City of London Corporation, 2009).

On the other hand, the Smithfield Market buildings that are currently abandoned are (3) the General Market building (see Appendix C) built in 1879 to 1883, which closed for trading purposes in 1999 and (4) the Fish Market (Annexe and Red House – London Central Markets Cold Storage Co. Ltd.) built in 1886 to 1899 (see Appendix D) which closed in the late 1980’s (Greater London Authority, 2015b). Unfortunately, according to listing advice author Dr. Bowdler (Historic England, 2017a), the General Market has suffered extensive wartime damage which has compromised its character. The same author also reported that the Fish Market had a fairly unremarkable and reserved interior. Thereby, these structures were considered to have fallen short of standards for listing. To this day, these structures are abandoned and derelict.

Economic Considerations

Owing to the local industry dominance and monopoly of Smithfield Market, bargaining here determines meat and poultry prices throughout the U.K. (City of London Corporation, 2009). According to the 2013-2014 Progress Report on Markets’ Business Plan by the City of London Corporation (2014), Smithfield

Market had surpassed a key performance indicator with regard to settling debts with a 98% rating. During its heyday, the market and its tenants employed a total of 2000 men, where every step from ‘delivery to sale’ relied on manual labour. Smithfield Market had a labour union that protected its once varied workforce. Currently, the market’s workforce is down to about 500 workers that still include highly skilled meat cutters – those who cut meat according to buyer’s specification (BBC, 2012c).

With increasing population density in the immediate surroundings of Smithfield, the vicinity of Farringdon has witnessed changing transportation access. Foot fall is expected to increase even further with the latest on-going additions and upgrades of the Crossrail and Thameslink (Greater London Authority, 2015b). On the other hand, the streets around Smithfield Market are tight, making it difficult for trucks to manage (The Economist, 2013) though, ample parking facilities are suggested in Smithfield Market’s official website. As if it were not enough, the difficulty in accessing Central London has been compounded by the London Congestion Charge. This has been implemented in the past decade, affecting vehicles accessing the vicinity from 7am (Usborne, 2015). Considering that Smithfield Market opens on weekdays from 2am to noon, this leaves customers four to five hours to access the market without being charged.

According to the Smithfield Market Tenants’ Association (2014; 2017), even though business hours have not officially changed, the typical trading day has been reduced with most businesses wrapping up by 10am. Despite an increasingly varying clientele, who now include immigrants from West Africa and Eastern Europe, the trade volume of Smithfield Market has immensely decreased from 400,000 tonnes of meat in 1963 down to 100,000 tonnes in 2011 (The Economist, 2013). Such has been attributed to reduced trade from hotels, restaurants and caterers. In effect, rising market values of real property in the vicinity of Smithfield seem to reflect the rising demand for office, commercial and residential spaces (Greater London Authority, 2015b). In the end, reduced income of the meat-trader tenants has also been coupled with increasing rents (BBC, 2012c).

Functional Considerations

One major change that resonates to this day is the fact that the operational structures at Smithfield had to undergo major upgrading in the 1990’s. Typical of a High Victorian markets, Smithfield formerly had an openair plan, exposing the meat and other goods to the elements. After major refurbishment, the meats are now fully protected from delivery to the market through to sale point at the meat shops via temperature controlled service corridors and specially sealed loading bays (City of London Corporation, 2009).

Technological Considerations

As previously mentioned, in order to be at par and in fact, regarded as a leader in the meat trading industry, Smithfield Market had been massively upgraded and modernised to meet European Union Regulations (City of London Corporation, 2009). As a result, the operating market buildings (notable the East and West Market) are now equipped with state-of-the-art automated meat rail-system with robotic arms which transport

the meat from the loading bays and into storage or the trading stores all within temperature controlled environments. As a result of this modernisation, the workers’ union at Smithfield had declined as well as the workforce (BBC, 2012c). The market now employs about 500 workers – ¼ of the original number, owing to a majority of job roles that accompanied meat delivery, preparation and trading, being obsolete.

Social Considerations

Currently, Smithfield Market has full occupancy at the East and West Market buildings with 42 meat trading tenants (City of London Corporation, 2012). Despite some vacancies in the Poultry Market building, the Markets Committee Policy does not allow vacancies in the Poultry Market building to be taken up by meat traders. Therefore, the official website of Smithfield Market currently advertises vacancies for poultry trading and auxiliary office spaces to serve prospective tenants in the Poultry Office. Interestingly, one legal aspect that reflects more of a social undertone is that according to Usborne (2015), the drink-drive laws may have caused the closure of many market pubs associated with Smithfield, where workers used to consume alcohol throughout their working night.

Legal Considerations

According to the City of London Corporation (2009), the market gained full approval from the Food Standards Agency, adhering to the European Union regulations, following the £70 million refurbishment in the 1990’s. This had greatly changed the entire working environment and working practices at Smithfield which had gone on for more than 100 years. An aspect of this modernisation that has been continually romanticised in news features is the eradication of the ‘bummaree.’ In Smithfield, the bummaree is a self-employed porter who carried meat carcasses from the delivery van to the meat trading floor (Morrow, 2002). Another important regulation that should be noted is, the vicinity developments around the market are height-restricted due to protected views of St. Paul’s Cathedral (Greater London Authority , 2015b).

Political Considerations

According to Moore (2016), Historic England (then English Heritage) had repeatedly decided against listing the General Market building as well as the Fish Market building. This perhaps paved the way for Henderson Global Investors (who holds a long-term lease on the property from the freeholders – City of London Corporation) to propose a contentious mixed-use commercial redevelopment at Smithfield in recent years (Moore, 2014). This redevelopment project was supported by Historic England, the City of London Corporation and the meat market traders, setting them in opposition to Save Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society (Allen, 2014). Being vehemently opposed by locals through a 5000-signature petition (Lichtenstein, 2013), a public enquiry into the matter ensued. Prior to this, there were other redevelopment projects that were rejected, mostly receiving backlash from local residents and heritage advocates. One campaign in particular was ‘Save

Smithfield,’ to which the City of London Corporation responded, ‘there have never been plans to change the operational market’ (Greater London Authority, 2015b).

Environmental Considerations

The only information gathered in this regard pertained to a statement declaring possible constraints with future developments in the vicinity of Farringdon due to the risk of flooding below ground. This had been attributed to a recent incident of the Thameslink route flooding in 2015 (Greater London Authority, 2015b; Noble, 2017). Regarding the energy consumption at Smithfield, it can only be surmised that the appurtenances with the highest energy consumption come from the refrigeration and automated transport systems used onsite. Based on the 2012 and 2016 Energy Efficiency Directive of the European Commission (2016), it is mandated that the public sector within the European Union, are to purchase energy efficient buildings, products and services. If the City of London Corporation adheres to this directive, then it would have to meet an energy efficiency target of 30% by 2030.

In conclusion to this case study, the foregoing circumstances and considerations throughout Smithfield’s recent history have caused significant changes in the market buildings’ physical, economic, functional, technological, social, legal, political and environmental profile. The identity of the market buildings as well as that of the market as an enterprise itself, have changed based on these accounts. Although it cannot be doubted that despite the changes that Smithfield Market has witnessed, the immediate vicinity of Farringdon has also experienced a vibrant change in social character (Museum of London, 2016). The Museum of London shall add to this vibrancy, after having selected Smithfield’s derelict and unlisted General Market and Fish Market, together with the Grade II listed Poultry Market for its relocation (Greater London Authority, 2015a; New London Architecture, 2016). This had been decided after an options appraisal that determined the relocation to ‘West Smithfield’ as the most viable option in comparison to in-situ refurbishment or rebuilding at its current London Wall location (Greater London Authority, 2015a). Therefore, the future of Smithfield will now pivot on the well-received relocation project of the Museum of London into its premises.

Discussion & Analysis This section analyses the case study using the hypothetical framework from the review of literature, in

order to determine the obsolescence of the Smithfield Market. This dissertation postulates that a structure’s usefulness should be assessed solely on the basis of its original use, with the aim to recognise that structures are designed and built to serve a specific purpose. This ensures an objective assessment for obsolescence. Therefore, a structure’s usefulness should not be assessed on the basis of its potential for any other function. It is thereby submitted that Smithfield Market will be evaluated for a loss of utility – as a market. Evidently, there is a distinct dichotomy in the characteristics between the (1) operational buildings (East and West Market and

Poultry Market) and the (2) abandoned buildings (General Market and Fish Market) at Smithfield. The discussion therefore shall expectedly yield varying results for each type of obsolescence.

First, the assessment of physical obsolescence was hypothesized to consider both construction quality and maintenance. The physical considerations have outlined that Smithfield Market were designed by renowned architects and engineers and were funded generously by the city corporation, to produce an exemplary High Victorian Market structure. Having lasted for so many decades, it can be assumed that all the buildings at Smithfield were of good construction. Notably, the operational buildings had a major upgrade in the 1990’s, and continually receive good maintenance and upkeep. This allows the structure to physically sustain market activity. Therefore, this dissertation concludes that the operational buildings are not affected by physical obsolescence. However, wartime and fire damage have overwhelmingly caused the physical obsolescence of the abandoned buildings at Smithfield. This catastrophic physical obsolescence has definitively incapacitated these structures for their use as a market, let alone anything else without major reconstruction. Therefore, the abandoned buildings are also economically, functionally, technologically, socially and legally obsolete. Hence, these buildings shall not be discussed until the issue of political and environmental obsolescence.

Second, the assessment of economic obsolescence was hypothesized to consider financial data. The economic considerations for sustaining market activity within the operational buildings at Smithfield are becoming more unviable. The installation of automated systems, changing consumer behaviour, lower trade volume, increasing rent for tenants and the London congestion charge have collectively caused a decreased workforce, reduced sales volume and diminished trading hours. Railway upgrades in Farringdon do not contribute to ease of access for deliveries as most are now done by truck. Therefore, this dissertation supports that the operational buildings of Smithfield are gradually in the process of economic obsolescence. If Langston’s et al criteria of location and population density were used, the result would have been the opposite considering the Central London location of Smithfield.

Third, the assessment of functional, technological and legal obsolescence was hypothesized to consider churn costs, comparing efficiency of the latest technology and assessing legal compliance respectively. The functional, technological and legal considerations all have expectedly sustained market activity in the operational buildings at Smithfield Market. If not for the major upgrade in the 1990’s, the operational buildings would have not been able to function as a modern market, without having the proper technology and compliance to modern standards and legal regulations within the European Union. Therefore, this dissertation supports that the operational buildings at Smithfield are not affected by functional, technological and legal obsolescence. However, by using Langston’s et al differing criteria for technological and legal obsolescence criteria – being a review of energy consumption and design quality respectively, then (1) technological obsolescence would be considered ‘present’ due to the high-energy consumption of the refrigeration systems in the market and (2) legal obsolescence might remain as ‘not present’ due to perceived good design quality.

Fourth, the assessment of social and political obsolescence was hypothesized to consider occupancy rates and public and political interest. The social and political considerations have also sustained market activity within the operational buildings at Smithfield Market. Particularly, the East and West Market are in fulloccupancy whereas the Poultry Market with some vacancies. This reflects that there is indeed still a demand for space by meat and poultry trading businesses. Though it can be argued that occupancy rates for commercial venues do not necessarily reflect social obsolescence nor social relevance. In this scenario, it may be inappropriate to use occupancy rates to assess for social obsolescence but rather, should be included under the coverage of economic obsolescence. In the scenario of Smithfield Market, there may be an overlap with the coverage of social obsolescence and political obsolescence. Hence, in terms of social relevance and public interest, this dissertation proposes that the operational buildings at Smithfield are not experiencing political obsolescence owing to those in favour of sustaining market activity. This was evidenced by the local community uproar versus the previous redevelopment proposals by Henderson Global. With regard to the abandoned buildings at Smithfield, this dissertation proposes that even though political obsolescence is in effect due to their disuse, there is positive political and public interest in sustaining it as a heritage assets in the long run as evidenced by the approval for the relocation of the Museum of London. In this sense, evaluating for political obsolescence can be tricky in two ways; (1) political obsolescence can easily crossover in scope with social obsolescence and (2) political obsolescence can be complex in evaluating either on the basis of retaining the structure’s original intended use or sustaining its heritage value regardless of sustaining its original function. Previously, Langston et al have proposed that a structure undergoes social obsolescence if it is totally rented. In the case of Smithfield, this would give a ‘yes’ result. However, the correlation of lease versus ownership as social obsolescence criteria is questioned by this dissertation.

Finally, even though the environmental considerations were not sufficient in assessing for energy consumption and efficiency, an interesting point had come about in investigating the case study of Smithfield Market. The Thameslink flood incident in 2015 has led this dissertation to propose that in addition to assessing energy consumption and efficiency, it is crucial as well that environmental obsolescence should be assessed in terms of vulnerability to natural forces such as flood, earthquake or storms. In the case study of Smithfield Market, it had been noted that future developments may have constraints due to this vulnerability and it is with environmental obsolescence that this could be accounted for.

Conclusion & Recommendations There is no doubt that the built heritage of London and the rest of England plays a crucial role in local

society. The majority of its populace affirm that ‘local heritage makes their area a better place to live in’ (HLF, 2015 cited in Historic England, 2015). Despite being greatly valued, there are numerous built heritage assets in this country that are at risk of neglect (Historic England, 217c). London alone, contains a staggering number of

these heritage assets at risk due to the effects of urbanisation and development. They are disused and abandoned because of their obsolescence, or when their usefulness has come to an end.

As Abramson (2016) stated, adaptive reuse is a widely-practiced design strategy that counteracts obsolescence. Adaptive reuse revalues obsolete architecture. It maximises a structure’s usefulness and embodied energy. Therefore, adaptive reuse supports the sustainability agenda of heritage and intergenerational equity (Cassar, 2016). As a heritage conservation practice, it ensures the preservation not only of the tangible component of built heritage, but also the intangible component: memories, values, and perceptions (Fouseki, 2016). Now, there is the question of: Why and how does built heritage become obsolete?

In order to answer the research question, this dissertation utilised the obsolescence framework proposed by Langston et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) in the ARP Model. It served as a guide in investigating the real causes of obsolescence and how it happens in built heritage. Through a review of literature, this dissertation created a hypothetical framework for obsolescence. It developed and built on the definitions, coverage and assessment criteria that Langston et al. had proposed. This hypothetical framework proposed ways on reorienting the coverage and assessment criteria of each of the seven types of obsolescence to improve precision, accuracy and conclusiveness. In the same process, this hypothetical framework proposed that an eighth type of obsolescence had to be categorised independently – environmental obsolescence.

In order to test the hypotheses, the representative case study of Smithfield Market was selected. Smithfield Market is London’s oldest and largest wholesale meat market, which is also the last to remain in its original historic site (BBC, 2012c). Circumstantial and historic evidence from Smithfield Market was collated into categorised considerations that would either support or contradict the deductions and hypotheses for each of the eight types of obsolescence. As a result of testing the hypothetical framework on Smithfield Market, the conclusions were: (1) The eight types of obsolescence were considered comprehensive for assessing the case study (i.e. physical, economic, functional, technological, social, legal, political and environmental). (2) Different types of obsolescence affect heritage buildings in varying degrees, some being more forceful than others. In the case of Smithfield, the current physical obsolescence of the abandoned buildings determinately override and even led to the other types of obsolescence. Circumstantially, economic obsolescence would have been the primary cause for the disuse of General Market and Fish Market at Smithfield. (3) Some obsolescence types can evidently merge into each other due to the interrelation of the considerations. This is due to the inherent human or social component of some considerations. In the case study, the upgrade in the 1990’s to make the market in compliance with European Union Sanitation and Hygiene Regulations was a significant factor that allowed Smithfield Market to survive functional, technological and legal obsolescence. (4) The assessment criteria for obsolescence (suggested in the hypothetical framework) were considered comprehensive except for social obsolescence. This dissertation concluded that assessing occupancy rates for social obsolescence would be more suitable for economic obsolescence, especially for heritage structures that are commercial in nature. Although, for assessing other types of structures such as residential types of built heritage, it may be sufficient

to retain evaluating occupancy. Finally, (5) assessing for environmental obsolescence should include the heritage asset’s vulnerability to forces of nature, which could ultimately detract from the assets usefulness.

Therefore, this dissertation proposes an (1) eighth type of obsolescence – environmental obsolescence and (2) reorienting the assessment criteria for the remaining seven types of obsolescence, to improve Langston’s et al. (2007; 2008; 2011; 2014) ARP Model. In doing so, the model will improve on its accuracy and precision in determining and quantifying for useful-life expectancy and the adaptive reuse potential of heritage buildings. However, it is noted that the ARP Model is merely an advisory tool to guide stakeholders on which heritage property should be given top priority for conversion or regeneration projects. As reflected in the study of Yung, Langston and Chan (2014), the ARP Model was used to index several shop-house clusters that received government-led urban renewal initiatives in Hong Kong. The results of the ARP Model did not correlate with the actions of local government. Nevertheless, this dissertation upholds that the ARP Model has great potential as a decision-making tool in adaptive reuse. It recommends that in order to improve the model, research should investigate: (1) the ARP linear progression and the ARP rating’s correlation to reusability and useful life, (2) the role of timing of assessment, and (3) the objective estimation of physical life (see Appendix A for further details).

In conclusion, the future of Smithfield Market is not uncertain. The foregoing evidence suggest that economic obsolescence may be the ultimate and primary cause for the market tenants or the City of London Corporation to consider that the remaining operational structures of East and West Market as obsolete. It is inevitable that Smithfield Market as an enterprise would be relocated to the fringes of the capital, following the trend of London’s other wholesale food markets. It would only be a matter of time. London is an ever-changing city, in a rapid pace that is driven by the economics of development and efficiency. To quote an interview in the BBC Two Documentary of Smithfield Market (BBC, 2012c), a lady was speaking about her husband’s impending retirement from his job at the meat market:

‘they’re stuck in a time warp down there... a lot of them… they have not moved on with the times.’

Fortunately, the upcoming adaptive reuse project for the relocation of the Museum of London to Smithfield’s General Market, Poultry Market and Fish Market is seen as a good thing. This project has been quite well-received by Londoners, who do not put the museum institution in the same light as developers. In the end, the political will for the conservation of built heritage lies with its stake holders. London and the rest of England, do have the mechanisms in place to protect its cultural heritage. Though evidently, it is the will of the people that will sustain and decide what to conserve and what not. If in future the City of London Corporation decide that East and West Market are obsolete, they will opt to build new facilities in the outskirts of London for the meat market to relocate. Then perhaps, the Museum of London may decide to expand and take over the new space. In that scenario, what matters is that the built heritage of ‘Old’ Smithfield is conserved, and it might as well be a ‘win-win’ situation for Londoners.

Retrospective Evaluation and Limitations

Due to time and access to confidential information constraints, it was not possible to procure confirmatory data from interviews and surveys, as well as financial income data from the tenants at Smithfield Market. Qualitative and quantitative data procured through these methods could have reinforced the findings of this dissertation, especially with regard to economic, social and cultural aspects of the findings. Other quantitative data such as maintenance budgets and utility consumption would strengthen the conclusions of the dissertation as well. Evidently, each form of obsolescence can be a topic on its own. The dissertation aimed to tackle all at once in order to provide a holistic view, though in the end, it lacked space to discuss each on in depth. Retrospectively, a specific focus on each obsolescence would yield more in-depth understanding into the matter of obsolescence of built heritage.

References

Abramson, D. (2016). Obsolescence: An Architectural History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Allen, K. (2014). Henderson counts cost of battle for Smithfield. [online] The Financial Times [ft.com]. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b01d99dc-890c-11e3-9f48-00144feab7de [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Barras, R. and Clark, P. (1996). Obsolescence and performance in the Central London office market. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, [online] 14(4), pp.63-78. Available at: http://14635789610153470 [Accessed 28 Jun. 2017]. Baum, A. (1991). Property Investment Depreciation and Obsolescence. London: Routledge. BBC (2012a). The Fish Market: Inside Billingsgate (The London Markets - BBC Two). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTmD5wAdrDI [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. BBC (2012b). The Fruit & Veg Market: Inside New Spitalfields (The London Markets - BBC Two). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbbJzUa0yxk&t=1460s [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. BBC (2012c). The Meat Market: Inside Smithfield (The London Markets - BBC Two). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQgs0OdsV5A [Accessed 21 Aug. 2017]. BBC. (2017). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Causes of urbanisation. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/urban_environments/urbanisation_medcs_rev1.sht ml [Accessed 4 Apr. 2017]. Bollack, F. and Frampton, K. (2013). Old Buildings, New Forms: New Directions in Architectural Transformations. New York: Monacelli Press. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bullen, P. and Love, P. (2011). A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reuse decision-making. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), pp.32-44. Cassar, M. (2016). Philosophical Issues of Value and Sustainability - Technical Note (2003). City of London Corporation (2009). Market Refurbishment and European Union Hygiene Regulations Full Approval. Smithfield Market Magazine, [online] pp.8-59. Available at: http://www.mmcmedia.com/pdfs/Smithfield%20Market.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. City of London Corporation (2012). Smithfield Market tenants and traders - Smithfield Market - City of London. [online] City of London Corporation [cityoflondon.gov.uk]. Available at: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/wholesale-food-markets/smithfield/Pages/Tenants-andTraders.aspx [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. City of London Corporation (2014). 2013-2014 Progress against Markets Business Plan. [online] City of London Corporation [democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk]. Available at: http://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s24741/Appendix%20A%20Markets%20Progress%20re port%20jh%20amends.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017].

City of London Corporation (2016). Smithfield Meat & Poultry Market. London Wholesale Markets Magazine, [online] pp.44-83. Available at: http://www.londonwholesalemarkets.com/assets/PDFs/market_mag_2016.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Del Giudice, V. (2005). Smithfield Market - 1958. [Blog] London Fire Journal. Available at: http://londonfirejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2005/07/smithfield-market-1958.html [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Douglas, J. (2002). Building Adaptation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dyson, K., Matthews, J. and Love, P. (2016). Critical success factors of adapting heritage buildings: an exploratory study. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(1), pp.44-57. European Commission (2016). Energy Efficiency Directive - Energy - European Commission. [online] European Commission [ec.europa.eu]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energyefficiency-directive [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. European Commission (2017). Innovative financing, business and governance models for adaptive re-use of cultural heritage. [online] European Commission [ec.europa.eu]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sc5-22-2017.html [Accessed 21 Aug. 2017]. Fouseki, K. (2016). Values, Heritage and Sustainability Lecture. Getty Conservation Institute (2012). Heritage in the 21st Century: Managing Growth, Obsolescence, and Change. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCb8TJ080hM [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Getty Conservation Institute (2012). Sustainability and Heritage in a World of Change. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y8nZbmw60k [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Greater London Authority (2015a). MD1513 Museum of London – New Museum Project. [online] London City Hall. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md1513-museum-london-–-new-museum-project [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Greater London Authority (2015b). Regeneration Committee site visit to Smithfield market - 3 February 2015 (Summary). [online] London City Hall. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/documents/s44835/Appendix%201%20%20Summary%20of%20Smithfield%20Market%20Site%20Visit.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Greater London Authority (2017). MD2070 Museum of London move to West Smithfield. [online] London City Hall. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md2070-museum-london-move-west-smithfield [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Grover, R. and Grover, C. (2015). Obsolescence – a cause for concern?. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 33(3), pp.299-314. Historic England. (2015). Historic England: Vital Statistics 2015. [online] Available at: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/vital-statistics/vital-statistics-2015.pdf/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Historic England (2017a). Enquiry - Smithfield Market. [email].

Historic England. (2017b). Heritage at Risk: Latest Findings. [online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk/findings/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Historic England. (2017c). Historic England: Heritage at Risk 2016 Regional Summaries. [online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/har-2016-regional-summaries/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Jäger, F., Adam, H., Bokurn, A., Brenne, W., Hempel, R., Hildner, C., Jaschke, F., Jung, S., Kirch, J., Pottgiesser, U., Rexroth, S., Sauerbrei, C. and Vettel, F. (2010). Old & New: Design Manual for Revitalizing Existing Buildings. Basel: Birkhäuser GmBH. Kincaid, D. (2002). Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses. London: Spon Press. Kurul, E. (2003). Re-using Listed Buildings through Conversion: A Process Mapping Approach. Ph.D. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London. Lacson, D. (2017). Adaptive Reuse and the ARP Model: Background and Method Analysis. BENVGSH04 (Module 4 – Project Planning, Management and Maintenance). [Unpublished Paper] University College London Institute of Sustainable Heritage. Langston, C. (2011). Estimating the useful life of buildings. In: 36th Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference. [online] Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: Bond University, pp.418-32. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=aubea_2011 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Langston, C. and Shen, L. (2007). Application of the adaptive reuse potential model in Hong Kong: A case study of Lui Seng Chun. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 11(4), pp.193-207. Langston, C., Wong, F., Hui, E. and Shen, L. (2008). Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 43(10), pp.1709-1718. Latham, D. (2000). Creative Re-use of Buildings (Volumes 1 & 2). Shaftesbury: Donhead. Lemer, A. and Iselin, D. ed., (1993). Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Avoiding Obsolescence. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Lichtenstein, R. (2013). Save our Smithfield from yet another bland and boring shopping centre. [online] Evening Standard. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/save-our-smithfield-from-yetanother-bland-and-boring-shopping-centre-8824675.html#comments [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. McElhinney, A. and Baum, A. (2000). The Causes and Effects of Depreciation in Office Buildings: a Ten Year Update. Working Papers in Land Management & Development. 07/00. Working Paper. [online] Reading: University of Reading. Available at: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27211/ [Accessed 29 Jun. 2017]. Merriam-Webster (2017). Definition of OBSOLESCENCE. [online] Merriam-Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolescence [Accessed 31 Jul. 2017]. Moore, R. (2014). The battle to save Smithfield market. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/23/smithfield-market-public-inquiry-redevelopmentrowan-moore [Accessed 29 Jun. 2017].

Moore, R. (2016). Smithfield General Market: the new Museum of London sets out its stall. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jul/31/new-museum-of-londonsmithfield-market-stanton-williams-asif-khan [Accessed 29 Jun. 2017]. Morrow, F. (2002). Photography Bummaree: Photographs Of Smithfield. [online] Evening Standard. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/photography-bummaree-photographs-of-smithfield-6302551.html [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Murray, S. (2010). The rise, fall and transformation of Bankside power station, 1890-2010. [online] Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society. Available at: http://www.glias.org.uk/gliasepapers/bankside.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Museum of London (2016). History of Smithfield (Parts 1 - 3). [video] Available at: https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/about-us/our-organisation/west-smithfield [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. New London Architecture (2016). New 'Museum of London' location at Smithfield Market. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGoY74aVTcw [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Niesewand, N. (1998). Converted Spaces. London: Conran Octopus. Noble, W. (2017). Thameslink Trains To Run Through The Middle Of Museum Of London?. [online] Londonist. Available at: https://londonist.com/london/transport/thameslink-trains-to-run-through-the-middle-ofmuseum-of-london [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Nutt, B., Walker, B., Holliday, S. and Sears, D. (1976). Obsolescence in housing. Farnborough, Hants.: Saxon House, D.C. Heath Ltd. Powell, K. (1999). Architecture Reborn: The Conversion and Reconstruction of Old Buildings. London: Laurence King. Reed, R. and Warren-Myers, G. (2010). Is Sustainability the 4th Form of Obsolescence?. In: 16th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES) Conference. [online] Wellington: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES), pp.1-16. Available at: https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30031477/reed-issustainabilitythe4th-2010.pdf [Accessed 28 Jun. 2017]. Remsha, M. (2010). Identifying and Quantifying Economic Obsolescence. [pdf] New York / Chicago: American Appraisal / Duff & Phelps. Available at: http://www.american-appraisal.com/AAFiles/Library/PDF/IdentifyingEconomicObsolescenc.pdf [Accessed 19 Aug. 2017]. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (2017). RICS Valuation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Global Standards 2017 (Incorporating the IVSC International Valuation Standards). London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). Shipley, R., Utz, S. and Parsons, M. (2006). Does Adaptive Reuse Pay? A Study of the Business of Building Renovation in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(6), pp.505-520. Smithfield Market Tenants' Association (2014). The Smithfield Gazette 148th ed. [pdf] London: Smithfield Market Tenants' Association, pp.1-2. Available at: http://jamesburden.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Apr2014-Gazette.pdf [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017].

Smithfield Market Tenants' Association (2017). A Night In The Day Of A Market Trader - Smithfield Market. [online] Smithfield Market. Available at: http://www.smithfieldmarket.com/the-market/a-night-in-the-dayof-a-market-trader/ [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. The Economist (2013). Meat Hook: Immigrants are keeping London’s markets alive. [online] The Economist [economist.com]. Available at: https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21569441-immigrants-arekeeping-londons-markets-alive-meat-hook [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. The High Line. (2017). About the High Line | Friends of the High Line. [online] Available at: http://www.thehighline.org/about [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Thomsen, A. and Van Der Flier, K. (2011). Obsolescence and the End of Life Phase of Buildings. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment (MISBE 2011) - CIB International Conference (Amsterdam). [online] Delft: TU Delft. Available at: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:90813327-f8ff-4053-bf1017cf7c358a3d?collection=research [Accessed 28 Jun. 2017]. United Nations (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision - Highlights. [online] New York, NY: United Nations. Available at: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.Pdf [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Usborne, S. (2015). Smithfield: London's centuries-old meat market where your 8am fry-up. [online] The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/smithfieldlondons-centuries-old-meat-market-where-your-8am-fry-up-comes-with-a-pint-of-stout-10342318.html [Accessed 22 Aug. 2017]. Wilkinson, S. (2011). The Relationship between Building Adaptation and Property Attributes. Ph.D. Deakin University. Wilkinson, S., Remøy, H. and Langston, C. (2014). Identifying Adaptive Reuse Potential. In: S. Wilkinson, H. Remøy and C. Langston, ed., Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making, 1st ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.187-207. Wong, L. (2016). Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings. Basel: Birkhäuser. Yung, E., Langston, C. and Chan, E. (2014). Adaptive reuse of traditional Chinese shophouses in governmentled urban renewal projects in Hong Kong. Cities, 39, pp.87-98.

Photography & Miscellaneous References

Another Header (2010). Southampton and on to London (Wordpress Blog - Another Header). [image] Available at: https://anotherheader.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/southampton-and-on-to-london/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2017]. Bank, D. (2010). London Smithfield [flickr - David Bank]. [image] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/david-bank/5273315027/in/faves-webinteger/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2017]. Burns, J. (2017). Smithfield Market Aerial View. [image] Available at: http://londonfromtherooftops.com/smithfields-market-aerial-view/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2017]. Chilled Food Association (2017). Temperature - Chilled Food Association. [online] Chilled Food Association. Available at: http://www.chilledfood.org/temperature/ [Accessed 31 Aug. 2017]. Food Standards Agency (2016). Guidance on Temperature Control Legislation in the United Kingdom. [online] Food Standards Agency. Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/tempcontrolguiduk.pdf [Accessed 31 Aug. 2017].

Adaptive Reuse and the ARP Model APPENDIX A [ i â&#x20AC;&#x201C; xxxi ]

DAVID XANDER LACSON ADAPTIVE REUSE and the ARP MODEL : BACKGROUND and METHOD ANALYSIS

BENVGSH04 (30 credits) Module 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Formal Essay Project Planning, Management and Maintenance

ASSESSORS: Dr. Kalliopi Fouseki / Dr. Katherine Curran 5499 words / 20 April 2017

The research objective is to conduct a background study on adaptive reuse. It aims to explain the practice and the circumstances that influence its multiple stakeholders and professionals. By illustrating that adaptive reuse is a convergence of heritage preservation and sustainable development; the benefits, challenges, decision-making and critical success factors are enumerated through a selective literature review. Lastly, the ARP Model of Craig Langston is analysed for its robustness and limitations as a tool for site selection in adaptive reuse. This is applied to the case studies of the Tate Modern and the High Line. Recommendations are based on the evaluation of results vis-à-vis actual events.

Heritage and Sustainable Development What is the role of heritage in sustainable development? And in turn, what is the role of sustainable development in heritage? These are two mutually reinforcing concepts. Sustainability relies on the concept of intergenerational equity (Cassar, 2016), wherein the present generation serves as a link between past and future generations as stewards of the earth’s resources. Whereas, heritage is a resource that is finite that provides people and societies with a connection to the past. Heritage provides for cultural identity, social cohesion and economic progress. These are the same shared values that underpin sustainable development. In addition, the sustainable development principles of social, cultural, economic and environmental equity provide for the conservation of heritage (Fouseki, 2016).

The built environment presents the perfect opportunity for the merging of these two key issues, the preservation of tangible heritage and the challenge of sustainable development. One predominant feature of urbanisation (see APPENDIX A) is the disuse of historic buildings mostly due to migration patterns. The movement of people can be attributed to economic, social, cultural and political changes that naturally take place within urban settings. In recent decades, major cities such as London are faced with derelict structures and blighted neighbourhoods that have fallen into disrepair or abandonment. Unfortunately, English Heritage reported in 2012 that there were almost 6000 historic buildings and sites around England that were in danger mainly from disuse, decay and abandonment (Mail Online, 2012). Although there is a steady decline in the Register for Buildings and Structures at Risk, more than half of these sites are incapable of economic use (Historic England, 2017). For the current scenario, the proposition to reuse and adapt timeworn structures is meritorious. Indeed, the practice of ‘adaptive reuse’ is the confluence of heritage preservation and sustainable development.

Adaptive Reuse Adaptive reuse involves rehabilitating buildings to enable the structure to host a new and different occupant. Once a structure has outlived its original purpose, it is no longer considered useful for its original users. Economic, social, cultural and political drivers may result in the occupiers of these structure to relinquish usage and ownership and therefore decide to abandon the structure. This results in the underutilisation of the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s embodied energy. Embodied energy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in the totality of a structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life cycle, is defined as the accumulated energy used to construct, maintain, operate and demolish the said structure (Designing Buildings Wiki, 2017). Hence, the adaptation of structures is a practice that promotes sustainability as it maximises the embodied energy in historic buildings.

Benefits and Challenges In this regard, repurposing historic buildings highlights improvements in building restoration technology, giving way to more creative and unexpected outcomes. Adaptive reuse nowadays can be considered almost a standard design practice in the modern real estate market (Nonko, 2016). From a theoretical point of view, the method of adaptive reuse lends to creativity and innovation that is in dialogue with built heritage. Repurposing creates a definitive link between the past, present and the future allowing for its contribution to sustainable development. The wider remunerations are illustrated in the form of social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits.

According to Shipley, Utz and Parsons (2006), an interview analysis conducted with a network of publicinterest advocates and local professionals in the Canadian province of Ontario reveals a detailed outline of benefits (or advantages) and challenges (or constraints) associated with adaptive reuse. The statements of the respondents of the study were deduced and grouped into four categories for benefits or advantages. These were the (1) special character of historic buildings that give a unique quality and style to the project, (2) building location and site advantages that may allow for certain opportunities such as increasing occupancy capacity in prime locations, (3) return on investment owing to financial savings compared to cost implications of new builds and, (4) government incentives in the form of financial and political support for heritage development. Interestingly, these outcomes could be associated mostly with economic benefits, lending more room for socio-cultural (i.e. regeneration) and environmental benefits (i.e. waste reduction) to be realised by the different stakeholders.

From the same study, the four main categories deduced for the challenges in adaptive reuse practice are (1) the uncertainty and risk in financing and profitability, compounded by unexpected site remediation costs. This is mainly attributed to latent conditions such as site contamination (in the case of industrial sites) or structural damage. (2) An inflexible building code is a hindrance to the innovation and ingenuity necessitated in solving issues in adaptive reuse projects. (3) Design requirements may also pose challenges especially in relation to adapting a structure’s original spatial layout and configuration to accommodate modern standards etc. In most cases, tensions run high due to antagonism between developers and heritage committees. Lastly, (4) there is difficulty in procuring skilled and experienced professionals (Shipley, Utz and Parsons, 2006). Even though these deductions are based on a local scenario, they are the same sentiments found in heritage sectors of other countries, in varying degrees and complexities. Dyson, Matthews and Love (2016) have expressed parallels to these findings of Shipley, Utz and Parsons (2006), with the addition of (5) energy efficiency of the building fabric. Due to a structure’s use over time, deterioration of the building envelope may cause insulation and weather-tightness issues that result in operational energy consumption inefficiency.

Decision-Making Process Undoubtedly, there is great pressure for practitioners to weigh the unique circumstances that come with each adaptive reuse project (Misirlisoy and Günçe, 2016). The decision-making process varies between groups of stakeholders in finding a balance between pros and cons. Every decision in the process, from site selection (or reversely – new use selection) to construction, could prove to be challenging. Bullen and Love’s (2011) study determined the most influencing factors that affect decision-making (see Figure 1) as: (1) Capital Investment and other financing options hinge on a project’s commercial viability. In the long run, this is defined by profit and return of investment (Bullen and Love, 2011). Figure 1: Adaptive Reuse Decision-Making Model (Bullen and Love, 2011)

The feasibility of an adaptive reuse project is governed by a balance of

stakeholders’ requirements, socio-economic trends, investors’ motivation and projections for capital and operational expenditure. (2) Asset condition whether latent or evident, are the crucial physical factors that determine a structure’s suitability for the new use. Location versus target market, transport access, spatial configuration (or reconfiguration thereof), structural integrity etc. determine a building’s usefulness (Bullen and Love, 2011). (3) Regulation pertains mostly to legislation, building code compliance and political support that enable efficient project implementation. As Bullen and Love (2011) reveal, stakeholders prefer policies to acquire a flexible and supportive stance for adaptive reuse, rather than as a regulatory mandate.

Figure 2: Critical Success Factor (CSF) Framework for Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings (Dyson, Matthews and Love, 2016) Main emergent CSF in BLUE, sub-themes in GREY, and “tools” in GREEN.

Critical Success Factors (CSF) A research study in Perth, Australia involving interviews with property owners and industry professionals enabled Dyson, Matthews and Love (2016) to identify emergent themes for critical success factors for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings (see Figure 2). Clearly, these are a response to the previously mentioned challenges and constraints. The four main themes are (1) research as a form of due diligence (Dyson, Matthews and Love, 2016), to investigate site history, socio-cultural significance and the condition of the structure. Indeed, investigation of these matters allows for informed and responsive decision-making by all stakeholders. (2) Compatibility or matching functions between the original versus the new use of the building (Dyson, Matthews and Love, 2016) ensure that the design and implementation thereof, are less complicated, more cost effective and sensitive to the significance and

history of the structure. When “matching function” is not possible, (3) creative and innovative design (Dyson, Matthews and Love, 2016) would bridge the gap between the new function and a structure’s limitations. Any inadequacies with regard to modern standards and statutory constraints are also mitigated through design. More importantly, design also allows the new intended function to be integrated into a structure’s history and significance. Lastly, (4) minimal change reduces construction costs, waste production and maintains the unique character of the structure (Dyson, Matthews and Love, 2016). Professionals are advised to work with the structure and maintain a level of flexibility to ensure successful design and implementation for adaptive reuse projects (Hein and Houck, 2008).

Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) Model Taking into account the different factors that affect the practice of adaptive reuse, practitioners and stakeholders are faced with the undertaking of where and how to begin. Shipley, Utz and Parsons (2006, p. 508) state, “While conventional real estate development usually involves a use in search of a site, heritage development almost always features a site in search of a use.” In the broader perspective, heritage professionals need to take a wider stance to be able to consider the multitude of heritage sites that would benefit from adaptive reuse. Considering finite resources versus the numerous heritage sites that perhaps all of which present a potential for reuse, which site should professionals and stakeholders prioritise? Site selection is a critical step in real estate and heritage development. For this, Langston and Shen (2007) have developed a tool identified as the Adaptive Reuse Potential Model. It is used to rate heritage properties and existing buildings in terms of conversion potential and timeliness for reuse.

ARP Model: Analysis of Variables The ARP Model (Langston and Shen, 2007) is an index method devised to quantify reuse potential for existing buildings and rank these scores against each other. In this methodology, four formulae are provided in order to ultimately calculate the following: (1) A building’s useful life, being the best point in a building’s lifetime for repurposing as it is at this point when a building possesses its maximum potential for reuse. The other calculated value is the structure’s (2) adaptive reuse potential. Using the model to evaluate a given structure, the assessor first estimates the following variables in years:

Lp = Building’s Physical Life (a hypothetical value assigned by the assessor) Lb = Building’s Age (from year built to year of assessment or current year)

Although determining a building’s age (Lb) is straightforward, the building’s physical life (Lp) is an estimated value. Physical life is the length of time that a building is meant to physically last. The methodology suggests that modern buildings are given a value of Lp = 100 years or less (Langston and Shen, 2007). Other values suggested for Lp were 150 years and 200 years. To illustrate everything (see Figure 3), Lu (useful life) is a point in a structure’s timeline between the year it was built and the estimated physical life value. As the diagram suggests, the building is 14 years old and is estimated to last for 100 years. Lu is to be calculated. According to Langston and Shen (2007), a building’s ARP increases to its maximum at Lu, and thereafter, the ARP decreases to zero when building age reaches Lp.

x years?

Figure 3: A building's timeline illustrating Lb (building age) moving along to the right as time progresses, eventually passing through Lu (useful life) and finally ending at Lp (physical life).

Prior to calculating for Lu, the methodology next requires the assessors to estimate six obsolescence variables as percentages (Langston and Shen, 2007). For these, values ranging from 0% to 20% were suggested. A seventh obsolescence variable (O7) was added to the methodology later on (Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014, p. 196). A building’s obsolescence happens when it is out of use as an asset (Douglas, 2002, p. 29). Obsolescence has been expressed as a function of time (Iselin and Lemer, 1993, cited in Douglas, 2002, p. 29), being the fourth dimension in building, next to space (length, width, depth). It is important to note that all these obsolescence variables are not intended to equate to a combined total of 100% but rather, they are assessed independently and in equal weighting. The following are the suggested criteria:

O1 = Physical Obsolescence (estimated by examining maintenance policy) 20% - low maintenance (budget) / 0% - high maintenance (budget) O2 = Economical Obsolescence (estimated by location of a building) 20% - low density location / 0% - high density location

O3 = Functional Obsolescence (estimated by flexibility of building’s spatial layout) 20% - high conversion cost / 0% - low conversion cost O4 = Technological Obsolescence (estimated by building’s use of operational energy) 20% - high energy demand / 0% - low energy demand O5 = Social Obsolescence (estimated by relationship of building function and marketplace) 20% - fully rented spaces / 0% - fully owned spaces O6 = Legal Obsolescence (estimated by quality of building design / compliance to standards) 20% - low quality design / 0% - high quality design O7 = Political Obsolescence (estimated by community or public interest) -20% - supportive environment / 0% - apathetic / +20% - inhibiting environment

ARP Model: Analysis of Formulae Formula 1: Lu or Useful Life (see Figure 4) uses the method of discounting (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014), where the discount rate is the sum of all seven obsolescence variables in decimal form on a per annum basis. For example, if O1 was scored by the assessor as 10% and Lp as 100 years, the value of O1 in the summation is as follows: O1 = 0.10 / 100, equating to 0.001. The same is done for all other obsolescence. Formula 1 results in Lu = Lp if all obsolescence variables are scored at 0%, whereas a result of Lu = 0 value, if all obsolescence variables are scored at 100%. From this formula, it can be deduced therefore that Lu and O1-7 are inversely proportional to each other. Figure 4: FORMULA 1 Useful Life (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014)

Next, the ARP model suggests that in order to compare buildings of different age, useful life and physical life, all L values (Lu / Lb / Lp) are to be scaled by 100 to produce the Effective Life (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014). For example, if Lb = 14 years and Lp = 100 years, the effective building age (ELb) is 14 years. Whereas, another building with Lb = 14 years but Lp = 200 years will have an effective building age (ELb) of 7 years. In effect, the preceding examples express that these buildings have a current age of 14% and 7% of their physical life, respectively. The ELu, ELb, ELp are calculated by multiplying the individual values of Lu, Lb, and Lp by 100 and dividing each by Lp.

Formula 2: Decay Curve illustrates the graph where all ELu values for all buildings will evidently lie (see Figure 5). Although, this not directly related to the calculation of useful life (Lu) and adaptive reuse potential (ARP). The shaded region in the graph illustrates where all possible ARP values are plotted. Dissecting the formula, the 100 in the first term gives the maximum limit for the vertical (y) axis and the 100 as denominator in the second term, gives the maximum limit for the horizontal (x) axis. The x2 in the equation provides the curves’ concavity. The graph of Langston gives the perception that buildings with a shorter useful life (Lu) have higher (ARP) potential for reuse and buildings with a longer useful life (Lu) have lower (ARP) potential for reuse.

Figure 5: FORMULA 2 (see encircled) Decay Curve and Graph (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014)

Formulae 3-4: ARPINCREASING | ARPDECREASING (see Figures 6-7) show a linear progression for increasing ARP towards the maximum point at ELu (refer again to Figure 5) and decreasing ARP from the maximum point at ELu towards zero ARP value, where x = 100 (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014). Formula 3 is used when the effective building age is less than or equal to the effective

Figure 7: FORMULA 3 ARP Increasing (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014)

Figure 7: FORMULA 4 ARP Decreasing (Langston and Shen, 2007; Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014)

useful life (ELb £ ELu). Formula 4 is used when the effective building age is more than or equal to the effective useful life (ELb ³ ELu). As illustrated below, formula 2 is inserted as the first two terms in the numerators of both formula 3 and 4. In doing so, the linear equations of Formula 3 and 4 are linked to Formula 2, ensuring that the peak (ELu) always falls on the decay curve.

Since ELu refers to a value along the x-axis, plugging this in the numerator of the equation enables the interpretation (see Figure 8) that ARPINCREASING is derived from the ratio ELb : ELu applied to the y-value of ELu. At the same time, ARPDECREASING is derived from the ratio 100 - ELb : 100 - ELu, applied to the y-value of ELu. Consequently, when ELb = ELu, the third terms in both formulae’s numerators cancel out with their respective denominators, returning the equation back to Formula 2 (see Figure 9).

Figure 8: ARP Formulae illustrating the insertion of Formula 2 (Decay Curve), multiplied to the ratios mentioned.

Figure 9: ARP Formulae illustrating the cancellation of terms when ELb = ELU, returning back to Formula 2.

ARP Case Study: TATE MODERN – LONDON

Figure 11: Tate Modern exterior (Wikimedia Commons, 2013) Figure 11: Tate Modern interior (Godliman, 2013)

The conversion of Bankside Power Station to what is now the Tate Modern (see Figures 10-11) has always been a primary example in various literature. The redundant power station designed by Giles Gilbert Scott in the 1940’s was disused in 1981 – a mere thirty years of use. In 1995, Swiss architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron were awarded the re-design project and the structure finally opened to the public as the Tate Modern in 2000 (ArchDaily, 2013). The adaptation and retrofit design work of Herzog and de Meuron complement the original aesthetic of the power station’s existing fabric. Today, the Tate Modern attracts millions of visitors each year, particularly appealing to younger audiences (Tate, 2015). The same iterations in the case studies for the Western Market Building (Langston et al., 2008) and Lui Seng Chun (Langston and Shen, 2007) in Hong Kong and the GPO Building in Melbourne (Wilkinson, Remøy and Langston, 2014) are applied to estimate the following variables for the Tate Modern. Results are illustrated (see Figure 12) to guide the assumptions.

Built: 1947

Year of Assessment: 1981 (shutdown) Lp = 100 years (estimated)

O1 = 15% due to the continual cycles of use and disuse prior to the shutdown. O2 = 0% due to the site’s location within Central London (high density area). O3 = 5% due to the predominantly open plan being an industrial space. O4 = 20% due to high amount of operational energy to provide for user comfort, safety etc. O5 = 0% due to full ownership as a government / private asset. O6 = 5% due to high quality design, construction and minimal standard compliance issues O7 = 5% due to slight political apathy and the lack of attention for reuse in 1981.

Figure 12: Tate Modern ARP Assessment based on evaluated obsolescence values (YELLOW graph) and maximum obsolescence values (BLUE graph). Values in GREEN determined by assessor.

Extrapolation and Assumptions o

High obsolescence gives shorter useful life; inversely, low obsolescence, a longer useful life.

When all obsolescence decrease to 0%; Lu = Lp, ARP decreases to 0% (see APPENDIX B)

When all obsolescence reach the suggested maximum of 20%, Lu is approximately 25% of Lp.

When all obsolescence increase to 100%, Lu reaches 0 years and ARP increases to 100%. YELLOW GRAPH

2007 was the optimal time (ELu) for repurposing the structure, 60.73 years after it was built and 7.73 years after it was reopened as the Tate Modern in 2000.

In 1981, the redundancy of Bankside Power Station was premature by 26.73 years (residual useful life) in relation to ELu. The structure had 66 years of residual physical life.

In 1995, the year when Herzog & De Meuron were awarded the project, ARP was 48.49%. BLUE GRAPH

With 20% maximum obsolescence, redundancy in 1981 would have been 9.10 years overdue the optimal time (ELu) for repurposing in 1971. It would have the same residual physical life.

1971 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the optimal time (ELu) would have been 24.90 years after it was built and 28.10 years before it was reopened as the Tate Modern in 2000.

In 1995, ARP would have been 64.95%.

ARP Case Study: THE HIGH LINE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NEW YORK

Figure 14: One of Joel Sternfeld's photographs prior to the Figure 14: The historic freight railway reopened as a public conversion project that inspired the community movement to green space in Manhattan's west side. The landscaping is save the High Line (Sternfeld, 2000). reminiscent of its former use and disuse (The High Line, 2017).

The practice of adaptive reuse provides a plethora of options for architects and developers though most importantly, it also allows opportunities for community involvement. Another prime example of

adaptive reuse is the High Line in New York (see Figures 13-14). From 1934 to 1980, the High Line served as a train viaduct serving Manhattan’s industrial district. Not long after it’s disuse, property owners in the surrounding neighbourhood lobbied to demolish the defunct railway. This was opposed by Chelsea resident, Peter Obletz and in 1999 the community group advocating to adapt it as a public space ‘Friends of the High Line,’ was founded by Joshua David and Robert Hammond. After five years, plans were in place to redevelop the train viaduct into a linear park. This community initiative was supported by the City of New York and the project was co-designed by James Corner Field Operations, landscape architects Diller Scofidio + Renfro and planting designer Piet Oudolf. The High Line opened to the public in three phases in 2009, 2011 and 2014 (The High Line, 2017). Today, local residents and tourists flock to the repurposed railway to enjoy not just a public open space, but a green space.

Next, in order to investigate the relationship of Lp in the equation, the model is applied to the High Line (see Figure 15) where two versions with different Lp are illustrated using the same åO:

Built: 1934

Year of Assessment: 1999 (Friends of THL established) Lp = 100 / 200 years

O1 = 15% due to increasing disuse (due to trucking industry) leading to the shutdown. O2 = 0% due to the site’s location in Manhattan’s west side (high density area). O3 = 5% retained, due to railway open-plan facilitating the conversion to a linear park. O4 = 5% due to minimal operational energy to provide for occupant comfort, safety etc. O5 = 0% due to full ownership as a government / private asset. O6 = 10% due to reasonable quality of design / construction in relation to compliance issues. O7 = -20% due to the ‘Friends of the High Line’ community movement in 1999.

Figure 15: The High Line ARP Assessment based on evaluated obsolescence values versus Lp = 100 years (YELLOW graph) and L = 200 years (BLUE graph). Values in GREEN determined by assessor.

Extrapolation and Assumptions o

Knowing THL’s new use (linear park) during assessment influenced the scoring for O3, O4, O6. Not knowing THL’s new use would yield higher values for these obsolescence variables as for example, conversion to an enclosed space i.e. apartments, renders the criteria inflexible.

Structures of the same age and obsolescence yield the same ARP% at the end of useful life.

As Lp is increased, residual physical and residual useful life increases (ARP% at ELb decreases).

As Lp is decreased, residual physical and residual useful life decreases (ARP% at ELb increases). YELLOW GRAPH

2020 was the optimal time (ELu) for repurposing the structure, 86.08 years after it was built and 11.08 years after its first phase reopened as a linear park in 2009.

In 1980, the redundancy of the High Line was premature by 40.08 years in relation to ELu.

In 1999, the year (ELb) when ‘Friends of the High Line’ was formed, ARP was 19.56% with residual useful life of 21.08 years. The structure had 35.00 years of residual physical life. BLUE GRAPH

If Lp is doubled (200 years), 2106 would be the optimal time (ELu) for repurposing. This is 172.16 years after it was built and 97.16 years after it was first reopened in 2009.

In 1980, the redundancy would have been premature by 126.16 years in relation to ELu.

In 1999, the ARP would have been 9.78%, with a residual useful life of 107.15 years and a residual physical life of 135 years.

Discussion and Recommendations In both cases, economic and political trends were the governing factors for the disuse of the structures. Bankside Power Station was shut down due to pollution issues, the redundancy by power stations outside London and the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970’s (Murray, 2010). Whereas, the High Line was disused mainly due to the rise of the trucking industry (The High Line, 2017). Crucial factors such as these could not be properly quantified in the criteria for obsolescence hence, yielding uncorrelated results to actual events. Based on the preceding, it is suggested that the ARP Model can be developed further. However, the complexity of heritage may ultimately prove difficult to quantify. Qualitative methods for multi-criteria decision-making for site and reuse selection such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process (Saaty, 1980; 1996, cited in Wang and Zeng, 2010, p. 1424) can be explored to improve the model. The following are the ARP model limitations and recommendations:

ARP Percentages / Scoring is a tool for guidance in site selection. Being an index method, it is meant to compare structures to each other using the ARP scoring. The ARP percentage does not directly predicate any critical success factors or outcomes.

AR Potential versus Reusability are uncorrelated. A high ARP score does not necessarily connote high reusability. Consider a building that is highly rated for all seven obsolescence. High obsolescence being inversely proportional to Lu, will give a shorter useful life. The maximum ARP though at ELu would yield a high score (see APPENDIX B). Although, due to exceptional physical deterioration from weather damage, the reusability of this structure could be determinately low. This is due to physical obsolescence being solely based on maintenance and being equally weighted versus all other obsolescence variables. Therefore, further research is suggested to investigate the correlation between AR potential and the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reusability. (see Obsolescence Criteria for further recommendations)

Year (Timing) of the Assessment can influence obsolescence rating as factors that contribute to obsolescence scoring can change over time. As illustrated in the High Line, the year of assessment was 1999 when the community movement was established to save the structure. The assessment warranted -20% for political obsolescence. If the year of assessment would be 1980, political obsolescence would have warranted a theoretical score of +20% to reflect the immediate response of local residents to demolish the train viaduct (The High Line, 2017). It is suggested that an averaging method be used to account for obsolescence spanning a period of time to compensate for these discrepancies. Further testing on historic-use scenarios would also strengthen possible weaknesses in the model in being able to span intergenerational timelines.

Physical Life (Lp) estimated with arbitrary values may lead to misconceptions on residual physical life and residual useful life, as these variables are directly proportional to each other. Therefore, a high value assigned to Lp stretches a structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s timeline. Langston (2011) developed a questionnaire based on environment, usage and design (see APPENDIX C) to improve the precision of Lp. In this method, the result is calculated within a range of 50 to 300 years. Although this supplementary step enhances objectivity, there is a need to improve this to account for (heritage) structures that evidently have had much longer physical lifespans.

Obsolescence Criteria is generalised and may lend to subjectivity. Obsolescence in the ARP model relies on singular criterion for each of the seven variables. This may not be applicable to a wide range of scenarios. Also, each variable is equally weighted, producing a maximum total of 140%, which can be misleading. It is therefore suggested that an assessment (yes or no) questionnaire similar to the physical life worksheet by Langston (2011) be developed in order to fully account for all factors that might affect the useful life of a structure.

Environmental Obsolescence is not distinctly integrated. In order to fully implement a holistic approach to sustainable development, energy efficiency and other pertinent environmental issues should be fully considered (Yung and Chan, 2012). Although it is implied that environmental obsolescence is accounted for in other variables such as social, technological and legal obsolescence (Langston et al., 2008), this is not evident. It is therefore suggested that the assessment questionnaire should include queries that investigate the environmental issues relating to the structure and its use.

Exponential Decay Curve (Formula 2) suggests that a building with a shorter useful life has higher potential for reuse versus a building that has a longer useful life. Further research is suggested to investigate this interrelationship of useful life versus ARP.

ARP Formula 3 and 4 suggests that buildings begin with 0% potential at the beginning of its life increasing to a maximum point at ELu, then from this point decreasing back to 0%. Further research is suggested to investigate the ARP trend line vis-Ă -vis a structures timeline. Qualitative information investigating the perceptive of industry professionals and stakeholders with regard to this model can also be explored.

Conclusion Adaptive Reuse is repurposing an existing structure to accommodate a new use. It is when buildings such as the Bankside Power Station and the High Line train viaduct are rehabilitated to give new purpose to what otherwise would have been obsolete and disused structures. The adaptive reuse of these projects has directly benefitted the public. If not for these conversion projects, the public would

not have gained access to such structures and benefit from them directly in such a context. As Bollack (2013, p. 9) has conveyed, â&#x20AC;&#x153;An old building is not an obstacle but rather a foundation for continued action.â&#x20AC;? Hence, adaptive reuse ensures that historic buildings such as these would have reason for continued existence (Kincaid, 2002), whilst taking full advantage of their embodied energy. This is vital for sustainable development and the preservation of built heritage. The advantages are established through social, cultural, economic and environmental sustainability (Mohamed et al., 2017). However, the challenges lie in negotiating the shared value and significance for the multiple stakeholders and in bridging the past, present and future. Ultimately, adaptive reuse is a demonstration not only of intergenerational equity but of skill, innovation and ingenuity. In this light, Langstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ARP model is a potential tool for stakeholders and professionals in adaptive reuse decision-making. The method enables the ranking of existing structures in terms of its reuse potential and the quantification of its useful life. However, the analysis suggests that further research on the key points of obsolescence and the interrelationship of variables in the ARP model in order to strengthen the method. It is without doubt that the practice of adaptive reuse would immensely benefit from such a model for site selection once these recommendations are fully explored.

REFERNCE LIST Accenture. (2012). Seven Trends Transforming the Construction Marketplace. [online] Available at: https://www.accenture.com/gb-en/~/media/Accenture/ConversionAssets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Industries_2/Accenture-Construction-ResearchInfographic.pdf; [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. ArchDaily. (2013). AD Classics: The Tate Modern / Herzog & de Meuron. [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/429700/ad-classics-the-tate-modern-herzog-and-de-meuron [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. BBC. (2017). BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Causes of urbanisation. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/urban_environments/urbanisation_medcs_r ev1.shtml [Accessed 4 Apr. 2017]. Bollack, F. (2013). Old buildings, New forms. 1st ed. U.S.A.: Monacelli Press. Bullen, P. and Love, P. (2011). A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reuse decision-making. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), pp.32-44. Cassar, M. (2016). Philosophical Issues of Value and Sustainability - Technical Note (2003). Designing Buildings Wiki. (2017). Embodied energy in construction - Designing Buildings Wiki. [online] Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Embodied_energy_in_construction [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Division for Sustainable Development UNHQ. (2017). Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [online] Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Douglas, J. (2002). Building Adaptation. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dyson, K., Matthews, J. and Love, P. (2016). Critical success factors of adapting heritage buildings: an exploratory study. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(1), pp.44-57. Fouseki, K. (2016). Values, Heritage and Sustainability Lecture (UCL ISH BENVGSH01). Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics (2015). Global Construction 2030. [online] London: Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics. Available at: http://constructingexcellence.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/GCP_Conference_ENR_2030_WEB.pdf [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Godliman, D. (2013). AD Classics: The Tate Modern / Herzog & de Meuron. [image] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/429700/ad-classics-the-tate-modern-herzog-and-demeuron/52291c42e8e44e1a330000cd-ad-classics-the-tate-modern-herzog-and-de-meuron-photo [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017].

Hein, M. and Houck, K. (2008). Construction Challenges of Adaptive Reuse of Historical Buildings in Europe. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(2), pp.115-131. Historic England. (2017). Historic England - Buildings and Structures at Risk. [online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk/buildings/buildings-at-risk/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Jolly, J. (2017). The UK's construction industry started 2017 on a high. [online] Cityam.com. Available at: http://www.cityam.com/259210/uks-construction-industry-started-2017-high [Accessed 4 Apr. 2017]. Kincaid, D. (2002). Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses. 1st ed. London: Taylor & Francis. Kollewe, J. (2017). UK construction industry enjoys fast growth in new orders. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/04/uk-construction-industry-growthnew-orders [Accessed 4 Apr. 2017]. Langston, C. (2011). Estimating the useful life of buildings. In: 36th Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA) Conference. [online] Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: Bond University, pp.418-32. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=aubea_2011 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Langston, C. and Shen, L. (2007). Application of the adaptive reuse potential model in Hong Kong: A case study of Lui Seng Chun. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 11(4), pp.193-207. Langston, C., Wong, F., Hui, E. and Shen, L. (2008). Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 43(10), pp.1709-1718. Mail Online. (2012). Almost 6,000 buildings and historic sites are at risk of being lost to neglect and decay, say English Heritage. [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2216540/Almost-6-000-buildings-historic-sites-risk-lost-neglect-decay-say-English-Heritage.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Mısırlısoy, D. and Günçe, K. (2016). Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, pp.91-98. Mohamed, R., Boyle, R., Yang, A. and Tangari, J. (2017). Adaptive reuse: a review and analysis of its relationship to the 3 Es of sustainability. Facilities, 35(3/4), pp.138-154. Murray, S. (2010). The rise, fall and transformation of Bankside power station, 1890-2010. [online] Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society. Available at: http://www.glias.org.uk/gliasepapers/bankside.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017].

Nonko, E. (2016). ‘Adaptive Reuse’ Gives New Life to Old Buildings. [online] Observer. Available at: http://observer.com/2016/01/adaptive-reuse-gives-new-life-to-old-buildings/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. PwC. (2017). Global Construction 2030: a global forecast for the construction industry to 2030. [online] Available at: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/engineering-construction/publications/pwcglobal-construction-2030.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Shipley, R., Utz, S. and Parsons, M. (2006). Does Adaptive Reuse Pay? A Study of the Business of Building Renovation in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(6), pp.505520. Sternfeld, J. (2000). About the High Line | Friends of the High Line. [image] Available at: http://www.thehighline.org/about [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Tate. (2015). Tate Annual Report 2014-15. [online] Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/about/pressoffice/press-releases/tate-annual-report-2014-15 [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. The High Line. (2017). About the High Line | Friends of the High Line. [online] Available at: http://www.thehighline.org/about [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. United Nations (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision - Highlights. New York, NY: United Nations. Wang, H. and Zeng, Z. (2010). A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic buildings. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), pp.1241-1249. Wendell Cox Consultancy (2016). Demographia: World Urban Areas. [online] Belleville, IL: Wendell Cox Consultancy. Available at: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Wikimedia Commons (2013). AD Classics: The Tate Modern / Herzog & de Meuron. [image] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/429700/ad-classics-the-tate-modern-herzog-and-demeuron/522800a9e8e44e5fdf000052-ad-classics-the-tate-modern-herzog-and-de-meuron-photo [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Wilkinson, S., Remøy, H. and Langston, C. (2014). Identifying Adaptive Reuse Potential. In: S. Wilkinson, H. Remøy and C. Langston, ed., Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making, 1st ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.187-207. Yung, E. and Chan, E. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36(3), pp.352-361.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cantell, S. (2005). The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Master of Urban and Regional Planning. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Cherchi, P. (2015). Rehabilitation of Abandoned Monumental Hospitals: Tools for Urban Liveability. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 10(6). Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (2012). Shaping the Future: Case Studies in Adaptation and Reuse in Historic Urban Environments. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Ijla, A. and Broström, T. (2015). The Sustainable Viability of Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings: the experiences of Two World Heritage Old Cities; Bethlehem in Palestine and Visby in Sweden. International Invention Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, [online] 2(4), pp.52-66. Available at: http://internationalinventjournals.org/journals/IIJASS [Accessed 3 Apr. 2017]. Jäger, F. (2010). Old & New: Design Manual for Revitalizing Existing Buildings. 1st ed. Basel: Birkhäuser. Latham, D. (2000). Creative re-use of buildings. Vol.1-2. 1st ed. Shaftesbury: Domhead. Mirza-Avakyan, G. (2013). Adaptive Reuse of Historic Churches in New York City: The Opportunities and Challenges for Community Development. Master of Science in Urban Planning. Department of Urban Planning (Graduate School of Architecture) Columbia University. Niesewand, N. (2002). Converted spaces. 1st ed. London: Conran Octopus. Plevoets, B. (2014). Retail-Reuse: an interior view on adaptive reuse of buildings. PhD (Doctor of Architecture). Universiteit Hasselt. Powell, K. (1999). Architecture Reborn: The Conversion and Reconstruction of Old Buildings. 1st ed. London: Calman & King Ltd.

APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND For the first time ever, the global urban population in 2007 surpassed the global rural population (see Figure 16) according to the United Nation’s World Urbanisation Prospects Report (2014). By the year 2050, urban dwellers are estimated to account for 66% or two-thirds of the world’s total population. In addition, there are 28 megacities or city-agglomerations that have 10 million or more inhabitants accounting for almost half-a-billion people, from merely 10 megacities in 1990 (United Nations, 2014). To put this into perspective, the world’s top-five megacities are Tokyo which has an estimated 38 million dwellers, followed by Delhi, Shanghai, Mexico City, Mumbai and São Paulo each having between 21 and 25 million. The last few decades have indeed witnessed rapid urbanisation, spurred by population growth and economic development. The world’s societies are rapidly converting into an urban or built-up environment. In effect, these future trends reveal a rate of urban conversion particularly characterised by increasing urban footprint, with increasing though varying population densities and population dispersions (Wendell Cox Consultancy, 2016). Although urbanisation can be associated with progress and development, it does not come without its challenges. Amongst others, the most common drawbacks are socio-economic inequalities, movement and space congestion, exhaustion of resources and energy, pollution and massive expansion of built-up areas. Consequently, urbanisation causes the depletion of greenfield sites or a city’s surrounding unbuilt ‘green’ areas and conversely, the proliferation of brownfield sites such as abandoned or derelict areas (BBC, 2017).

Figure 16: Urban versus Rural Population of the World, 1950 - 2050 (United Nations, 2014)

As populations grow, cities expand. Therefore, urbanisation is synonymous with building and construction. The Global Construction 2030 Report projects that the worldwide construction output will grow by approximately 85% by the year 2030, amounting to a USD 15.5 trillion industry (PwC, 2017). More than half of this growth is forecast to take place in China, the U.S.A. and India. On average, global construction is expected to grow by 3.9% per annum until the year 2030 (Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics, 2015). By the same year, the U.K. is expected to be the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sixth largest construction market (PwC, 2017). In January of 2017, construction contracts in the U.K. have risen to GBP 6 billion (Jolly, 2017) with housebuilding as a predominant factor for this growth (Kollewe, 2017). This coincides with the prediction that in the residential sector of the construction industry, the U.K. alone will be needing 3 million new homes by 2030 (BBC, 2017). As a result of these developments, the construction industry and the built environment are at the focal point of sustainable development challenges. With the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s finite resources such as space, time and materials, successful and sustainable growth is emphasised to abate the issues of an expanding built environment.

Figure 17: Iconography of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Division for Sustainable Development UNHQ, 2017)

According to Accenture (2012), the seven trends to transform the construction marketplace are (1) accelerated globalisation, (2) urbanisation and the emergence of megacities, (3) challenging access to

capital, (4) ‘war’ or the competition for talent, (5) the upcoming crisis of energy, (6) new technologies driving innovation and (7) higher standards of sustainable living. These trends link with the overall question of equitability and sustainability. The United Nations has espoused a vision for the future guided by 17 Sustainable Development Goals (see Figure 17). Sustainable Development Goal 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities, targets to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (Division for Sustainable Development UNHQ, 2017). Consequently, the indicators published by the U.N. to reach this specific sustainable development goal are the reduction of inadequate or informal housing, equitable access to public services, green or open spaces and transport, sustainable and planned land consumption proportionate to population growth, reduction in crime and harassment, reduction in pollution and waste, responsiveness and resilience to natural disasters and lastly, financial aid funnelled to less developed areas that are in need of support. With the foregoing, the ultimate question of how heritage plays into achieving this goal comes to mind.

APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING GRAHPS

Figure 18: YELLOW graph from theoretical values of Langston et al. (2008), and BLUE graph from Western Market assessment (ibid.).

Figure 19: Both graphs with constant Lp and Lb, YELLOW graph with O values at 20% each, and BLUE graph with O values at 5% each to illustrate how O affects the graph.

Figure 20: Both graphs with constant Lp and Lb, YELLOW graph with O values at 2% each, and BLUE graph with O values at 80% each to illustrate how O affects the graph.

Figure 21: Both graphs with constant O values, YELLOW graph with Lp = 100 years and Lb =25 years, and BLUE graph with Lp = 900 years and Lb =225 years to illustrate how Lp affects the graph.

APPENDIX C: PHYSICAL LIFE WORKSHEET (Langston, 2011)

Figure 22: Physical Life Calculator developed by Langston (2011).

Smithfield Poultry Market Listing Advice APPENDIX B [ i â&#x20AC;&#x201C; xxxi ]

Referral Outcome Case ID:

144532 (Smithfield Poultry Market)

Advice Version:

Date of Advice:

23/08/1999

Advice Author:

Rec. Outcome:

Yes, list

Rec. Grade:

Grade Qualifier:

Group Value:

Rec. No. of Items:

Rec. No. of Address Units:

Standard Reason:

the criteria for listing are fulfilled

Background:

The Poultry Market was built in 1961-3 to the designs of T P Bennett and Son, with Ove Arup and Partners as consultant engineers. Its site and shape make it a difficult building to photograph. The Twentieth Century Society first proposed this building in 1997, when it was visited by the PWSG. However, as there was no immediate threat, we resolved to await the results of a survey of shell structures by our consultant, Andrew Smith, a draft of which has now been received. Now, too, SAVE Britain's Heritage have requested the listing of the adjoining General Market of 1879-83 and its annexe of 1886-8, which have recently closed. It was felt appropriate to consider this sensitive group of buildings as a whole. After a full inspection, it was concluded that the Victorian buildings were insufficiently special to be listable in their own right, especially as the larger had been damaged by a bomb (one of the greatest losses of life in the Second World War) and now represents rather a palimpsest. English Heritage Commissioners and the Historic Buildings and

Areas Advisory Committee have recommended that the Poultry Market be listed at grade II. Smithfield developed as a market for carcases from the 1860s, when a separate market for live animals was built off the Caledonian Road, Islington. The present Poultry Market was built to replace a market of 1873-5 which burned down in 1958. The design, conceived with Ove Arup and Partners, was for a clear-span market hall with a shell concrete dome, which is flanked by covered driveways for vehicles and first-floor offices which have their own small shell cylinder roofs. The engineer in charge, Jack Zunz (who also worked on Sydney Opera House) describes how the building was subjected to the first significant tests on microconcrete for deflections and cracks, using strain gauges. Shell construction was first introduced to England in the late 1930s, with the building of Doncaster Municipal Airport (demolished) and the Wythenshawe Bus Garage (recommended grade II*). Experiments in shell domes only began after the war, however, and were exemplified by the nine at the Brynmawr Rubber Factory, Wales (1948-52, grade II*, permission granted for demolition). The Smithfield example is relatively late, but was when built the largest in Europe, with a span of 225 by 130 feet. It is the only English shell dome identified as having special technical and architectural interest in our recent survey of shell structures. The Commissioners and Committee members also admired the external form of the building, with its use of concrete and glass hexagons to create a style appropriate to the engineering. Paraboloid shell concrete domes lent themselves to markets, where a clear, unobstructed span was required, as they also offered opportunities for aesthetic affect. However, this opportunity was never previously grasped, and we have not so far recommended a market building for listing, because of their lack of coherent form. This is an exception. Andrew Smith's research on shell structures has led to no entirely new recommendations for listing, but has served to strengthen our arguments for recommending buildings already identified as having some interest, such as the Bournemouth Bus Garage, Yeovil Cattle Market and this. It shows that there are no other shell concrete domes of comparable quality and interest in England in the 1950s and

early 1960s. Assessment:

N/A

Reason for Designation Decision:

Exceptional market building of 1961-3, by T P Bennett and Son with Ove Arup and Partners as constructional engineers, with architectural vivacity and daring use of paraboloic shell dome - the largest in Europe when constructed.

Countersign Countersigning Adviser 1:

Countersigning Adviser 1 Comments:

Agreed. This very large scale and rare example of a paraboloid shell concrete dome, the largest in Europe when it was completed, definitely satisfies the criteria for listing. It has been approved by Post War Steering Group and HABAC. 07.09.1999

Countersigning Adviser 2:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2 Comments:

N/A

HP Director's Approval:

N/A

HP Director's Comments:

N/A

Smithfield General Market Listing Advice APPENDIX C [ xxxv â&#x20AC;&#x201C; xl ]

Spot listing advice 2002 (recommended Yes List): Fruit and vegetable market, subsequently a meat market. 1879-83 by Sir Horace Jones, Architect to the City of London, repaired 1953-4 by George Halliday, Surveyor to the City of London. Red Fareham brick and Portland stone dressings and corner tower; cast- and wrought-iron framed interior with laminated wood trusses; reinforced concrete dome, part-glazed roofs and outer ranges of slate-tiled roofs. Square plan with a projecting arm that has a roadway behind giving access to the basement; a double-height market hall, cruciform with a central crossing and side aisles and twostorey market shops. Outer ranges of shop units with offices above on all four sides. Extensive substructure, now a car park but originally railway sidings, and train lines. Mainly of two storeys with basements, but with four-storey corner tower. EXTERIOR in French Renaissance style intended to blend in with JonesÂżs other market buildings to the east. Mainly of two storeys with shop fronts on the ground floor. The upper floors are articulated by stone pilasters and window surrounds and, above the cornice band, urn finials and oval-shaped pedimented dormer windows. Above the mansarded slate-tiled roofs are stone chimney stacks, grouped together and set at an angle behind the apex. The north-west corner has a five-sided, fourstorey stone-faced tower, set back and at an angle behind the stone-clad ends of the street blocks, with a concrete canopy that returns across the corner. The tower, which is decorated by a coat of arms, and adjoining bays were rebuilt in 1953-4. The north and south sides, stepped to accommodate a fall in the land, have wide gabled entrances with arches, copper decorative panels incorporating the date 1881 and pineapple finials. Attached to the southern entrance is a canopy of iron, glass and wood extending West Smithfield to the Annexe market (q.v.), added around 1900. The east side has a concrete canopy spanning the roadway, erected in 1962-3 when the adjoining Poultry Market (q.v.) was rebuilt. The elevation to Farringdon Road is raised to three storeys, capped by a stone pediment embellished with a coat of arms and cornucopia decoration; its south end is rounded, more elaborately decorated and has a polygonal tower, originally topped by a spire but now with a flat roof dating from 1953-4. On the western end of the south range is a pedestrian entrance be-neath a semi-circular window in a stone balustraded surround. Spanning the steeply inclined access roadway is a two-storey block that originally housed market offices. The ground floor shop fronts retain cast-iron pilasters but the windows and entrances have generally been reworked; the metal canopies suspended on metal rods on some elevations are a later addition. The basement extends beyond the building under West Smithfield and the Annexe market, with two-storey brick vaults under the shops on Farringdon Street and Char-terhouse Street and singlestorey vaults under Snow Hill. The original structure, of composite iron stanchions, wrought-iron girders and brick jack arching, probably sur-vives beneath a later 'gunite' fireproof finish although repaired and renewed in places. At various points the stanchions are carried through to market hall above. The northern end has been rebuilt and reduced in size, having originally extended much further northwards. The basement railway sidings were removed in 1970 for conversion to a car park and access to the railway lines has been blocked off. The INTERIOR of the market hall has an impressive modular (two-way) iron frame-work of lattice girders and Phoenix columns. The latter are composed of rivetted wrought-iron sections in a polygonal form with cast-iron bases and wrought-iron foli-ate capitals. The ironwork was supplied by

Rownson, Drew & Company. The frame-work supports a reinforced concrete ribbed saucer dome with clerestorey lights and a central opening that dates from 1953-4 but sits on original lattice girders and squinches. Surrounding this are rows of hipped roofs with arched laminated-wood trusses, partly glazed and lined with timber boards with raised ridges for louvred ven-tilation. The two-storey perimeter shops are open-fronted on the lower level and en-closed above, with windows and loading doors to each unit. Some have single-storey extensions of 1889, a framework of I-beams and cast-iron columns around which are bolted decoratively treated cast-iron brackets. A few retain the angle fireplaces and back-wall stairs but most have been altered and the shop fittings removed. The cen-tral cruciform arrangement dates from 1889 and has four rectangular first-floor of-fices or shops carried on cast-iron columns. This is a site with a remarkably consistent HISTORY as a celebrated place of live-stock and meat dealing. The decision by the Corporation of London for a phased ex-pansion of the market facilities at Smithfield followed the construction of a dead meat market in 1866-8 (q.v). The construction of additional markets took thirty years, com-mencing with the Poultry Market, erected in 1873-5 and rebuilt in 1962-3, followed by the General Market. Two more markets followed before the expansion was com-plete: the Annexe in 1886-8, and the Fish, Fruit and Vegetable Market, completed in 1892 but destroyed in 1945 and rebuilt in 1965-8 (the latter not listed or recom-mended). Because the intention was to centralise and rationalise some of the City's wholesale facilities at this site the General Market was originally intended for the sale of fruit and vegetables but opened as fish market and only became a meat market in 1889. The first three markets formed an extraordinary linear sequence, and the completed ensemble, all but one designed by the prominent City Architect, Sir Horace Jones, formed an outstanding assemblage of Victorian market buildings. The General Market suffered war-time bomb damage in 1941 which was reinstated in a modern idiom in 1953-4. Listed as a valuable component of the London Central Markets complex at Smith-field, that despite some considerable mid-C20 changes, forms one of the most out-standing complexes of market hall buildings in England. The General Market is also a building of considerable engineering interest. Like the preceding market buildings at Smithfield it was built over railways sidings. Both the use of a selfsupporting iron-framed structure, anticipating the 'space frames' of the mid-twentieth century, and the application of laminated timber are of considerable interest. Most noteworthy is the employment of Phoenix columns, a type of prefabricated compound girder that was rarely used in Britain but played an important role in the development of the iron-framed skyscrapers in the United States of America. Jones appears to have used them for their novelty, their practical advantages for a difficult site, and their decorative qualities.

Reassessed on request of the Secretary of State â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2003: Case ID:

153225 (General Market Building, Smithfield General Market)

Advice Version:

Date of Advice:

23/07/2003

Advice Author:

Dr R Bowdler

Rec. Outcome:

No, do not list

Rec. Grade:

Grade Qualifier:

Group Value:

N/A

Rec. No. of Items:

Rec. No. of Address Units:

Standard Reason:

the criteria for listing are not fulfilled

Background:

History This large block lies to the west of the Grade II-listed 1962-63 Poultry Market (to which it is connected with a modern canopy), and beyond which, to the east, stand the Grade II*listed 1860s blocks of Smithfield Market. Like these blocks, the market building in question was designed by Sir Horace Jones, Surveyor to the City of London. Commenced in 1879, it was originally intended to be a fruit & veg market but was initially opened as a fish market (a role that was then moved to the annexe block to the south, qv). In 1889 it was converted to a meat market, a role it played until its semirecent closure. The worst event to befall the building was the landing nearby of a German V2 rocket in 1945. This devastated the area, and led to the entire rebuilding of the north-west corner and the replacement of the crossing dome with an austere concrete saucer dome. Description The block was designed as a western continuation of the earlier blocks, and pre-WW2 views show the magnificent procession of domes advancing from the earlier blocks to this

western termination. Jones's designs were for slightly less elaborate elevations than those to the earliest sections of the market. These were designed in a Free Renaissance style, with shops on the ground floor, a first floor articulated with pilasters and stone window surrounds, and a mansard roof with elaborate pedimented dormers. The centre of either range, north and south, has a pedimented aisle end with a copper-clad tympanum, dated 1881. Internally the market is cruciform, with a central crossing and side aisles. The roof structure was originally of great interest, with a large domed lantern to the centre, and side aisles of open timber trusses, carried on a pioneering American system of riveted columns known as 'Phoenix Columns'. Specialist research by EH has revealed that these are very rare survivors of a system developed in the 1860s and which are much studied by American historians of structures, as they made possible the move towards building higher which led to the birth of the sky-scraper. This market building was always intended as a wholesale market and the interior lacks the exuberant decoration that is to be found in other High Victorian markets such as Derby, Leeds or Newark. Compared with Jones's other City markets as well, such as Leadenhall St or the other parts of Smithfield, the interior is a fairly muted one. The central crossing's post-war concrete dome is austere, and a poor substitute for the original lantern. Underneath the building is a major subterranean complex which is now used for car parking; hidden from the eye is an underground train line now used by the Thameslink train route. The railway interchange greatly facilitated the transporting of butchered meat in and out of the market, and epitomised the mid-Victorian drive towards modernisation and efficiency in terms of railway infrastructure. The surviving subterranean complex is very considerable in extent, and was constructed as a way of raising this, the western part of the Smithfield Market complex, up from the ground level of the sloping east bank of the Fleet River valley. The buildings still slope to the west but the gradient is a lot gentler than would have been the case: the scale of metropolitan improvement to have been undertaken in this part of the City during the 1860s and 1870s was very remarkable, and the buildings under discussion need to be seen as another outcome -alongside the Holborn Viaduct- of this heroic chapter in metropolitan improvement. Assessment

Had this building survived the Second World War intact, there can be little doubt that it would have been listed long ago. Aerial bombardment doled out severe punishment to this, the north-west corner of Smithfield, and we are left with a considerably reduced architectural affair. The impact of war can sometimes be the very reason for designating (ie the Milk Street building in Bath that was listed last year, with its badly pitted facades), but here the impact of war has been wholly negative. The building undoubtedly forms a considerable part of this major metropolitan complex, and is endowed with considerable historical interest as a result. Smithfield has witnessed a remarkable continuity of use as a place of livestock and meat trading: this continuity may well be brought to a close as part of current discussions, so the fate of these buildings acquires an additional poignancy. There is no doubting the building's positive contribution to the Conservation Area: it is a landmark structure (albeit compromised), and from certain angles it reads as a very impressive metropolitan undertaking. Some of the detailing is very good: the copper-covered gable ends, the tower-like south-western tip, the phoenix columns on the inside. Overall, however, the interest is more contextual than architectural, and more atmospheric than historical. The magnificent procession of domed market buildings that formerly constituted Smithfield Market has been lost: the Poultry Market was replaced with a very different sort of building which possesses its own inherent special interest, but which had the negative effect of cutting off the Victorian westernmost block from the rest of the complex. This loss has had a major impact on perceptions of this block, and has deprived it of Group Value with its listed near-neighbours. Conclusion Although forming part of a notable metropolitan market complex, this element of Smithfield Market has undergone considerable alteration as a result of wartime damage. It has been cut off from the magnificent surviving Smithfield Market buildings to the east, and although it forms a characterful group with the unlisted market buildings to the south, it now stands rather in isolation from the heart of the Smithfield Market complex. Compared with other High Victorian markets it is not of the first order, despite having structural elements that are of note. This is a prominent building with a very interesting history: aspects of it retain clear architectural

interest as well. On balance, however, a verdict of not listable is unavoidable. Assessment:

See attached note on the planning background. The building was rejected for listing in 1999.

Reason for Designation Decision:

Designed by Sir Horace Jones and opened in 1881, this block served first as a fish market and then as a fruit and veg market, before entering use as a meat market. Until WW2 it had a striking central dome and formed part of a fine procession of similar buildings. Damage from a V2 and the destruction of the neighbouring block have reduced the interest of the block which just falls short of being listable.

Countersign Countersigning Adviser 1:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 1 Comments:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2 Comments:

N/A

HP Director's Approval:

N/A

HP Director's Comments:

N/A

DCMS determined that the building was N/L in July 2003. We were asked by the DCMS to review our advice. On 3 March 2005 again DCMS determined N/L.

Smithfield Fish Market Listing Advice APPENDIX D [ xli â&#x20AC;&#x201C; l ]

Spot listing assessment 2003 Case ID:

153224 (Annexe Building)

Advice Version:

Date of Advice:

23/07/2003

Advice Author:

Dr R Bowdler

Rec. Outcome:

No, do not list

Rec. Grade:

Grade Qualifier:

Group Value:

N/A

Rec. No. of Items:

Rec. No. of Address Units:

Standard Reason:

the criteria for listing are not fulfilled

Background:

History This roughly triangular block forms the south-western end of the Smithfield Market complex, one of the major wholesale market complexes in London and a site with a remarkably consistent history as a celebrated place of livestock and meat dealing. The building in question was designed by Sir Horace Jones, Surveyor to the City Corporation, and opened in 1888. Originally intended as a fish market, it was soon adapted for general market use. Jones's design comprised a covered market building, screened by a richly detailed Free Renaissance facade of crisp red brick with extensive stone dressing. The north-west corner rises up to two storeys: otherwise the first (western) part of the block is of a single storey with an attic. To the east is an addition, apparently slightly later, and sometimes known as The Red House: this was built as a cold store. A very distinctive part of the block, it is a tapering windowless structure with a strongly arcaded principal elevation to the east. The flat-iron shape is dramatically sensed from the north. This part of the site is slightly less elaborately treated than the rest, and lacks the Corporation heraldry and masonry embellishment that

marks out the original part as a public building of note. Internally the former market is triangular, with three aisles set out beneath a fairly standard open trussed wooden roof. The interior of the cold store was not inspected: it is said to be quite without architectural elaboration. Assessment This is one of three blocks at Smithfield currently under consideration for listing. They stand to the west, or southwest, of the Grade II-listed 1960s Poultry Market, a noncontextual continuation of the Grade II* listed main market blocks of the 1860s which are truly outstanding examples of High Victorian public market buildings. Overall the Smithfield Market complex is a very special one indeed, possessing very considerable historical interest on various levels. However, some parts are very much more intact and impressive than others and it is possible to regard the component blocks with varying degrees of admiration (and hence designation). This block is externally very handsome, and it possesses very great townscape value. It forms a crucial link between the historic core of Smithfield and the remarkable High Victorian metropolitan improvement that was the Holborn Viaduct, situated just to the south-west. All around, post-war redevelopment of generally limited quality (or worse) has considerably eroded the character of this part of the City. This block is a pivotal link between important nodal points in the historical make-up of the City, between Smithfield and Holborn, and its outward form endows it with townscape value of a very high order. The block thus plays a vital part in defining the edge of the Conservation Area and is to be greatly valued in these terms. This is not the same as saying it is listable, however. The interior is fairly unremarkable, and the exterior varies from the dramatic (the cold store) to the decent (the northern and western screen walls) to the awkward (the junction at the southern corner between the two phases). The design is quite reserved for a building of the 1880s, and the scale of elaboration and grandeur is distinctly muted, given the power of the Corporation and compared with the majesty of Jones' earlier blocks at Smithfield. There are some historical factors worth mentioning, besides. It is part of a very interesting market complex; the rebuilding formed part of an elaborate programme of metropolitan improvement in this area; it includes a very early example of a purpose-built

cold store building which was given an elaborate external architectural treatment. Conclusion The real value of the block is as a key component of townscape. Nonetheless, for the reasons outlined above, the building falls short of the standards necessary for listing. Assessment:

See briefing note about planning context. This building was rejected for listing in 1999.

Reason for Designation Decision:

Opened in 1888, this market annexe at Smithfield was designed by Sir Horace Jones and forms part of the special complex that is the Smithfield Market. An early cold store was added to the east shortly after being opened. Although externally handsome and endowed with very great townscape value, it lacks that clear level of special interest neccesary for listing.

Countersign Countersigning Adviser 1:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 1 Comments:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2 Comments:

N/A

HP Director's Approval:

N/A

HP Director's Comments:

N/A

Review of previous advice on request of the Secretary of State - 2004 Case ID:

153224 (Annexe Building)

Advice Version:

Date of Advice:

18/05/2004

Advice Author:

Mr R Hawkins

Rec. Outcome:

No, do not list

Rec. Grade:

Grade Qualifier:

Group Value:

N/A

Rec. No. of Items:

Rec. No. of Address Units:

Standard Reason:

the criteria for listing are not fulfilled

Background:

Background to re-appriasal of the case Last summer, 3 separate buildings at Smithfield Market were considered as listing cases by Roger Bowdler, and were deemed not to be listable. I was subsequently asked by Peter Beacham, Head of Designation Team, to review this advice in the light of comments made by the Minister, who sought further guidance on this matter, in the light of the recent recommendations made for buildings in the Birmingham Jewellery Quarter. This I did, having read the papers on the file for Smithfield Market, including the earlier recommendations not to list made by Elain Harwood in 1999, and the most recent recommendations of Dr. Bowdler. This advice is nonetheless prepared independently, and with an open mind. I was subsequently asked by the DCMS to carry out a site inspection, as quickly as could be managed. This was done on the evening of the same day as the instruction was received, on April 29th. Given the time constraints, I was able to carry out an external inspection only, and from the exterior, to gain limited views of some parts of the interiors. I also walked around the surrounding streets, and past the already listed elements of the market complex, so as to ensure that I had gained an accurate impression of the

setting of the buildings under consideration. Advice My impressions of the site confirmed my previously stated view that the recommendation not to list was correct. Dr. Bowdler had previously set out very clearly the reasons why the later parts of the Smithfield complex were considered not to meet the standard for listing. This reasoning took into account the nature and status of contemporary developments in London, and the comparative qualities of the listed market buildings and those considered not to be of listable quality. Furthermore, the advice explicitly acknowledges the significance of the ensemble of market buildings, and the importance of the entire ensemble to the character and appearance of the conservation area of which it forms a core element. My own inspection confirmed Dr Bowdler's assessment of the disparity in architectural quality between the principal market ranges listed in Grades II* and II, and the later, partially bomb-damaged and rebuilt parts of the ensemble. The extent of damage to the main market building is considerable, and has had an undeniably negative impact on what would otherwise have been listed long ago. Given the quality of design that Sir Horace Jones was capable of elsewhere, the Smithfield Market buildings in question are disappointing and clearly of lesser quality than the fine designs elsewhere on the site. The importance of conservation area status is a key issue here. The designation is a locally determined one, often deployed alongside the listing process to confirm the contextual significance of a place, and to provide the means to manage it in a manner appropriate to its special interest. It is not a mere long stop or default mechanism to capture those buildings which ` fail ` to meet the standard for listing, but a powerful means of expressing the architectural, historic and environmental qualities of a locality. We believe that conservation area status provides the appropriate means of defending and managing the unlisted parts of the Smithfield Market complex, and that, in defending these buildings in this way, the purpose of the designation is properly articulated. The setting and context of the listed elements can be sympathetically considered and the contribution made by the other component buildings may be recognised in the requirement to preserve or enhance the

area's special character and appearance. Different levels of management are appropriate to the listed and unlisted elements of the conservation area, but the significance of the entity is derived both types of asset. It is difficult to conceive of the demolition of parts of the market complex which would meet the requirement to 'preserve or enhance' the conservation area. Conclusion The recommendation that the former Fish Market, the General Market and the Small Lavatory buildings are not listable is supported by the most recent detailed research carried out by English Heritage to inform consideration these cases. No substantive new evidence (including claims about the early date of the cold store building as an example of the type) has been produced to justify a change of recommendation, and the requested re-inspection has not changed my view that Dr Bowdler's recommendations remain appropriate for all 3 buildings. Assessment:

N/A

Reason for Designation Decision:

The unlisted buildings at Smithfield Market contribute to the overall character of the Conservation Area, but do not meet the standards for listing as they have been too altered or else lack sufficient special interest. In my opinion our earlier verdict should stand.

Countersign Countersigning Adviser 1:

Mr P Beacham

Countersigning Adviser 1 Comments:

I confirm that this advice was sought from this inspector with an open mind as to its outcome. He concurs with the previous conclusions English Heritage staff have reached over the last decade that the buildings are not of listable quality. As the Minister is already aware, I share this view and can only add that this inspector's assessment confirms a unanimous view within the Designation Team at English Heritage: not listable. 25 May 2004

Countersigning Adviser 2:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2 Comments:

N/A

HP Director's Approval:

N/A

HP Director's Comments:

N/A

2005 COI (Certificate of Immunity from Listing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a declaration that the Secretary of State does not intend to list the building. Additionally it guarantees that for a period of 5 years the building will not be reassessed) Case ID:

159320 (Former Fish Market, Smithfield General Market)

Advice Version:

Date of Advice:

18/08/2005

Advice Author:

Ms E Gee

Rec. Outcome:

Yes, issue COI

Rec. Grade:

Grade Qualifier:

Group Value:

N/A

Rec. No. of Items:

Rec. No. of Address Units:

Standard Reason:

a COI should be issued

Background:

CONTEXT We have been asked to consider the former Fish Market, also

known as the Annex, and the document store and loading bay for a Certificate of Immunity from listing. It is included within the Smithfield Conservation Area. The owners have submitted applications for Planning Permission, Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent (in respect of the removal of the modern Poultry Market canopy) to redevelop the General Market Building, the former Fish Market, document store/loading bay, the Red House and the Lavatory Block (collectively known as the 'Western Market Buildings') as a mixed use development (office and retail). English Heritage has offered advice to the DCMS on three occasions with respect to this building. The General Market building and the Annex were not listed during the City of London list review in 1994-6. They were formally assessed in July 1999 and not recommended for listing. Further requests for advice led to full assessments and the returning of advice not to list again in July 2003 and May 2004. The history, description and assessment were clearly laid out in the previous advice and will not be repeated here. ASSESSMENT The Annex was opened in 1888 to the designs of Sir Horace Jones, for the selling of fish, a function that was transferred from the nearby General Market; it was converted to meat trade use in 1898-9 and renamed the Annexe. It forms part of a triangular island site, the southeastern sliver of which comprises the Red House cold store, recently listed at Grade II, and the small part on the north side is a later infill referred to as the document store with loading bay. This dates from the 1960s, and was not seen internally, but is clearly, from the exterior, of modern construction, with a metal corrugated frontage. We have received an extensive report on the history and significance of these components of Smithfield in the form of a submission from an external party. This is certainly insightful, but it does not, on balance, provide any substantive new information that is relevant to the listing case. One point that is raised, however, is the suggestion that since the recent listing of the adjacent Red House cold store, the issue of group value has been altered. It is the case that the Grade II former cold store forms part of the same island site, and that the similar date and association with the larger Smithfield

allies the structures in some ways. However, while they together form part of a characterful ensemble, there would need to be intrinsic special interest in the former fish market itself, which is not the case. These are indeed historically interesting and worthy buildings, and they make a strong contribution to the Conservation Area. The 2004 advice expresses this point very clearly, but it is worth emphasising: these buildings are recognised as making a significant contribution to the locality and its history by the Conservation Area designation and this should be perceived as providing an appropriate degree of protection. CONCLUSION While it makes a strong and positive contribution to the Conservation Area, there is insufficient special interest to recommend for listing, as has been the advice on several previous occasions. A full inspection did not reveal any new interest to the fabric of the building and there is no substantive new information to cause us to offer a changed recommendation. We are therefore advising that a Certificate of Immunity from listing be issued. Assessment:

N/A

Reason for Designation Decision:

A late-C19 former Fish Market at Smithfield that has contextual interest already reflected by its inclusion within the Conservation Area, and that lacks individual special interest to merit listing; also the adjacent mid-C20 document store of no particular merit. These two components form an island site with the adjacent recently listed Red House cold store.

Countersign Countersigning Adviser 1:

Dr R Bowdler

Countersigning Adviser 1 Comments:

Agreed. Although forming a significant contribution to the interest of the western edge of the Conservation Area, the building lacks sufficient evident special interest and a Certificate should accordingly be issued. 08-SEP-2005

Countersigning Adviser 2:

N/A

Countersigning Adviser 2 Comments:

N/A

HP Director's Approval:

N/A

HP Director's Comments:

N/A