CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Urban Planning and ValuationUrban Planning and GovernanceCultural Heritage Management and Preservation

Demolition or retention of buildings: drivers at the masterplan scale

Open access
Baker, Hannah, Moncaster, Alice, Wilkinson, Sara J., Remøy, Hilde·2023·Buildings & Cities
DOI 10.5334/bc.308
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Current adaptation theory tends to consider individual buildings or the city level, which cannot address decisions related to masterplan developments on large brownfield sites. This paper investigates the drivers for building demolition or retention and adaptation decisions at the masterplan scale. Expert interviews and three case studies are used to explore how and why decisions to demolish, or to retain and adapt, are made at this scale. The research compared three different geopolitical contexts: Cambridge in the UK; Eindhoven in the Netherlands; and Sydney in Australia. Additional factors and complexities that should be considered at the masterplan scale are identified. The theoretical underpinnings of urban development processes are used to explain these complexities in relation to four existing models and demonstrate that no one model is adequate to describe the interactions. With increasing awareness of climate change impacts, it is critical that demolition decisions on masterplan developments are reviewed in the light of retaining carbon as well as heritage. Practice relevance This research demonstrates the different and specific concerns applying to demolition and retention on masterplan scale sites compared with the individual building scale. Although the evidence shows that decisions are context specific, the criteria as identified and categorised within this research offer a useful tool for stakeholders when establishing their priorities and approaches to decisions to demolish or retain and adapt within a masterplan context. This should help to avoid contested decisions and can help community groups hoping to have an influence over the long-term decisions, as well as developers looking to retain good relationships with the local community. The identified criteria can support planners and local authorities responsible for approving masterplan developments to better understand the factors relevant to each decision, including the importance of retaining flexibility throughout to enable response to changing circumstances.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5334/bc.308

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Adams, D., Croudace, R., & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Exploring the 'notional property developer' as a policy construct. Urban Studies, 49(12), 2577-2596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011431283 · DOI
  2. Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N., & Munjoma, T. (2001). Urban redevelopment: Contextual influences and landowner behaviour. Journal of Property Research, 18(3), 217-234. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/09599910110060028 · DOI
  3. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89-103. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/41427930. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00468.x · DOI
  4. Anderson, J., & Moncaster, A. M. (2022). Embodied carbon, embodied energy and renewable energy: A review of Environmental Product Declarations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers- Structures and Buildings. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.21.00160 503 · DOI
  5. Archdaily. (2021). What is placemaking? Archdaily. https://www.archdaily.com/961333/what-is-placemaking Architects Declare. (2023). UK architects declare climate and biodiversity emergency. https://www. architectsdeclare.com/ Architects' Journal. (2023). RetroFirst. Architects' Journal. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/retrofirst
  6. Ashwell CB1 Ltd. (2008). Planning Application summary. (Planning Application Reference: 08/0266/OUT). Cambridge City Council. https://applications.greatercambridgeplanning.org/online-applications/search.
  7. Ashworth, G. (2011). Preservation, conservation and heritage: Approaches to the past in the present through the built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10(1), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/168347 8X.2011.10552601 · DOI
  8. Australian Associated Press. (2006). NSW govt takes control of Sydney's CUB development. Australian Associated Press.
  9. Baker, H. (2019). The adaptation and demolition of existing buildings on masterplan sites (doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge). https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/27cd65c6-11e6-4665- 83d8-273f21f3c6ea
  10. Baker, H., Moncaster, A., & Al-Tabbaa, A. (2017). Decision-making for the demolition or adaptation of buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Forensic Engineering. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1680/jfoen.16.00026 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Baker, H., Moncaster, A., Remoy, H., & Wilkinson, S. (2021). Retention not demolition: How heritage-thinking can inform carbon reduction. Journal of Architectural Conservation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/135562 07.2021.1948239 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Beacon Planning Ltd. (2015). I1 & K1 Station Square-Heritage statement (Planning Application Reference: 15/1759/FUL). Cambridge City Council. https://applications.greatercambridgeplanning.org/ online-applications/files/B732A6B2A008B7C9BD477997D8D47DE3/pdf/15_1759_FUL-HERITAGE_ STATEMENT-1799730.pdf
  13. Belláková, E. (2016). Analysis of industrial architectural heritage-Iron and steel plants as a development potential. Paper presented at the Procedia Engineering, World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering- Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium 2016, 161 (pp. 1926-1931). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2016.08.769 · DOI
  14. Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. D. (2010). The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Views from the field. Cities, 27(4), 215-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.12.005 · DOI
  15. Carmona, M. (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 2-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695 · DOI
  16. Clegg, P. (2012). A practitioner's view of the 'regenerative paradigm'. Building Research & Information, 40(3), 365-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.663557 · DOI
  17. Coiacetto, E. J. (2000). Places shape place shapers? Real estate developers' outlooks concerning community, planning and development differ between places. Planning Practice & Research, 15(4), 353-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450020018790 · DOI
  18. Crawford, K., Johnson, C., Davies, F., Joo, S., & Bell, S. (2014). Demolition or refurbishment of social housing? A review of the evidence. UCL Urban Lab and Engineering Exchange for Just Space and the London Tenants Federation.
  19. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. SAGE.
  20. Daamen, T. A. (2010). Strategy as force: Towards effective strategies for urban development projects: The case of Rotterdam CityPorts (doctoral thesis, TU Delft).
  21. Deakin, M., Campbell, F., & Reid, A. (2012). The mass-retrofitting of an energy efficient-low carbon zone: Baselining the urban regeneration strategy, vision, masterplan and redevelopment scheme. Energy Policy, 45(June), 187-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.019 · DOI
  22. Douglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation, 2nd ed. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080458519 · DOI
  23. Drane, J. (2013). The state of contemporary property development theory. Paper presented at the the 19th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, p. 16. http://www.prres.net/ papers/Drane_The_State_Of_Contemporary_Property_Development_Theory.pdf 504
  24. Dyer, S. (2008). Planning Committee report (Planning Application Reference: 841 08/0266/OUT). Cambridge City Council.
  25. Dyer, S. (2012). Planning Committee Report (Planning Application Reference: 12/0502/FUL). Cambridge City Council. https://applications.greatercambridgeplanning.org/online-applications/ files/6FC0A07BDAB51D7F9D31D974083E4263/pdf/12_0502_FUL-COMMITTEE_REPORT-950696.pdf
  26. Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-08-032698-6.50015-4 · DOI
  27. Fonseca, F., & Ramos, R. A. R. (2019). Vacant industrial buildings in Portugal: A case study from four municipalities. Planning Practice & Research, 34(3), 239-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.20 19.1590767 Gemeente Eindhoven. (2010). Raadsvoorstel Vaststellen bestemmingsplan Strijp-R [Determination of the Strijp-R Destination Plan] (Council Number: IO.R3902.00I. File Number: 032.251). Eindhoven. https:// eindhoven.raadsinformatie.nl/document/4286782/1/Strijp_R · DOI
  28. Geraedts, R., & Van der Voordt, T. (2007). A tool to measure opportunities and risks of converting empty offices into dwellings. In W11-Metropolitan dynamics: Urban change, market and governance. Paper presented at the Sustainable Urban Areas, Rotterdam, p. 22. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/235964432_A_TOOL_TO_MEASURE_OPPORTUNITIES_AND_RISKS_OF_CONVERTING_EMPTY_
  29. Guy, S., & Henneberry, J. (2000). Understanding urban development processes: Integrating the economic and the social in property research. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2399-2416. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/00420980020005398 · DOI
  30. Hanafi, M. H., Umar, M. U., Razak, A. A., & Rashid, Z. Z. A. (2018). Essential entities towards developing an adaptive reuse model for organization management in conservation of heritage buildings in Malaysia. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(7), 265-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj. v3i7.1241 · DOI
  31. Healey, P. (1991). Models of the development process: A review. Journal of Property Research, 8, 219-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09599919108724039 · DOI
  32. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2 · DOI
  33. Heath, T. (2001). Adaptive re-use of offices for residential use: The experiences of London and Toronto. Cities, 18(3), 173-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00009-9 · DOI
  34. IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [eds. H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem & B. Rama]. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Langston, C. (2013). The role of coordinate-based decision-making in the evaluation of sustainable built environments. Construction Management and Economics, 31(1), 62-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/014 46193.2012.738920 · DOI
  36. Langston, C., & Smith, J. (2012). Modelling property management decisions using 'iconCUR'. Automation in Construction, Planning Future Cities-selected papers from the 2010 eCAADe Conference, 22(March), pp. 406-413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.10.001 · DOI
  37. Payne, S. (2009). The institutional capacity of the UK speculative housebuilding industry-Responding to the brownfield development policy agenda (doctoral thesis, University of Glasgow).
  38. Pendlebury, J. (2013). Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation planning assemblage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(7), 709-727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/135 27258.2012.700282 · DOI
  39. Pendlebury, J., & Porfyriou, H. (2017). Heritage, urban regeneration and place-making. Journal of Urban Design, 22(4), 429-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1326712 · DOI
  40. Plimmer, F., Pottinger, G., Harris, S., Waters, M., & Pocock, Y. (2008). Knock it down or do it up? Sustainable housebuilding: New build and refurbishment in the Sustainable Communities Plan. BRE Press.
  41. Proverbs, D., & Gameson, R. (2009). Case study research. In Advanced research methods in the built environment (pp. 99-110). Wiley.
  42. Remøy, H., & Van der Voordt, T. (2014). Adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing: Opportunities and risks. Building Research & Information, 42(3), 381-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.86 5922 · DOI
  43. Remøy, H. T., de Jong, P., & Schenk, W. (2011). Adaptable office buildings. Property Management, 29(5), 443-453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02637471111178128 · DOI
  44. Rockow, Z. R., Ross, B., & Black, A. K. (2018). Review of methods for evaluating adaptability of buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-01- 2018-0013 · DOI
  45. Ruming, K., & Gurran, N. (2014). Australian planning system reform. Australian Planner, 51(2), 102-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2014.896065 · DOI
  46. SAVE. (2017). SAVE condemns imminent demolition of historic Cambridge terrace in Conservation Area. SAVE. http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/campaigns/recent/415/SAVEcondemns-imminent-demolition-of- historic-Cambridge-terrace-in-Conservation-Area Save Wilton Terrace. (2015).
  47. Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles, Secretary of State: Save Cambridge's Victorian Wilton Terrace and stop two tower buildings of 9 and 10 storeys (higher than King's College Chapel) being built. https:// www.change.org/p/rt-hon-eric-picklessecretary-of-state-save-cambridge-svictorian-wilton-terrace-and- stop-two-tower-buildings-of-9and-10-storeys-higher-than-kingscollege-chapel-being-built
  48. Sayce, S., Wilkinson, S. J. Armstrong, G. & Organ, S. (Eds.) (2022). Resilient building retrofits: Combating the climate crisis. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003023975 · DOI
  49. Skillington, K., Crawford, R. H., Warren-Myers, G., & Davidson, K. (2022). A review of existing policy for reducing embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings, Energy Policy, 168, 112920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112920 · DOI
  50. Squires, G., & Heurkens, E. (2014). International approaches to real estate development. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315774350 · DOI
  51. Squires, G., & Heurkens, E. (2016). Methods and models for international comparative approaches to real estate development. Land Use Policy, 50(Suppl. C), 573-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2015.10.005 · DOI
  52. Stephan, A., Crawford, R. H., & de Myttenaere, K. (2013). Multi-scale life cycle energy analysis of a low- density suburban neighbourhood in Melbourne, Australia. Building and Environment, 68, 35-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.06.003 · DOI
  53. Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218648 · DOI
  54. Thomsen, A., & Van der Flier, K. (2011). Understanding obsolescence: A conceptual model for buildings. Building Research & Information, 39(4), 352-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.576328 · DOI
  55. Tzannes, A. (2016). Designing Central Park, Chippendale. Architectural Bulletin, 18-21. http:// architecturebulletin.com.au/winter-spring-2016/designing-central-park-chippendale/
  56. Van der Flier, K., & Thomsen, A. (2006). Life cycle of dwellings: Analysis and assessment of demolition by Dutch housing associations. Paper presented at the ENHR Conference Housing in an Expanding Europe: Theory, Policy, Participation and Implementation, Ljubljana, Slovenia, p. 18. https://repository.tudelft.nl/ islandora/object/uuid%3Ab45c0354-40b5-44d7-94e9-0e8fc1d18928
  57. Van Duijn, M., Rouwendal, J., & Boersema, R. (2016). Redevelopment of industrial heritage: Insights into external effects on house prices. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 57(March), 91-107. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.02.001 506 · DOI
  58. TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Baker, H., Moncaster, A., Wilkinson, S., & Remøy, H. (2023). Demolition or retention of buildings: drivers at the masterplan scale. Buildings and Cities, 4(1), pp. 488-506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.308 Submitted: 15 February 2023 Accepted: 28 June 2023 Published: 21 July 2023 COPYRIGHT: © 2023 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.
  59. which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. Buildings and Cities is a peer- reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.
  60. Verhage, R. (2003). The role of the public sector in urban development: Lessons from Leidsche Rijn Utrecht (The Netherlands). Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), 29-44. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/1464935032000057191 · DOI
  61. Watson, P. (2009). The key issues when choosing adaptation of an existing building over new build. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(3), 215-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008. · DOI
  62. Wilkinson, S. (2011). The relationship between building adaptation and property attributes (doctoral thesis, Deakin University).
  63. Wilkinson, S., & Remoy, H. (Eds.). (2018). Building resilience in urban settlements through sustainable change of use. Wiley-Blackwell.
  64. Zamanifard, H., Alizadeh, T., & Bosman, C. (2018). Towards a framework of public space governance. Cities. 78(August), 155-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.010 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, H., Moncaster, A., Wilkinson, S. J., & Remøy, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • The Open University (GB)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Baker, Hannah
  • Moncaster, Alice
  • Wilkinson, Sara J.
  • Remøy, Hilde
ORCID
Venue
Buildings & Cities
Publisher
Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
Published
2023-07-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2632-6655 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5334/bc.308
OpenAlex
W4385143571
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Buildings and Cities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EP/L016095/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Planning and Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Keywords
building demolition, adaptive reuse, brownfields, cultural heritage preservation, carbon retention, climate change, urban planning policy, stakeholder priorities, urban development models, Cambridge, Eindhoven, Sydney

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review