A Concept For Sustainable Building Projects Using Hybrid Modular and Adaptive Reuse Strategies

THE COOPER UNION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART
ALBERT NERKEN SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
A Concept for Sustainable Building

Projects Using Hybrid Modular and
Adaptive Reuse Strategies
By
Joshua Kitagorsky
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering
Advisor
Professor Cosmas Tzavelis
THE COOPER UNION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART
ALBERT NERKEN SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the Candidate’s Thesis Advisor and has received
approval. It was submitted to the Dean of the School of Engineering and the full Faculty, and
was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering.
5.6.2022
______________________________________
Barry L. Shoop, Ph.D., P.E. – Date
Dean, Albert Nerken School of Engineering
5.6.2022
___________________________________________
Prof. Cosmas Tzavelis, PhD., P.E. – Date
Candidate’s Thesis Advisor
Letter of Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals who have helped me with the
completion of this thesis. First, I would like to thank my parents whose love, patience, and
support throughout my entire experience at The Cooper Union have helped me complete my
collegiate education and this thesis. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Cosmas Tzavelis,
for providing me with guidance throughout the thesis process from the inception of the topic
through its completion.
I would also like to thank Dr. Vito Guido, Chair of the Civil Engineering Department, Dr.
Cosmas Tzavelis, Dr. Joe Cataldo, Dr. Constantine Yapijakis, and Dr. Lee as well the many
other professors who’s classes I have taken for providing the environment and education, both in
and out of the classroom, in which I was able to learn while at The Cooper Union and providing
me with the skills I will need to become a great, professional, Civil Engineer.
Lastly, I would like to thank The Cooper Union for providing me with a high-level
education, scholarships, and an amazing community enabling me to can enter the professional
world with all the tools necessary to thrive in the real world.
i|Page
Abstract
The proposed concept for a combination of hybrid modular construction and adaptive reuse
consists of the insertion of volumetric modular spaces into existing buildings which serve as
permanent host structures for interchangeable components. This concept helps implement a
circular economy within the built environment using multiple circular design strategies resulting
in a more sustainable building construction concept that also preserves the cultural and
architectural value of older buildings. In this building concept, existing building systems are
minimally retro0fitted to support the installation of modules while preserving as much as feasible
of the original structure, especially the structural and façade systems that are the most valuable
for the potential projects. The use of a hybrid modular system provides flexibility to the use of
the existing building space over the course of its operational life which is also extended through
the application of the new concept. This thesis provides broad guidelines and considerations for
such a building concept, taking into account the requirements of each constituent strategy as well
as extra requirements arising from the combination. The goal of this thesis is to propose a
building concept that can help move the built environment towards less rigid and more
sustainable practices that will be necessary to deal with a rapidly changing world. Potential uses
for this hybrid modular adaptive reuse concept are proposed as well as possible future avenues of
research and refinement that may be necessary.
ii | P a g e
Table of Contents
Title Page
Signature Page
Letter of Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. i

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
Thesis ........................................................................................................................................... viii
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problems Facing the Built Environment ...................................................................... 1
1.2 Introduction to Possible Solution ................................................................................. 2
2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Circular Economy/Circular Design .............................................................................. 4
2.2 DfA ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Modular Construction ................................................................................................. 17
2.4 Barriers ....................................................................................................................... 27
2.5 Enablers ...................................................................................................................... 28
3 Case Studies ....................................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Atlantic Yard B2 – Modular ....................................................................................... 31
3.2 LocHal - Adaptive Reuse ........................................................................................... 36
3.3 Empire Stores – Adaptive Reuse ................................................................................ 42
3.4 Pier 57 – Adaptive Reuse / Modular .......................................................................... 50
4 Proposed Building Concept ............................................................................................... 55
4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 55
4.2 Suitable Projects ......................................................................................................... 55
4.3 Procedure and Considerations .................................................................................... 56
4.4 Potential Layouts ........................................................................................................ 70
5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 78
5.1 Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 78
iii | P a g e
5.2 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 81
5.3 Future Considerations ................................................................................................. 84
6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 88
1 Additional Circular Economy Diagrams ........................................................................... 88
2 Additional Concept Modular Layout Figures .................................................................... 90
3 Factors that facilitate the implementation of adaptive reuse and hybrid modular in a
building project ....................................................................................................................... 103
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 105
iv | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Linear Building Lifecycle Phases (Foster, 2020) ............................................................ 5

Figure 2: Circular Framework for Adaptive Reuse Projects (Foster, 2020) ................................... 7
Figure 3: Common Module Arrangements (Core Cluster - Top, Corridor Cluster - Bottom)
(Lawson et al., 2012) .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Hybrid Modular Building Concept (di Pasquale et al., 2020) ....................................... 22
Figure 5: Rail Assembly for Module Insertion (di Pasquale et al., 2020) .................................... 24
Figure 6: Module Plug-in Sequencing (di Pasquale et al., 2020) ................................................. 25
Figure 7: Extended Host Structure Hybrid Modular Option (di Pasquale et al., 2020) ................ 26
Figure 8: Atlantic Yards B2 Module Floor Plan (Arup) ............................................................... 31
Figure 9: Atlantic Yards B2 Rendering (SHoP Architects) .......................................................... 32
Figure 10: Atlantic Yards B2 Structural System (Arup) .............................................................. 33
Figure 11: Module Fabrication Phases (Arup).............................................................................. 34
Figure 12: Modules on Pedestals in Factory for Fit-out (Arup) ................................................... 35
Figure 13: Completed Module in Factory (Arup) ......................................................................... 35
Figure 14: LocHal Exterior Front View Showing Existing Facade and Structural System (Civic)
....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 15: LocHal Side Exterior View Showing Existing Structural System and Façade (Civic)37
Figure 16: Building Section of LocHal Project (Arup) ................................................................ 38
Figure 17: Floorplans of LocHal Showing Existing Structural Grid with New Use Spaces and
Auditorium (Arup) ........................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 18: Interior of LocHal Showing New Bleacher Section and Library Space (Arup) ......... 40
Figure 19: LocHal Interior Layout Showing Bleacher Structure and New Levels (Arup) ........... 40
Figure 20: Exterior View of Empire Stores Complex (S9 Architecture)...................................... 42
Figure 21: Historical Photograph of the Warehouses of Empire Stores (Brooklyn Historical
Society) ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 22: Conditions of Warehouse Before Redevelopment - Exterior on Left, Interior on Right
....................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 23: Exposed View of Empire Stores Structural System During Construction (Silman) ... 45
Figure 24: Steel Roof Framing Connecting to Existing Timber Framing (Silman) ..................... 46
Figure 25: View of New Courtyard Passage Through Complex (S9 Architecture) ..................... 47
Figure 26: Interior View of Gallery Space and Modified Windows (S9 Architecture) ................ 48
Figure 27: Exterior View of New Roof Framing and Public Park Space (S9 Architecture) ........ 49
Figure 28: Overview of Project Work and Phasing (S9 Architecture) ......................................... 49
Figure 29: Historic Drawing Section of Pier 57 Structure ............................................................ 50
Figure 30: Existing Interior Conditions as Used for Bus Depot (left), Historic Photograph of Use
as Shipping Terminal (Right)........................................................................................................ 51
Figure 31: Exterior Photographs of Existing Conditions at Pier 57 Prior to Redevelopment ...... 51
Figure 32: Rendering of Pier 57 Redevelopment ......................................................................... 52
Figure 33: Rendered Section of Pier 57 Redevelopment .............................................................. 52
v|Page
Figure 34: Rendered Views of Modular Layout of Interior Market Space Using Shipping
Containers (Exterior - Upper Left, Interior - Upper Right, 3D View of Modules - Bottom) [Lot-
Ek] ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 35: Layout A1 Floorplan ................................................................................................... 73
Figure 36: Layout A1 3D View and Detail ................................................................................... 74
Figure 37: Layout B1 Floorplan ................................................................................................... 75
Figure 38: Layout B1 3D View and Detail ................................................................................... 76
Figure 39: Selected Applicable UN Sustainable Development Goals .......................................... 80
Figure 40: Sample of Circularized Building Lifecycle with strategies (Foster, 2020) ................. 88
Figure 41: Circularity Strategies in order of increasing priority................................................... 89
Figure 42: Industry City Building Floorplan ................................................................................ 91
Figure 43: Baseline Building Floorplan ........................................................................................ 92
Figure 44: Baseline Building 3D View ......................................................................................... 93
Figure 51: Layout B2 Floorplan ................................................................................................. 100
Figure 52: Layout B2 3D View and Detail ................................................................................. 101
Figure 53: Grasshopper Script used to Generate Concept Massing Layouts.............................. 102
vi | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Pros and Cons of Each Proposed Layout ................................................... 77

Table 2: Comparison of Circular Building Concepts (Positives in Blue, Negatives in Red) ....... 78
vii | P a g e
Thesis
[Thesis content will start on the following page]
viii | P a g e
1 Introduction
1.1 Problems Facing the Built Environment
One of the most crucial factors for human wellbeing is the need for shelter. The construction,
operation, and disposal of buildings for shelter is done on a massive scale around the world
because of this fundamental need and it is this demand that makes the construction industry and
built environment the greatest consumer of resources and raw materials globally (WEF, 2016).
As the global population rises, the demand for buildings follows. This causes resource
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the building industry to rise steadily as well.
According to the IEA (International Energy Association), building related emissions have
increased by 45% since 1990 (OECD/IEA, 2017). As the building sector is the greatest
contributor to climate change and global warming, it stands to reason those immediate changes
to the industry are necessary to meet the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels, as mentioned by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)
in 2018 (Rogelj et al., 2018).
Worldwide systems of trading exchanges and globalization have created the need for a global
skilled working middle class. This class is needed to support ever increasing economic growth in
the world, and as the populations shift towards cities, building capacity, port capacity, and
municipal utilities capacity needs to grow to accommodate this. The building stock will need to
be able to support a diverse working class that moves across the global network of cities and
needs more flexible and temporal working and living lifestyles.(Dobbs et al., 2012)
At the same time, there has been a shift in attitudes towards working and living since the start of
the COVID-19 pandemic, especially towards the allowance of remote or hybrid working
arrangements instead of full-time in-person work. (Parker et al., 2021) While this recent and
1|Page
ongoing shift may reduce the need for to cater for a globe-trotting working class specifically,
population growth in cities still needs to be accommodated especially in ones with very old and
inflexible building stocks.
Cultural heritage can be a resource for economic development for areas worldwide, with cities
such as Paris, New York, and Dubai being examples of places with historic districts that preserve
history and tie together commercial districts with tourist attractions. Preservation of this cultural
heritage and its constituent historic buildings, which hold the cultural significance themselves, is
crucial as areas around the world keep building to match growth.
A common symptom of growth is the gentrification. Neighborhoods see economic investment
and new construction which may be necessary, but it comes at the cost of a demographic shift
and loss of cultural heritage. The residents of a neighborhood are displaced due to increases in
rents and local incomes and the culturally significant buildings are torn down to make room for
expensive new construction. Some local and national governments have used gentrification as a
public policy selling it as a positive policy that promotes social mixing or using it as a tool for
city branding or nation-state-building. However, any potential social or economic benefits come
at the cost of the unrecoverable loss of local cultural history and harming the residents of the
area. (de Cesari & Dimova, 2019; What Are Gentrification and Displacement, n.d.)
1.2 Introduction to Possible Solution
The presented issues with the built environment can be addressed through the
implementation of circular economy design strategies. A circular economy strives to reduce
resource and energy waste while minimizing emissions through the conversion of linear material
and building lifecycles into ones that are loops or close to being closed loops. There are many
circular design strategies that can be used throughout the various aspects of a building project
2|Page
ranging from specific design or operational choices to higher level design directions. Two such
higher level design strategies are modular construction and adaptive reuse. Both strategies make
for more efficient resource use in construction and allow for more flexible use of buildings than
traditional construction projects. Adaptive reuse allows for the preservation of cultural heritage
through a repurposing of existing buildings instead of demolition to facilitate new construction.
Modular construction can be used to standardize components and spaces in buildings allowing
for greater adaptability of the concept for a variety of projects and over the course of a building’s
lifecycle. A proposed concept for the combination of modular construction and adaptive reuse
can combine the benefits of each circular design strategy in a single project while taking
advantage of overlapping requirements.
3|Page
2 Background
2.1 Circular Economy/Circular Design
2.1.1 Concept
The concept of circular economy in the built environment is a system the helps reduce
resource use, waste, emissions, and energy use through the slowing, narrowing, and eventual
closing of material and energy loops. Currently, building lifecycles are generally linear, starting
with materials and energy being used in the creation of building components, then construction
and operation phases, and then lost at the end of the building's operational life as it is
demolished, and its remnants are carted off to landfills to sit unused. However, the definition of
the building lifecycle is not uniform, with various lifecycle analysis (LCA) methods in use but it
is generally defined as cradle to gate (resource extraction to construction). It can also be defined
as cradle to cradle (which includes the environmental impacts at the very beginning and end of a
product’s life). Cradle to cradle analysis is what is considered for CE strategies. Building life
cycle phases are commonly defined as: design, building material sourcing, building
(construction, rehab, adaption), use and operation, and repurpose and demolition. A higher level
of circularity means that materials remain in the product value chain for longer and are more
effectively utilized or don’t needlessly enter the value chain at all. Slowing, narrowing, and
closing the linear lifecycle into loops prevents and discourages the waste of energy and
materials. In a fully circular material loop, building components do not necessarily have a
destination in a landfill as in a linear lifecycle. A description of a linear lifecycle is given in
figure 1, and an example of a circularized lifecycle is given in the Appendix.
4|Page
Figure 1: Linear Building Lifecycle Phases (Foster, 2020)
Circular design strategies help mitigate the environmental impact of construction in
general and minimizes the production of demolition waste. Construction demolition waste
(CDW) accounts for a significant portion of global waste generation and emissions meaning that
a mitigation in this sector would have a significant effect on global waste and emissions
generation. This is increasingly important as more than half the world's population lives in cities
that are only growing. Circular economy and subsequent circular design strategies are effective
methods for increasing the sustainability of the built environment, despite there currently being
challenges that prevent it from gaining wider recognition and use globally. For some
stakeholders, it can be difficult to see the benefits of a circular economy due to the added up-
front costs associated with such design strategies as well as the current inability to fully replace
the need for other sorts of construction. For example, a reused building may not meet the same
stringent standards as a new building designed for net-zero emission buildings or it may not be
able to support the most bespoke or demanding uses as well as a building purpose built for those
uses.
5|Page
To help mitigate the challenges facing the adoption of a circular economy, a framework
can be used as a guide for stakeholders in the duration of a building project assisting with the
application of CE strategies and project assessment while raising awareness of the benefits and
necessity of the circular economy. One such framework is proposed in “Circular economy
strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts”
(Foster, 2020). The strategies proposed in this paper’s framework all seek to create feedback
loops within various phases of a building’s lifecycle which would then go on help circularize the
whole product supply chain. This framework lists forty-seven strategies by lifecycle phase and
the circularity zone indicating the degree to which the strategy implements CE goals. The
circularity zones in this framework are defined as Useful application of materials, Extending the
lifespan of buildings and its parts, and Smarter building use and manufacture (listed in order of
increasing benefit to a circularized and sustainable environment). The mentioned circular
economy framework is provided below in figure 2, and a larger diagram of circularity zones is
provided in the appendix.
6|Page
Figure 2: Circular Framework for Adaptive Reuse Projects (Foster, 2020)
7|Page
The strategies listed cover all phases of the lifecycle and levels of circularity applied to
adaptive reuse projects. However, these strategies are not necessarily limited in applicability to
adaptive reuse projects and work for other CE related strategies. Not all projects will necessarily
be suitable for the application of all the proposed strategies, and the implementation of certain
strategies may prevent others. The use of a framework as a starting point or toolkit can facilitate
the introduction of circular economy practices into the built environment with buy-in from
stakeholders on all sides of a project. A variety of frameworks can be proposed and devised to
provide more tailored guidance for specific localities or design firms’ skillsets.
8|Page
Overall, the principles of circular building design involve the reduction of resources and
materials (dematerialization), preservation and extension of resources (natural and processed),
design for extended use and future recovery, and design for technical and biological cycles.
Within a circular built environment, buildings should both be designed and operated with
adaption and deconstruction in mind to ensure a higher degree of sustainability. These principles
can be incorporated into building projects using a variety of design strategies such as design for
disassembly (DfD) and design for adaptability (DfA) as well as the reuse of building
components, adaptive reuse, use of biodegradable building materials, and many other strategies
which are listed in the framework and will be further discussed.
2.1.2 Strategies
There are many circular economy strategies ranging from specific actions that can be
done during the design process or other phase of a building’s lifecycle to more broad design
strategies that would incorporate many smaller actions throughout the lifecycle and dictate how a
project is run. To achieve a circular economy, circular building design involves the use of a wide
range of such strategies, such as DfD or DfA, which would allow for future repair,
remanufacturing, and reuse of building individual components, adaptive reuse of whole
buildings, or the use of salvaged materials in new construction.
For a building project to be compatible with circular design, there are steps that can be
taken to facilitate the use of design strategies. On a project level scale, the building concept
should be made with adaptability and flexibility in mind, this helps guide decision making on
strategies of a smaller scale throughout the project. Documentation of all facets of the design is
crucial. Everything from material information to construction and deconstruction plans should be
permanently documented to facilitate future adaption or reuse. On the scale of building materials
9|Page
and components, the use of lightweight and non-toxic materials is important as well as the
minimization of the types of materials to help simplify the project and salvaged material should
be used where possible. Joints, structural and otherwise, should be designed to be dismantlable,
not welded, so that there would not be damage during future work. Additionally, the use of
modular or prefabricated components can help facilitate circular design through the
standardization, documentation, and ease of construction that would come with that construction.
This is not an exhaustive list of strategies for circular design, nor are these strategies
exclusive. The circular economy framework provided earlier consists of a more comprehensive
list of specific design strategies, but even that is not full exhaustive. There is a plethora of
circular design strategies that fall under all phases and facets of a building project.
An example of an operational strategy for circular design is for the replacement of unique
building components and systems for product service systems involving the leasing of building
components to the owner by a manufacturer. This strategy would incentivize designing for
deconstruction and adaption along with taking some risk and cost away from the building
owners.
Aside from design or operation strategies that support a circular economy, an example
can be made for a common design and construction practice that does not align with circular
design very well. For an optimized structural design, a composite material, such as the
ubiquitous steel reinforced concrete or composite wood beams, provides great performance,
flexibility in application, and can be cost effective. However, it is not conducive for circular
design since it is difficult to disassemble and recover the constituent materials that are bound
together.
10 | P a g e
It's important to mention that circular design doesn’t have to only be considered in terms
of practical steps that can be taken. A more intangible strategy of circular design is designing for
emotional durability, not just physical, in which the building is loved and appreciated for longer
through taking user experience into account encouraging better care for the structure. This
intangible strategy has significant overlap with adaptive reuse which seeks to extend the life of
buildings of cultural value and heritage that are already well loved. This specific strategy will be
discussed further in another section.
The strategies that are most crucial to the new proposed concept are DfA along with
adaptive reuse, and modular construction, with principles of DfD included as well. These project
level strategies are going to be discussed further.
2.2 DfA
Design for Adaptability (DfA) involves the intentional design of buildings for easy
renovation and adaptation for changing needs and preferences. This can be applied to new
construction or for retrofitting existing buildings as in adaptive reuse projects. Adaptability, in
this context, can be defined as the ease with which a building can be physically modified,
deconstructed, refurbished, or otherwise repurposed to help promote economic, environmental,
and social sustainability. Another way to define design for adaptability is creating buildings that
are resistant to obsolescence and preventing the subsequent demolition despite having some
service life left, means creating adaptable buildings (Ross et al., 2016). Related to DfA, DfD is
another CE design strategy which plans for a building’s end-of-life function and as such has
overlap with DfA and other CE strategies.
The modern notion of adaptable buildings originated in the era post-WWII to help
address housing challenges. A concept of support and infill for buildings was proposed where an
11 | P a g e
existing structure supports a varying type of infill or use as an adaptive reuse of existing
structures. More recently the concepts of circular economy and adaptive design have grown from
this and become more well-known but are still not necessarily well tied together, or the
intersection of the two is noted but not as well researched.
To help understand what DfA would entail on a practical level, the enablers and barriers
to this design strategy were studied through a literature review. In Rockow et al., 2021, the
authors sought to determine what physical characteristics of a building facilitated or impeded
adaptation to formulate themes which would be reviewed and refined in an iterative process.
This work was done through the collection of empirical survey data from design professionals
along with comparison to similar papers and literature with more theoretical content. There were
three categories of themes: Design Features, Physical Condition, and Context of Building.
However, for the purpose of comparison with other studies and literature and to look at what is
most actionable, the Design Features them was focused on.
The Design Feature themes were Plans, Reserve, Layer, Open, Floor to Floor Height,
Simple, Material, Services, and Design Other (as a catchall for things that didn’t fit). These
themes were kept broad to suit the responses and many of the characteristics and clusters of the
other papers were either analogous or related to these themes. The themes were defined
iteratively as the process went on. Plans involves the quality/availability of as-built plans,
models, or other documentation of the building. Reserve involves the adequacy of load capacity
of a structure or foundation system for adaptation. Layer involves the separation of and ease of
access to various building layers, such as the structure, skin, services, and others. Open involves
the degree of openness and number of obstructions in the floor plan. Floor to Floor Height
involves the adequacy of the floor-to-floor height (not ceiling) for adaptation for systems such as
12 | P a g e
HVAC. Material involves the quality or durability of the materials used in the design, as well as
any toxicity or hazards associated with them. Services refers to the adequacy of the existing
building services such as means of egress, utilities, plumbing, etc. These themes were intended to
illustrate overlap between the empirical/practical experiences of the survey respondents and the
theoretical design strategies of literature. They were also meant to account for both the negative
and positive feedback regarding within each of the themes, these two reasons contributed to the
broadness of the feature names and descriptions.
For each of the design themes, the authors were able to glean general concepts if not hard
rules for DfA which are summarized here. Having up to date plans and building information was
found to be crucial and a common source of problems in DfA implementation. Modern
electronic documentation and BIM modelling helps address this for new DfA construction but
doesn’t address the lack of information about existing building stock. Regarding openness, frame
structures were found to be preferable to bearing wall structures and wider column spacings and
grids were preferable to narrower spacings. Additionally, lighter framed walls were preferable to
heavier ones since they were easier to remove. Floor to floor height should be maximized to
accommodate ceiling space for new services but is highly situational and can be adapted to
depending on the design of new services. Buildings with simple designs involving uncomplex
geometry, repetition, and straightforward structural systems were most preferable for adaption.
Interestingly, a simpler design will reduce construction costs while many other strategies for
facilitating adaption end up increasing it. Materials in a building should have sufficient quality
and durability to last the current building life cycle as well as any future uses. Building layers (as
mentioned above) should be separate and easy to access and change. Structures and foundations
should be designed with sufficient capacity to support adaption and future adaption.
13 | P a g e
Certain DfA design strategies did not fall into the Design Feature themes, these were
mostly involving connections, component accessibility, standardization, and modularity. Many
of these strategies are important for DfD or modular design in general. This indicates that within
adaption projects specifically they may be less prevalent or crucial compared to what other
literature may suggest and it also shows a lack of end of life or continued adaption planning, both
of which are enablers of CE.
The themes that this paper uses in its analysis, as well as the strategies, are applicable to
both adaptive reuse projects where an existing structure is being assessed and adapted for a new
use and for new projects where a building is designed to account for possible future adaptation or
other changes.
Another paper that was reviewed studies enablers/strategies for creating adaptable
buildings through a survey of design professionals (Ross et al., 2016). Only design-based
enablers of building adaptability were studied in this paper, not including process-based enablers
which are dependent on supply, construction, and operational systems that aid adaptation and
change.
The enablers studied were as follows. Layering of building components and systems,
separation of site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and stuff to allow for maintenance,
adaption, or replacement with minimal effects on other components. Accurate information on the
as-builts and site conditions of a building which helps a designer make appropriate choices in an
adaption project minimizing the risk and uncertainty involved (especially prevalent in an existing
building project). Reserve capacity in a building is needed to accommodate changing uses and
changing design needs. This is most effective with a building’s structural system and foundation
as they are least likely to be replaced and can be designed to sustain different design loads. DfD,
14 | P a g e
which accounts for the end-of-life conditions of a building allowing for components to be reused
and replaced as needed. The use of non-permanent mechanical connections allows for removal
and addition of components throughout a building’s life cycle. Access for assessment is
necessary to be able to effectively adapt a building through its life cycle without guessing the
conditions of components. A simple building design and especially a simple structural system
lends itself to being easily understood and adapted in the future. Appropriate material use is
necessary so that components are durable enough and non-hazardous to be reused in the future.
Open layouts, like simple design lend themselves to the flexibility needed for successful
adaptation of an existing building in the future. Commonality, defined as the use of same
component sizes and details through a building, and Modularity, defined as the standardization
of components through a building. Both are necessary to have components be easily replaceable,
and reusable as needed for adaption. The greater the commonality and modularity of a design,
the better for DfD and DfA.
Using data from the survey and analysis of the statistical significance of the authors’ null
hypotheses, it is established that the enablers are not equally effective in promoting adaptability,
with 4 standing out in particular: Plans (documentation), Reserve, Layering, and Openness. It
was also established that the varying groups surveyed (varying from engineers to architects to
construction managers and others) didn’t have significantly different perspectives on the
effectiveness on the top four enablers. A separate analysis was run on the interaction of the
groups within the top 4 enablers. Despite the sample size being relatively small, this is a
promising study, nonetheless. The two least effective (relatively) enablers were DfD and
Modularity. The authors theorized that it is because it is not commonly applied in the US,
possibly like modularity, especially compared to Europe. These two papers, as many others on
15 | P a g e
the topic come to broadly similar conclusions on what strategies and actions to employ when
designing a building to adaptable.
Given the relative broadness but practicality of the strategies presented, guidelines for
adaptable design can be approximately determined. It is important to mention that while these
are specifically intended for adaptable design and can be grouped together as such, they all still
fall under the larger umbrella of circular design strategies and can be considered as good
practices for the implementation of a circular economy.
2.2.1 Adaptive Reuse
While the logic and strategies for DfA are applicable for new construction and existing
construction adaption, adaptive reuse projects have additional nuances to consider that make
them different from designing a new building to be adaptable.
Adaptive reuse projects involve former places of worship, royal residences, industrial
production sites, early office buildings or other types of buildings. These buildings are usually
abandoned or underutilized but are important for local or national heritage and cultural history.
The adaptive reuse of a cultural heritage project involves the retrofit, rehabilitation, and
redevelopment of buildings that reflect the changing needs of the community. The research in
“Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce
environmental impacts” (Foster, 2020) is motivated by four key drivers: CE being a new and
compelling strategy for achieving a sustainable economy, the key role the building and
construction industry play in people’s well-being and their high environmental impact,
urbanization trends underscoring sustainable urban planning research, and the existence of
cultural heritage resources in buildings in many urban centers and their potential use for
sustainability.
16 | P a g e
A challenge for adaptive reuse and utilizing a CE framework to assist with implementing
a sustainable design, is that all cultural heritage buildings and case studies for adaptive reuse
projects are all quite unique and vary significantly based on the location and community.
Therefore, guidelines and frameworks such as the ones presented above are used differently than
in a new construction project. The frameworks and strategies are used first to assess the level of
circularity and sustainability that a certain target building design can feasibly achieve before
going on with the project. Should a project be deemed feasible for a certain level of circular
design, then strategies and frameworks can actually be implemented. New construction projects
that intend to have design for adaptability can be conceptualized like this from the very
beginning which is not feasible for adapting historic buildings that were built with different
design intentions and without necessarily considering what else the building could be used for or
for future adaption.
2.3 Modular Construction
Modular construction, in the context of this thesis paper, involves prefabricated
volumetric units that are fully fitted out in manufacture and installed on site as building blocks.
In practice, various levels of modularity and prefabrication are used ranging from individual
elements to some combinations to the volumetric modules discussed in this section. Volumetric
modules are usually designed to be load bearing and could be designed to be dismantled and re-
used. The main advantages of modular construction are the economy of scale in manufacturing
multiple standardized units, faster on-site installation, and the increase in quality and accuracy in
manufacturing and construction. Module size needs to be compatible with manufacturing
capabilities as well as transportation restrictions in the locality. Two common forms of modular
construction using steel are load bearing modules that use side walls for load transfer and corner
17 | P a g e
supported modules that use edge beams and corner supports for load transfer. The form of
module that uses sidewalls involves the use of light steel c-sections spaced at 1-2’ apart as the
main form of load resistance (compression resistance), while the corner supporting form
frequently relies on square HSS sections. In considering the stability of modular assemblies,
there must be diaphragm action within the boards or bracing within walls for 4-6 story structures,
separate braced structures in shafts are suitable for 6-10 stories, and then taller structures would
most benefit from an RC or steel core with modules tied in (Lawson et al., 2012).
Various types of modules, such as room, paired rooms, or room and corridor modules can
be combined to create varying floor plans and apartment types. However, in a taller structure,
the need for modules to be clustered around a core or other stabilizing system reduces the
flexibility of module type use. Modules are typically 11 to 14 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet long
(270-375 ft^2 area). In most module applications, the kitchens, bathrooms, or other utility
intensive components are located close to the location of the module connection to the building
to allow for easy connection to utilities as well. In cases where modules are load bearing, the side
walls and corner columns should align vertically through a building. Openings of up to 2.5m
width could be worked around to allow for connection between modules. Two common
arrangements of modules are clustering around a core or in a corridor arrangement with modules
arranged on either side of the core. Diagrams of the two common arrangements are provided in
figure 3.
18 | P a g e
Figure 3: Common Module Arrangements (Core Cluster - Top, Corridor
Cluster - Bottom) (Lawson et al., 2012)
19 | P a g e
When considering the structural design of tall modular buildings, certain unique factors
must be considered. Installation eccentricities and manufacturing tolerance can create additional
forces or moments in the module structures. Additionally, second order affects due to sway
stability in module groups must be considered, along with the mechanism of lateral load transfer.
Modular systems must also be designed for robustness and tolerance for accidental actions. An
assembly of modules must resist the applied loads in the event of damage to a module at a lower
level, this relies on the tie forces in the corners of the modules, specifically, the accidental limit
state must be considered. To satisfy robustness, the minimum horizontal force in any tie should
not be taken as less than 30% of the total load acting on the module, including both vertical and
horizontal forces from a simplified model where a module is suspended from all other adjacent
modules, and not less than 30kN (or 3 tons) (Lawson et al., 2012).
Modules should also be designed for adequate fire resistance and acoustic insulation. The
double layering of walls in module construction lends itself to this by increasing separation and
mass between spaces.
There are many sustainability and economic benefits of modular construction. Modular
construction reduces construction waste, noise, and disruption. It also increases the energy
performance of the building and efficiency of material use (lowering the embodied energy of the
construction) through the tight tolerances that can be achieved off site. Modular construction
streamlines the construction process lowering the overall cost of labor for the project through
quick installation, reduced site infrastructure, and efficient materials use, and saves money
through a much faster startup of either the business or rental space, but it requires some
additional costs as well.
20 | P a g e
Investment in a production facility, the need for a sufficient production volume to create
an economy of scale, as well additional transportation and installation costs compared to
traditional construction need to be considered in the planning stages of a modular project.
Analysis of case studies in Lawson et al., 2012 mentioned that between the various case
studies it was found that modular construction can be used for residential use up to about 25
stories provided stability from a concrete or steel framed core, and a high-rise modular building
had a steel usage ranging from 14 to 24 psf depending on the floor level (higher floors being
lighter). It was also concluded that the modular components themselves accounted for 45% of
the total project cost, construction time was reduced by over 50%, and waste was reduced by
70% (most of which could be recycled as well).
2.3.1 Hybrid Modular Construction
Increases in labor cost and scarcity as well as a need for higher levels of environmental
sustainability in construction have created a need for new construction methods in the built
environment, one such solution being the use of modular construction. As discussed in the
previous section, modular construction reduces construction time, disturbance, waste, and
pollution while providing greater ease of fabrication and high standardization and replicability.
Another demand that modular construction can potentially address is the relatively new
trend of temporary and flexible housing which stems from an increasingly globalized economy
in which professionals and businesses regularly relocate from city to city. However, there are
challenges that are preventing its widespread use such as the need for customized modularization
of single buildings as well as transportation challenges and greater upfront costs compared to
traditional construction. Traditional construction remains the cheaper and simpler option in most
21 | P a g e
cases, but it generally provides an inflexible design, and the construction process tends to be
quite wasteful and harmful to the environment.
A concept for a hybrid modular building is presented as a solution to multiple issues in
the building industry in di Pasquale et al., 2020. The concept keeps traditional construction in the
design where beneficial and introduces modularization into components that are easily
replicable, separating the building into two categories. The building is split into a traditionally
constructed structure that acts as the main structural system and provides egress, common
spaces, utilities and utilizes while keeping the private spaces as modular components that are
easily replaceable, shown in figure 4. This concept allows for great flexibility in the uses of the
private spaces ranging from residential to various commercial uses and helps address a future
need for adaptability and temporality in the building industry since there is a trend of increased
mobility in working classes and global industries.
Figure 4: Hybrid Modular Building Concept (di Pasquale et al., 2020)
22 | P a g e
Two types of hybrid modular construction are possible. One with an extended host
structure providing volumetric spaces for living modules that are not volumetric themselves and
one with a minimal host structure that has larger flat-packed modules attached which are
volumetric and self-supporting providing both living space and living modules to connect to the
structure.
The three main forms of modular construction, self-supporting, core-supporting, and
frame supported are considered for suitability for a hybrid modular design. A self-supporting
option involves each modular volumetric unit being both self-supporting and part of the main
lateral and gravity system of the building preventing it from being removed, making it a
permanent fixture. Additionally, the standardization of the unit increases the cost in this case
because it needs to work in a multitude of position and under various loads. The core supporting
option involves a reinforced concrete or steel core which houses stairs or elevators within it and
this is surrounded by modules. In this case the core provides the main lateral support of the
structure while the modules constitute their own gravity system. This system, while more
flexible than the self-supporting option still relies on modules to compose a building wide
structural system, meaning that they can’t be removed. Similar to the core supporting option, the
frame supporting option uses steel frames (braced frames) to provide lateral support to the
building with the modules providing gravity support. However, this system can be adapted to
consist of a larger steel frame system that provides both lateral and gravity support to modules.
Either a single type or a combination of these types can be utilized in a modular building. Of
these options, the frame and core supported options are most applicable to a hybrid modular
system.
23 | P a g e
Another unique consideration for the hybrid modular system would be ensuring that a
wide variety of loading cases can be supported stemming from varying configurations of
modules on the structure. For a hybrid modular system to work properly, the individual modules
need to be easily inserted and removed, easily plugged into utility systems, and means of egress,
individually structurally sound during transportation or regular use, and connected securely but
allowing for easy disassembly such that under any loading condition the module will remain
sound individually and as a part of the larger building. This can be accomplished by using rails
upon which the module can freely move, and then be fixed in place using pins and bolted
connections that are easily accessible. The proposed assembly is shown in figure 5 and a diagram
for module insertion sequencing is provided in figure 6.
Figure 5: Rail Assembly for Module Insertion (di Pasquale et al., 2020)
24 | P a g e
Figure 6: Module Plug-in Sequencing (di Pasquale et al., 2020)
25 | P a g e
The system with an extended host structure, as shown in figure 7 could be applied to
adaptive reuse or areas that don’t allow volumetric modules since it further reduces the structural
requirements of the modules down to just providing utilities to the space. The reduced host
structure, uses a more “traditional” module concept wherein it includes useable space, is self-
supporting, and has living modules/utilities within it. Either the frame or core options or a
combination of the two could support a hybrid modular design, extended or reduced core. A
further hybrid of the reduced and extended core concepts might be a useful way to adapt this for
adaptive reuse. The more complete modules from the reduced core option could plug in to an
existing structure retrofitted to provide standardized utility and egress access while providing
replaceable whole spaces instead of just the living modules, and it is this concept that is explored
in the concept section of this thesis.
Figure 7: Extended Host Structure Hybrid Modular Option (di Pasquale et al.,
2020)
26 | P a g e
2.4 Barriers
Despite the benefits of circular design and the design strategies highlighted in this thesis,
it is not really catching on at a wide scale yet. This is due to many commonly identified barriers
to its implementation, some of which being mentioned above. These barriers include cost and
schedule constraints, underdeveloped markets and infrastructure for salvaged materials, and the
fragmented nature of the construction sector. Perceived issues with aesthetics and quality of
salvaged materials, uncertainty about the end-of-life condition of products, lack of fiscal or
regulatory incentives, and a lack of infrastructure or technology to deal with salvaged materials
are frequently observed as well. These are in addition to a lack in widespread education and
understanding in how to implement circular design among the industry and wider public, or an
appreciation for why extra steps should be taken to do it.
Particularly in the realm of modular construction, a lack of local prefabrication
infrastructure hinders the wider adoption of modular and prefabricated design in the US.
Importing of components from abroad greatly increases costs to the point where unless the site is
at a location close to a port, with infrastructure for prefab, it can become infeasible unless the
owner is adamant to fulfill the vision and design as is. Similarly, there is a lack of
standardization in the sizing and transportability of building components as you could see in
prefab design. In prefabricated design, the need for structures to be transportable is one of the
most important limiting factors.
Of the mentioned barriers to circular design, the most significant are lack of client
interest and the conservative nature of the sector relating to minimizing costs of labor. Procuring
and dealing with salvaged products as well as disassembly of a structure both add additional
costs. It is much easier to just demolish something instead of painstakingly taking it apart,
27 | P a g e
especially if it wasn’t designed for this. There is little economic incentive for stakeholders within
the current system of the built environment where all seek to minimize their costs at the expense
of things such as sustainability.
Outside of project stakeholder barriers, local building codes and regulations are quite
rigid and don’t easily allow for the reuse of materials or disassembly/reuse of buildings. Changes
in international building codes are slow to be introduced and even slower to be implemented in
local building codes. Additionally, the use of “existing building” codes specific to working with
existing buildings and not new construction is not as widespread enough compared to other
building codes.
The enablers discussed in the following section can help address these barriers in the
wider scope of the built environment, while the concept proposed in this thesis can help address
and work within some of these barriers to move the built environment at least incrementally to a
circular economy.
2.5 Enablers
A variety of enabling actions and strategies can be employed to address the barriers to the
introduction of a circular economy and circular design to the wider built environment.
To address a lack of knowledge in the industry regarding circular economy and circular
design, the implementation and availability of circular economy frameworks is a practical
solution. Ensuring that all stakeholders of a building project are aware of what actions can be
taken, how design strategies can be implemented, and how they may impact the project is an
important step towards having such strategies being implemented on projects. Frameworks or
guidelines can be produced by a variety of stakeholders ranging from design firms to academia.
28 | P a g e
Examples of this are can already be found such as with the provided framework in this thesis,
and with design firms such as Arup producing their own “Circular Buildings Toolkit” with
strategies and case studies (Arup, n.d.). Leadership from design firms and academia is crucial in
providing a body of knowledge that others can draw from to facilitate their own circular design
projects.
Green building ratings systems have done their best to raise awareness of CE recently,
but not so much in US compared to Europe. Existing GBRSs such as LEED do give credits for
things like life cycle analysis (LCA), adaptive reuse, and the use of salvaged materials, but
differentiation in the credits awarded means many would take the less radical and easier route of
just analysis without any additional action. The encouragement or requirement, on a government
level, of green building rating schemes or even their adoption into local building codes would
promote even more active adoption of beneficial circular design strategies instead of the
optimization of credits to minimize work to get the highest standard. Wider adoption of other
stringent rating systems such as Passive House, Living Building Challenge, and WELL can be
used to help guide circular design in a meaningful way.
The incentivization of circular economy projects from local government is also crucial
for the implementation of a sustainable built environment. Introduction of local laws that require
changes to the building code and construction in general with the intention of combatting climate
change is a great step that is already being taken. Further changes to building codes can force
sustainable development, but incentives, monetary or otherwise, could help speed up this
process.
Investment and buy-in from project stakeholders and the government (if it isn’t a direct
stakeholder) is crucial for bypassing or removing barriers to the introduction of a circular
29 | P a g e
economy. The mentioned enabling strategies help to facilitate the buy in, but as with the built
environment at large, there is no one solution for all barriers since they tend to be very project
and location specific. In the following section, case studies are provided to illustrate how circular
design strategies have been implemented in recent projects as well as some of the challenges that
they had to deal with.
30 | P a g e
3 Case Studies
To help understand the application of the circular design strategies that make up the
proposed concept, multiple case studies were looked. Each case study provides context for how
the design strategies are applied practically and the benefits of each. Specifically, modular
construction and adaptive reuse was focused on.
3.1 Atlantic Yard B2 – Modular
In a study of modular construction, the Atlantic Yards B2 tower in Brooklyn, NY was the
focus. The Atlantic Yards B2 tower initially started as a traditionally constructed concrete flat
slab building, with Forest City as the developer and SHoP as the architects; Arup was brought on
to explore a modular option. It became a modular building to help reduce construction costs and
create a scheme that would work for quick construction of an affordable housing development,
which ultimately did not happen due to the financial crisis occurring at the time. The project is
one of the few tall modularly constructed buildings in the world. The building substructure is
conventionally constructed with reinforced concrete walls, slab, and steel floor framing with slab
on metal deck forming a plinth on which the modules are placed. The building layout follows a
common modular layout around a central corridor with modules on either side.
Figure 8: Atlantic Yards B2 Module Floor Plan (Arup)
31 | P a g e
Apartments consisted of 1, 2, and 3 modules depending on the number of bedrooms needed in
them as shown in a floorplan in figure 8.
Figure 9: Atlantic Yards B2 Rendering (SHoP Architects)
Modules usually fit in to the max dimensions of 15’ by 50’ and 10.5’ tall, in the project
this was limited to 14’ for wide load trucking in NYC. Module size was also limited by crane
requirements, which was limited to a max capacity of 26.5 tons. The modules ranged from 7 to
24 tons and were laid out such that the heaviest loads were located closest to the crane to
accommodate lift limits at the crane radius. The design of the building and the massing variation
resulted in 225 unique module structure types, and subsequently 930 modules due to various
MEP design needs. This caused the project to be more of a development of a modular process
rather than a design of a mass-produced module allowing for mass customization instead of mass
production.
32 | P a g e
The module construction consisted of a fully welded steel framed chassis with trusses on
the walls and ceilings. No concrete was used in the modules to keep the system light compared to
flat-slab construction. Overall, the modular solution weighed 65% of a conventional RC flat slab
design (Farnsworth, 2014). The reduction in superstructure weight resulted in material and cost
savings in the foundation construction. Modules were shipped to site and stacked together. They
were tied together vertically and laterally. The roof of the modules acts as the lateral diaphragm
which carries lateral loads across a floor plate to the braced frames which were positioned in
each primary direction and tied at the top with a hat truss. The modules themselves were the
gravity system and carried their own gravity loads to the substructure as shown in figure 10. The
building also used two tuned mass dampers to limit lateral accelerations, this is needed because
the mass of the building is relatively low but because it is so low, only 2 TMDs were needed to
get sufficient damping.
Figure 10: Atlantic Yards B2 Structural System (Arup)
33 | P a g e
The use of an all-steel solution reduced the number of trades needed on site and allowed a
single steel contractor to oversee braced frame and module structure construction. Modules were
constructed at the factory in groups of 6 to 8 as shown in figures 11, 12, and 13 in a layout that
matched how they would be positioned on site, this allowed workers to visually align systems
and finishes across mate lines and allow construction to proceed with a high level of confidence
on site. Since the lift process was found to take as little as 10 minutes, module erection proved to
be quite quick. The limiting factor on erection was the factory production rate and that only 2-3
modules could be kept on site needing for modules to be delivered on time.
Figure 11: Module Fabrication Phases (Arup)
34 | P a g e
Figure 12: Modules on Pedestals in Factory for Fit-out (Arup)
Figure 13: Completed Module in Factory (Arup)
35 | P a g e
3.2 LocHal - Adaptive Reuse
Figure 14: LocHal Exterior Front View Showing Existing Facade and Structural System (Civic)
In the spoorzone (railroad zone) district of Tilburg in the Netherlands, the town’s former
railway hub was repurposed into a public hub and meeting space. The building is a large double
bay hangar near the railway station. It was built in 1932 for Dutch Railways and consists of two
separate halls that were used for locomotive repair and construction as well as a boiler repair
shop. More recently, the industrial space fell into disuse and has been empty for a while. In the
1990s, the hub was purchased by the city of Tilburg and is a part of renovation plans for the
industrial district. With this project, the industrial hall was refurbished into a modern mixed-use
building focused on the making and retrieving of knowledge. The LocHal redevelopment
consists of 11,200 m^2 of floor area over a 90m by 60m building footprint with a total height of
15m. This consists of a bleacher area which can act as a location for public events or talks, a
knowledge and expertise area for culture and art, an auditorium, the Midden-Brabant Library, a
coffee shop, a 60m long winter garden, office, and various workshops and labs which can be
36 | P a g e
used for a variety of activities. The lead architect for this project was CIVIC, while Arup
provided various engineering services including structural and building services engineering
along with fire safety, lighting, and acoustic consulting (Collon et al., 2020).
Figure 15: LocHal Side Exterior View Showing Existing Structural System and Façade (Civic)
The goal of the project was to retain as much as possible of the original structure, while
adapting the building for new uses. A detailed structural and geotechnical investigation was
conducted to determine what structure elements can remain, reinforced, or replaced. Due to the
building’s previous use as a locomotive repair shop, the structure was designed for high loads
meaning, most of the structure would be able to sustain the new load conditions without much
modification. The giant cranes that were used to lift locomotives off of tracks, the portal frame
structure, and mat slab that supported these loads were able to be reused, with only a few areas
requiring new foundations. Existing slab was demolished in a few areas to allow for the
37 | P a g e
installation of grout piles. The crane structure which was found to be structurally sound was used
to suspend new composite steel concrete floors on upper levels. Existing columns were kept
where possible because they support both the roof as well as cranes on other levels. Areas which
required additional support had 5.4m deep trusses installed between columns.
Drawings showing the structural system and the new programming that was used around
it are shown in figures 16 and 17. Rails that were embedded in the concrete slab were kept as a
feature of the space while allowing for three wheeled tables to be moved along them. The tables
can form a bar, stage, or even move outside if needed. Depressed working pits on the ground
floor were repurposed into office space while being covered with furniture to separate the spaces
and provide an additional mezzanine. The LocHal hanger had large floor to ceiling windows
along much of its façade. These were replaced sparingly only where necessary. Most of the glass
façade is therefore original, as is a lot of the brickwork on the east façade.
Figure 16: Building Section of LocHal Project (Arup)
38 | P a g e
Figure 17: Floorplans of LocHal Showing Existing Structural Grid with New Use Spaces and
Auditorium (Arup)
With the design considered as “living room for the city”, the LocHal was designed for
adaptability with the moveable tables and moveable seating areas to help create areas for either
individual or group use with varying levels of privacy. Additionally, the large open space was
preserved and instead of using internal partition walls, full heigh textile screens were used to
make the space easily dividable in many ways as shown in figures 18 and 19. The screens had a
dual purpose with them being used to provide a softening acoustic element in the hall. Design
decisions with the climate, acoustic, and lighting systems were taken to provide comfort and
uniqueness to each type of space in the hall while still preserving the openness and character of
the hangar space.
39 | P a g e
Figure 18: Interior of LocHal Showing New Bleacher Section and Library Space (Arup)
Figure 19: LocHal Interior Layout Showing Bleacher Structure and New Levels (Arup)
40 | P a g e
Sustainability was also a focus for the project with every design decision taking this into
account. The climate system sought to minimize energy use while treating the whole space as
one area, solving issues that would arise with treating such a large area. Lighting design sought
to maximize use of natural lighting, and acoustic treatments were carefully modeled to efficiently
provide unique and separate spaces accommodating varying noise levels that could arise from
such a large hangar made of materials that amplify sound. At all design choices, original
elements of the building were to be retained instead of replaced, to reduce material waste.
Furthermore, LocHal reused materials from other buildings. A historic glass room from Beurs
van Berlage (the old stock exchange building in Amsterdam) was to be demolished, but the room
and its materials were bought for a nominal price, and it was transported to the LocHal to
become a part of a new glass auditorium venue.
This adaptive reuse project made use of multiple circular design strategies to create a
flexible community space that preserves and honors the history of the area. Minimal new
construction was used on the structure except where necessary and salvaged materials were used
in the project, both strategies quite directly circularize the lifecycle of the materials involved.
The features of this project that facilitated the reuse, specifically the massive open spaces and
very robust structure, also facilitated the design of this space to be adaptable for its present and
future operations. Thus the preservation of the cultural value of this building also added to
overall sustainability of this project. (Collon et al., 2020; Gonzalez, 2019; LocHal Public
Library Tilburg, Public City Forum and Library, Civic Architects, n.d.)
41 | P a g e
3.3 Empire Stores – Adaptive Reuse
In the Dumbo neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY, the Empire Stores retail, and office mixed
use complex was built inside of a 19th century shipping warehouse on the waterfront by the
Brooklyn Bridge. The complex consisting of seven adjacent buildings with about 450,000 square
feet of space. The project didn’t only consist of conversion of interior spaces, it also included a
conversion of the rooftop into a public terrace, two additional stories on the rooftop, as well as a
four-story open-air courtyard running through the center of the building. The courtyard was
excavated from the center of the building creating a massive public space in the center of the
complex and connecting the Brooklyn Bridge Park waterfront to the rest of Dumbo at Water
Street.
Figure 20: Exterior View of Empire Stores Complex (S9 Architecture)
Until 1945, the warehouse was operated by Arbuckle Bros., a coffee industry pioneer.
The shutters on its façade were opened for loading and unloading and allowing coffee beans to
be protected from the weather and theft when closed, shown in figure 21.
42 | P a g e
Figure 21: Historical Photograph of the Warehouses of Empire Stores
(Brooklyn Historical Society)
Since then, it stood vacant for decades with the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission
designating the area a historic district, protecting the building from being demolished. In 2013,
Brooklyn Bridge Park, Midtown Equities, and HK Organization announced plans for the
adaptive reuse project on the site, a part of a larger push to reclaim the waterfront and to renew
abandoned and neglected buildings in the area. The building conditions prior to the start of the
redevelopment project can be seen in figures 22. The design team consisted of S9 Architecture
and Studio V Architecture, Silman as the structural engineer, Mottola Rini Engineers as the MEP
engineer, along with other consultants. In 2017, the project was completed, and the Empire
Stores complex opened to the public.
The new complex combines a variety of different uses and spaces within the renovated
buildings. It provides the area needed office spaces as well as retail, dining, and exhibition
galleries. Notably the Brooklyn Historical Society operates a gallery on the second floor, and
43 | P a g e
Time Out Market New York operates a food hall on the ground floor with over 20 restaurants
and bars.
Figure 22: Conditions of Warehouse Before Redevelopment - Exterior on Left, Interior on Right
(NY Times, Curbed)
The design preserves and adapts much of the original structure and architecture while
adding some elements to modernize the spaces. The original structure consists of unreinforced
brick masonry walls around the perimeter, Manhattan schist load bearing walls between the
buildings, and a grid of heavy timber girders and columns supporting wood joists throughout the
floors, visible in figure 22 and figure 23. Repair work was done on a corner of one of the
buildings using steel strapping and tie backs to stabilize structure. The existing stone and brick
masonry walls and timber columns were repaired and re-supported at the foundation using a new
2’ thick mat slab. Historic cast iron elements, including the façade shutters, were restored, and
repaired where possible.
To connect the adjacent buildings and make the project usable for office and retail space,
many large openings were created through the existing bearing walls between the buildings. The
existing roof was rebuilt using steel instead of timber to support the heavier occupancy loads,
pavers, and planters that would come with the new rooftop park. New steel framing, shown in
44 | P a g e
figure 24, transferred onto existing timber columns and girders as well as the tops of existing
bearing walls where possible. Due to the site’s proximity to the waterfront and subsequent flood
concerns, a Con Edison vault was installed on the roof. This consisted of 20-ton transformers
built inside of concrete vaults, however this and the mechanical equipment for the complex was
confined to an area at the rear of one of the buildings allowing most of the existing structure to
remain unaltered.
Figure 23: Exposed View of Empire Stores Structural System During Construction (Silman)
45 | P a g e
Figure 24: Steel Roof Framing Connecting to Existing Timber Framing (Silman)
The inclusion of the courtyard through the complex involved cutting through two of the
complex’s buildings and moving several full heigh schist bearing walls. Glass curtain walls,
shown in figure 25, were used for the building enclosure in the courtyard area to provide a
modern look to combine with the historic architecture of the structure that is visible from the
courtyard. Crossing the courtyard, two bridges were installed to connect the interior spaces of the
two buildings on either side, and a steel exterior staircase was installed in the courtyard to
connect it to the public space on the roof. The water facing openings (figure 26) were all
enclosed with windows, keeping the historic shutters permanently open.
46 | P a g e
Figure 25: View of New Courtyard Passage Through Complex (S9 Architecture)
This project is a great example of the benefits of an adaptive reuse project and the
positive effects it can have on a neighborhood. The area was left to waste away when the
shipping and manufacturing industries left, but in the preservation of these buildings allowing
them to live on in a new way, their cultural history can live on through their physical presence
and not just in photographs or books. While significant work, not just structural, was done to the
buildings to help modernize and adapt for new uses, much of the features that exemplify the
history of the buildings were kept, namely the iron shutters and masonry walls. While some new
construction was used to create publicly accessible space on the roof and to facilitate a new
courtyard connection between the neighborhood and waterfront, the reuse of the majority of the
existing buildings’ components allowed for a much more efficient use of materials. This adaptive
reuse is much more cost effective, sustainable, and respectful of the local history than a typical
demolition and new construction project would have been. It should also be noted that because
this project was originally designed to be a warehouse for manufacturing and shipping, it was
47 | P a g e
designed with a regularly spaced structural system that facilitated adaption. (Caballero, 2020;
Empire Stores | BUILT — S9Architecture, n.d.; Empire Stores – Silman, 2022; Scherer, 2016)
Figure 26: Interior View of Gallery Space and Modified Windows (S9 Architecture)
48 | P a g e
Figure 27: Exterior View of New Roof Framing and Public Park Space (S9 Architecture)
Figure 28: Overview of Project Work and Phasing (S9 Architecture)
49 | P a g e
3.4 Pier 57 – Adaptive Reuse / Modular
In Manhattan, New York City, NY, Pier 57 was originally built in 1954 by the New York
City Marine and Aviation department as a shipping terminal. At the time of its construction, it
was the largest dock building effort undertaken by the city of New York. It is known for its
innovative construction and design. Instead of being supported by wooden piles, it is primarily
supported by three submerged buoyant concrete caissons which have long steel girders spanning
across them supporting the building above it (figure 29). This design was used to provide a
durable and fireproof design that would not succumb to the same issues that caused other
wooden piers to degrade of burn down in the case of the previous pier 57.
Figure 29: Historic Drawing Section of Pier 57 Structure
Following the decline of maritime industry in the area, the pier was used as a bus depot
by the New York City Transit Authority from the 1970s to the early 2000s (figure 30). Since
2003 it has been vacant, being listed on the National Register of Historic places in 2004, for its
unique design.
50 | P a g e
Figure 30: Existing Interior Conditions as Used for Bus Depot (left), Historic Photograph of Use as
Shipping Terminal (Right)
Figure 31: Exterior Photographs of Existing Conditions at Pier 57 Prior to Redevelopment
In 2009, the Hudson River Park Trust choose the developer, Youngwoo and Associates
for a redevelopment project for this site, it was renamed “SuperPier” as a part of the
redevelopment. RXR Realty was also brought onto the project as a developer, along with Handel
Architects, LOT-EK, and !Melk Landscape Architecture as architects, Silman for structural
design, and Buro Happold for mechanical and sustainability design.
51 | P a g e
The 4 above ground story (with 1 underground level within the caissons) utilitarian
industrial structure is being converted to a mixed-use building consisting of office space,
performance and cultural venues, ground floor retail, and 80,000 sqft public park on the rooftop
with the total building square footage totaling over 633,000 sqft, and a marina adjacent to the
building. The building will be able to be open to the air in good weather, making the food and
retail market an extension of West 15th Street into the building. The interior layout of the market
area is articulated as shown in figure 34. This articulation is enabled using shipping container
modules for each of the retail spaces in the market.
Figure 32: Rendering of Pier 57 Redevelopment
Figure 33: Rendered Section of Pier 57 Redevelopment
52 | P a g e
The project involves selective interior demolition followed by structural rehabilitation
and interior fit out in addition to all work on the adjacent marina. The demolition and
rehabilitation phases of the project seek to minimize intensive construction in the existing
structure while facilitating the new design that calls back to the piers historic character. The use
of shipping container modules in the former maritime shipping pier being the greatest example of
this preservation of cultural heritage, in addition to the façade being restored and maintained.
Figure 34: Rendered Views of Modular Layout of Interior Market Space Using Shipping Containers
(Exterior - Upper Left, Interior - Upper Right, 3D View of Modules - Bottom) [Lot-Ek]
53 | P a g e
This project is currently ongoing therefore technical information on the project design is
limited, however, the use of multiple circular design strategies is evident from available
information from project entities and public documents. Some of the circular design strategies
that are used in this project are adaptive reuse, modular construction, and the use of salvaged
materials for construction. This project preserves the cultural heritage of the original pier while
adapting spaces to a variety of uses that will prolong the operational life of the building.
Adaption is made slightly easier by the heavy existing construction that was needed to support
previous intensive load cases as a shipping port and bus depot, and now the interiors of the
underwater caissons are being used as functional spaces as well. The use of shipping containers
as spaces for the retail/food market is a great example of how modular construction simplifies
the construction process while also being a more sustainable option than completely new
framing, due to the shipping containers being reused material. (Hudson River Park Trust, 2020;
Pier 57 – Handel Architects, n.d.; PIER 57 - LOT-EK ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, n.d.; Pier
57 – Silman, 2020)
54 | P a g e
4 Proposed Building Concept
4.1 Overview
The proposed solution to the issues of sustainable and adaptable design in the built
environment is the combination of two circular design strategies: modular construction and
adaptive reuse. This is a modification of a hybrid modular concept where volumetric modules are
used to provide a prefabricated and swappable space to be plugged into an existing building’s
structure. Where the original proposed hybrid modular scheme involved volumetric modules
plugged into a traditionally constructed frame or core providing utility hookup and common
spaces, the role or the traditionally constructed portion will be fulfilled by a retrofitted existing
structure. The existing structure will have utilities hookup, egress, connection mechanisms, and
common spaces laid out to interact with the modules. This concept will build on the benefits of
adaptive reuse projects and modular projects while taking advantage of the shared enabling
factors and constraints of the two strategies.
4.2 Suitable Projects
Adaptive reuse projects tend to occur in high density urban areas especially ones with
culturally significant buildings and architectural styles. Such areas have historic factories,
schools, or even early residential buildings. These sorts of buildings are most suitable for this
building concept due to the open floor plans, robust construction, and their cultural value. Their
layouts lend to their potential for adaptability and ability for volumetric modules to be inserted
into the building. This would modernize the interior of the building and potentially indefinitely
future proof the building by making components and spaces that can become obsolete or not
aligned with the needs of the stakeholders fully replaceable.
55 | P a g e
The combined modular and adaptive reuse concept has a range of suitable uses. The most
suitable options would be residential housing or commercial office space layouts which could
take the most advantage from the ease of adaptability that this concept presents. Apartments or
offices could easily be refitted, reconfigured, and replaced to meet market trends and local needs.
A client could order a certain layout or design for their space, and it would be fitted out in a
controlled environment much more quickly and with much less disturbance than in a normal fit
out. Other potential uses for this concept can be schools, hospitals, or labs. Given that the
existing structure that serves as the hub for the modules is provided with adequate utilities, more
specialized uses could be supported.
Uses can be mixed within such a building concept due to the modular nature of the
spaces. However, certain use cases are more suited to being mixed in a floor plan than others.
Various commercial uses such as office or retail spaces can be easily mixed while residential
should be kept in a separate area. Similarly, more complex uses such as research lab spaces or
medical spaces would have to be kept in their own areas due to the varying levels of security or
sterility needed for such uses. Mixing uses that are too diverse can lead to a decrease in user
comfort and cause issues with how each space functions.
This concept could allow local needs to be quickly addressed whether it be the
construction of more school space due to overcrowding, an auxiliary hospital to relieve local
hospitals, or even a less urgent need such as the desire for more technical expertise to be based
locally.
4.3 Procedure and Considerations
The general workflow for such a project involves information gathering, followed by
feasibility studies, design production, construction, and building management as with most other
56 | P a g e
types of projects. However, the motivation and approach for these steps is altered for this
concept.
4.3.1 Information Gathering
To accomplish this building concept, the process begins similarly to a regular adaptive
reuse project with a period of information gathering and fully defining the existing building. This
ranges from obtaining original and updated architectural, structural, and utility plans to
performing site surveys to understand real existing conditions and, where needed, to take
material samples of structural members to determine with certainty the capacity of the structural
system. The use of non-destructive testing (NDT) would be most preferable if testing is needed
due to the minimization of damage or invasive works in a building of historic value. Various
methods of NDT exist, and methods that allow for in-situ system testing such as the one
proposed by Hunt et al., 2007. The system proposed involves the testing of old timber joist floor
framing systems in situ by measuring their natural frequency of the system when subjected to
forced transverse vibration.
This process is most crucial for determining if it’s even possible let alone worthwhile to
use the existing building in a reuse project. It can be difficult to locate the original
documentation of buildings especially the older they are. Even with documentation, it is
necessary to verify through the visual surveys and testing to ensure a high degree of certainty
that the project can be safely achieved. Knowledge of past building codes from the time of
construction can be useful to help fill in gaps in documentation allowing for appropriate
assumptions to be made about construction intentions where something is unknown. Bringing the
project to accordance with modern codes will also be made easier if it is known what the original
intention was.
57 | P a g e
4.3.2 Assessment
Once the building parameters have been fully defined, the building’s suitability for the
concept is assessed. The building structure should be able to support the new loading scheme
with enough reserve capacity. The reserve capacity is necessary for two main reasons. One is to
safely use the structure accounting for any undiagnosed deterioration or missing information that
could not be feasibly caught through visual inspection and testing. The other reason is to allow
for future adaptability and changes in uses or loading. The building should also have an
adequately open floor plan and access to various services to aid in the retrofitting, upgrading, and
installation of new services that will connect to the modular spaces.
The project site and surrounding should also be taken into consideration when assessing
the feasibility of the concept. As with most modular projects, proximity to the factory for
production of modules is necessary for the cost of the project to be manageable, and the
surrounding streets should be accessible to trucks that will deliver the modules and cranes for
installation. These considerations are necessary for most project types and are made easier by the
relative simplicity of construction for the concept but should still be monitored. Should a
building be determined viable for the modular adaptive reuse concept, the manufacturing and
construction process can proceed. However, in the case that a building is unsuitable for this
particular concept, it can still be used for an adaptive reuse project or be salvaged to reuse its
components and materials in another project.
4.3.3 Module Manufacturing
This phase involves the manufacture of modules, consisting of the structural framing of
the module, interior architectural finishes, various HVAC modules, and connections for all the
systems and structural framing to plug into the building. Depending on the needs of the owner,
58 | P a g e
scale of the project, and desire for expansion, the modules can be either custom designed or
uniform for mass production.
As will be further discussed in the Operation section, the way in which this system is
utilized will affect the use and design of modules. Various configurations of modules can form a
variety of spaces. In a residential use, 1 module can form a studio apartment, 2 for a 1 bedroom,
3 for a 2 bedroom and so on. In an office use, a broad range of typologies can be accommodated
as well with openings between units to create office units of various sizes. Having this in mind,
modules can be designed to accommodate openings and connection between modules or can be
designed as fully enclosed units.
A module’s construction starts with the structural framing which can be made from
materials such as light gauge cold formed steel (CFS) or timber due to modules not being a part
of the building’s structural system. Modules will only have to support their gravity loads
throughout their operational life and any construction load conditions. Construction loads serves
as a catch-all for the various load conditions a module may experience at any point before its
final installation such as during transportation (via truck or ship), construction in the factory, or
during the hoisting and installation procedure itself. This allows for smaller sections and greater
flexibility in framing layout than load bearing modules. In addition to emphasizing use of CFS or
timber framing use, concrete should not be used in the construction of modules to reduce weight
and the need for larger structural sections to support dead load. A lightened module also helps
facilitate the applicability of this concept to a wider variety of buildings.
Each module will have a full set of services systems installed ready to be plugged into the
building, including fire suppression, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems. Modules will
be designed to provide a sufficient fire rating in their space, and the combination of fire rated
59 | P a g e
walls provides a double layer of protection between modules as well as separation between
common spaces and modules. Structural connections will also be provided in each module to fix
it in place and attach it to the building’s structure, transferring it’s loads to the building, such
connections will have to be bolted to allow for non-permanent connections. Two proposed for
module movement and connection methods that will be mentioned in the Potential Layouts
section are the use of rails or bearings upon which modules can be moved into place and fixed at
their required locations.
It should also be noted that modules should be designed to withstand certain lateral
loading conditions that can occur in the case of a seismic event or extreme wind event. While the
module structures are not designed to be a part of the lateral load resisting system of the building,
modules fixed to the building may still experience some lateral displacement and likely not at the
same frequency as the building. Additional analysis may be required to validate structural
connections and framing in locations with high seismicity.
4.3.4 Building Construction and Design
Parallel to module design and construction, a retrofitting and modernization phase begins
in the existing building. This involves interior demolition where necessary, upgrade of services
capacity, bringing the building up to modern code standards, installation of both structural and
service connections, and preparation of the building envelope for insert of modules which will
strongly depend on the layout of the existing structure and layout scheme chosen for the new use.
4.3.4.1 Pre-Construction Demolition
During the demolition phase, care must be taken to ensure that any crucial building
elements are not damaged. This will include the structural system, desirable architectural
features, along with any existing services that are to be kept for the new design scheme. Any
60 | P a g e
features that are to be kept, architectural or not, should be refurbished or repaired as needed and
where feasible, but elements that are too difficult or cost prohibitive to restore should be
removed. For elements that are to be removed, where possible, entire elements or materials
should be carefully removed with the intention of salvaging for reuse in other projects. Elements
that are unsuitable for reuse should be recycled, with as little as feasibly possible being taken to
the landfill to reduce material waste. Following the removal of unnecessary building elements,
the building undergoes retrofitting to support the new design.
4.3.4.2 Retrofitting
The retrofitting process will involve increasing the capacity of existing systems and
installing new systems to modernize the structure. While there are many different building
systems that can be considered depending on the project needs, the ones that will be considered
in this concept are the main SMEP systems.
4.3.4.3 Structural
The structural system of the building may need updating or modification, however, due to
the feasibility analysis for the project involving a detailed assessment of the building’s structural,
system modification will likely be limited. Excessive modification would likely cause the project
to be deemed unfeasible for this concept. For a building to be a viable option for this concept the
structure should be in relatively good condition and with sufficient reserve capacity, thus
minimizing the need for any alterations. Nonetheless, site or project specific needs can motivate
retrofitting ranging from the repair or replace of individual structural members to the addition of
extra lateral load resisting systems (outrigger frames, diagonal bracing, TMDs, seismic fuses,
etc.)
61 | P a g e
Advances in construction codes, methods, and materials in the decades between the
original building’s construction and the modern day can cause disparity between the existing
design and what is required by the code for modern construction or general modern construction
methods.
As mentioned above, certain structural systems are more suited for this concept than
others. Regularly (widely) spaced column grids are most suitable due to the given space and ease
of operating within the structural system, however, earlier buildings will tend to have narrower
spacing. If modules and all system connections can be fit into a column bay, then the system can
be considered suitable. This is aided by the limitation of module sizes that are needed to ensure
modules can be safely transported to site. Modules will commonly need to be limited to a width
of 15’ to allow for transportation on trucks through urban areas, therefore bays would need to be
at least 15’ wide to fit in a module. Most grids used are not narrower than 15’ so it is more likely
that the limiting factor would be floor to ceiling height or available space across multiple bays
that would limit module height or depth respectively.
The use of load bearing masonry walls is a common feature of older buildings which can
present an issue for the concept due to the difficulty in making any modifications to it and its
weight. If necessary for the implementation of the desired floorplan, openings in load bearing
walls can be accomplished, and in extreme cases entire walls can be moved as in the Empire
Stores case study. In buildings where the exterior walls are made of load bearing masonry walls,
openings will have to be framed out to allow for module insertion ports but having module
openings in every bay would likely compromise the structural capacity of the wall and require a
new load path to be implemented. A new load path could be installed through the addition of
structural members such as columns or girders to distribute load away from the walls.
62 | P a g e
Aside from accommodations for the layout of the concept, it is unlikely that retrofit will
be needed to increase structural capacity in most parts of the building, barring extreme cases
such as the installation of heavy equipment in areas that were not designed to support heavy
loads. The installation of modular spaces into buildings designed for manufacturing or other
industrial uses is unlikely to cause structural demands to exceed those of the original design.
Provided sufficient reserve capacity and good condition of structural members, foundations or
other structural members will likely not need to be reinforced or have capacity increased.
One possible method for assessing the reserve capacity of the structure can be comparing
the worst case applied loads from modules to the original design dead and live loads. Due to the
uncertainty that may arise from a lack of documentation or visible evidence of what equipment
was installed to determine the dead load, it is easier to compare solely to the live loads. While
only comparing to live loads would provide a much more conservative solution, this is suitable
because conservative estimates are beneficial for this type of project. Additionally, given
approximate knowledge of when a building was constructed and what uses it was designed for,
the building code of that time can be accessed to determine exactly what live load designed for.
For example, a building designed for factory work or storage per the 1938 New York
City Building Code would have to be designed for a live load of 120psf (New York (N.Y.)
Department of Buildings., 1968). Taking the maximum module weight from the Atlantic Yards
project as the worst case, 24 tons, and distributing it over the floor area of the maximum module
dimensions (15’ by 50’), the distributed area load would be 64psf, below the light manufacturing
live load and well below the regular manufacturing live load. Adding on a residential live load of
40psf per ASCE-7, brings the total dead and live loads to 104psf, still below just the
manufacturing live load.
63 | P a g e
4.3.4.4 MEP
The systems that fall into MEP will be considered as: HVAC, fire protection, electrical,
and plumbing.
The HVAC system will need to be redesigned to provide vent connections at each
module connection interface. This consists of vents for air intake and outtake to provide
sufficient air exchanges within each space. Existing mechanical systems may have to be
upgraded to accommodate the demands that can come from the multiple enclosed spaces instead
of one larger open space from the original design. Vents will have to be extended to reach each
module while still providing service to open common spaces, and HVAC units will have to be
upgraded to accommodate this.
However, due to the discretization of a larger open original space into much smaller
modular spaces, climate control and air exchanges may be easier to design for and to control.
Individual modules would be able to control local climates within their spaces, further allowing
more efficient operation of mechanical systems. To facilitate this, connections to the controls
system would have to be routed to each module as well to provide plug-in capabilities to climate
controls systems.
Fire protection systems, specifically the pipes and risers, would likely not need to be
upgraded for increased demands but rerouted to provide overall coverage across the entire floor
plan (depending on module height and building floor to ceiling height) along with connections to
each individual module’s fire suppression system. A different system may need to be installed if
a more hazardous programming is desired, and it would have to accommodate the use of the
modules. More crucially, a modern fire alarm system would have to be retrofitted or installed to
cover both the existing space as well as each module space.
64 | P a g e
The plumbing system may need to be upgraded to accommodate uses such as residential
or commercial due to the increased water demands that can come compared to that of a
manufacturing or commercial storage use from the original design. Risers, pipes, and pumps will
have to be upsized to accommodate increased demands and, similarly to the fire suppression
system, will have to be routed to each module’s connection interface. The design and analysis of
the plumbing system will heavily depend on both the original building use and desired new uses
to compare demands. A possible permutation that will have to be considered could be an original
manufacturing use that would have high water demands compared to residential spaces that can
have smaller demands at any given time but spread out over more time that previously, such as
on nights and weekends when manufacturing would not operate.
Electrical conduits and systems will most likely have to be upgraded from the original
designs due to the increased power demands that can come from residential and commercial use
worst cases as well as electricity demands increasing overtime in general.
To allow for seamless connection as well as accessibility for maintenance and
disassembly, services should be routed under a panelized architectural floor or above a panelized
ceiling. Whether services will be routed under the floor or ceiling will depend on client
preference and which features the wish to preserve and keep exposed.
Overall, all systems need to be analyzed and possibly redesigned to support the worst-
case conditions that can come from any possible use combination. This will include
considerations for modules with varying uses being operated at once or varying module layouts
with either all or only some modules in situ among other cases. In the assessment phase, worst
cases should be considered when determining the suitability of the building for the desired use,
and if necessary, certain conditions can be ruled out from operation.
65 | P a g e
4.3.4.5 Facades
The component of the building that arguably has the most flexibility and still a great
amount of importance is the building enclosure. The façade of a building is one of the greatest
contributors to its architectural value and cultural heritage due to it being the most visible portion
of the building. The façade should be preserved as much as possible to both minimize the scope
of the project (reducing labor and material needs) and to maintain the cultural heritage of the
adaptive reuse project. However, depending on the chosen configuration for the modular
adaptive reuse, either the entire exterior wall needs to be modified or only certain areas to act as
ports for module insertion. Whether the structural system relies on the exterior walls for support
must be considered since any modifications would require extensive redesign to change the
building’s structural load path. This should be factored into the assessment phase because it may
not be feasible to make significant changes to the exterior wall if it is a part of the primary
structural system.
To support a configuration with all modules being located at the exterior bays of the
building and being inserted in individual ports in the building, the façade will have to be
disassembled and panelized. If the façade is in a good condition, care can be taken to remove
portions and create panels from those portions that will double as the exterior skin of the building
and either the port for a module bay or a module’s exterior wall. If the façade is not in a good
condition, making it infeasible to disassemble, then care should be taken to recreate it as closely
as possible to the original version, reusing as much of it as possible to create a panelized system.
In the case where a new façade must be made, more modern technology and practices can be
introduced such as including insulation, thermal breaks, seals, and reflective materials to increase
66 | P a g e
building energy efficiency. Solar panels or photovoltaic glass can also be used in the new
buildup to help generate electricity for the building, reducing overall energy use.
In a configuration with modules being inserted through only a few openings in the
structure and moved into place within the building floor, the same procedure for façade
modification needs to occur but on a much smaller scale, only for as many openings as required
for each floor of the structure where modules are to be inserted.
In both configurations, the façade panel must not only retain the original architectural
design, but it should also provide adequate waterproofing and thermal performance to
accommodate there being disruptions in the original building enclosure. For the configuration
that uses shared ports for module insertion, the module wall that is to face the exterior wall must
either be opened to use the existing exterior wall and windows, or it must have windows itself to
still be able to provide sunlight.
4.3.5 Operation
This building concept combines modular and DfA strategies to expand the range of uses
and operation possibilities for the adaptive reuse project. One of the main benefits is the
versatility it provides in terms of operational uses and opportunity for future modification. The
ability for the building’s components to be readily accessed and deconstructed facilitates this,
affecting not only the modules but the various building services as well. The building should be
able to function the same regardless of the number of modules that are installed at a time, the
configuration of modules, and the individual uses of the modules. In the event of a module not
being installed in a space, the area will be closed off from both the exterior and interior wall
sides providing a seamless appearance and no disruption to neighbors or other building users.
67 | P a g e
Modules will be easily extractable from the building to allow for any work to be done on
them in a controlled factory environment. If a tenant changes or wishes a different layout or use
for the space, the module will be extracted and sent to the factory where the desired equipment,
floorplan, and finishes can be installed to the desired specifications. For less comprehensive
modifications or maintenance, work can be done on either the module or the building in-situ with
the building will be retrofitted to allow for a similar level of accessibility to all services and
components.
An installation and extraction procedure should be established depending on the site-
specific conditions such as the layout of local streets and sidewalks to provide minimal
disruption to both the functions of the building and the local area. It may even be beneficial for
module movement to be restricted to certain times of week or month to minimize disruptions. All
protocols will need to be coordinated with local municipal authorities due to stringent
construction and traffic regulations.
As technology advances, building codes change, or market/societal needs change,
modules can be continually updated to provide the most desirable, efficient, safe, and effective
space for tenants. In the situation where a module or the building itself has reached the limit of
its utility; the end-of-life condition must be considered.
4.3.6 End of Operational Life
The end of operational life condition will occur once either the modular space or the
building has become unfeasible to operate. This can be because the cost of updating or
maintaining the structure exceeds the gains that will come from the continued operation, or from
excessive damage or wear to building components preventing continued use. The use of
68 | P a g e
strategies for DfD in the design of the adapted building will aid and facilitate sustainable end of
life conditions and operations.
The end of operational life case can be considered as comprised of two separate cases,
one for modules and one for the building itself. The end of operational life case for modules
involves its disassembly into its components that can then be recycled or reused (in modules or
traditional construction). This repurposing can apply to components ranging from stoves and
washing machines to the structural members of the module frame itself. Depending on the age
and condition of each component, a decision will be made if it is more appropriate to reuse,
recycle or dispose, with priority being given to options that reduce waste and help tighten or
close the material loop of the building. The design of modules to not use permanent connections
such as welds or glued connections will facilitate the non-destructive disassembly of all possible
components of the module, maximizing the amount of material that remains usable.
The end-of-life case for the building itself is more complicated because it heavily
depends on the original construction methods used and not just the condition of components.
While DfA and DfD are relatively new concepts, many construction methods that have been
used for a very long time facilitate these strategies. For example, if the structural system primary
consists of elements with bolted connections, then it can be relatively simple to disassemble and
not demolish the structure to preserve individual members for future reuse or recycling.
Connections or construction that is more permanent such as that using welding, cast in place
concrete, or composite steel and concrete is much more difficult and labor intensive to carefully
disassemble and reuse. Any new additions to the building should be constructed using non-
permanent connections and simple materials for this purpose. A challenge of the disassembly and
repurposing of an old existing building is trying to align design and construction decisions that
69 | P a g e
were taken decades, if not over a century apart. For this reason, there will be building
components that are not able to be disassembled and will have to be demolished, and a portion of
the materials that will be recovered may have to be disposed of due to unsuitability for reuse
caused by either deterioration, incompatible material strength, or toxicity.
4.4 Potential Layouts
For this building concept, two potential floorplan layouts are proposed. In one,
considered layout A, modules are arranged exclusively in exterior bays along the edges of the
building with corridor/common space in middle and with each module being inserted through its
own port. The other layout, layout B, has modules located throughout floorplan and inserted at a
few ports around the building instead of each module having its own. The pros and cons of each
proposed layout is summarized in table 1 and discussed below.
In layout B, modules able to be moved in two dimensions through floorplan after
insertion to then be plugged in and situated at its final location in the building. Layout B supports
a wider variety of configurations but would require more open interior space for module
maneuvering thus reducing the number of buildings it may be applicable for. Modules in layout
B need to be able to move in two directions through the floor plan and will likely need a system
of casters or Teflon bearings to allow for the maneuverability required. Due to limitations in
building size, it is likely that during the process of insertion, extraction, or other module
movement, the corridor or common spaces will become inaccessible to tenants. The module
movement is much more disruptive to the operations of the building than layout A.
70 | P a g e
Layout A, has modules inserted through their own port in the building enclosure, only
allowing for module movement in one direction and in a narrow space. This would be facilitated
by having a rail system to provide smooth but restricted movement for the module. A rail system
would also help with aligning the module to various service connections and would have simple
connections to then fix the module in its final location. Due to the restrictions on module
movement and need for less space for modules, layout A can be applied to a wider range of
floorplans. However, the need for openings in the building enclosure at every module location
creates challenges with façade and structural design, especially in buildings with particularly
intricate or fragile building enclosures or those with load bearing exterior walls.
Additional factors that can affect the choice of layout can include desired module
programming, available module sizes, and the accessibility of the building sides for construction
equipment. Certain module uses would not be suited for more movement or having modules
around being moved as in the case of layout B. Spaces that are used for relatively sensitive work
such as doctor’s offices, retail, or light manufacturing can experience much greater operational
disruption and potential for damage during module movements or vibrations caused by other
modules being moved around. While module fabricators will likely be able to support a variety
of module sizes, transportation or construction restrictions that limit module size can affect the
decision process. Smaller, less deep, modules may not be most suitable for layout A because the
modules would not be able to efficiently use available space.
The criteria that is most crucial to the choice of module layout is the degree of
accessibility to each building side because it controls where modules can be placed throughout
the building. In a densely constructed urban area, it is likely that the desired building has at least
one side with an adjacent building constructed in very close proximity, even in a manufacturing
71 | P a g e
district. Urban areas can also have narrow streets or alleys as the only access to a side of the
building. Both of these conditions create challenges for the insertion of modules into a building.
Taking this into account, the use of layout B requires less accessible space around the building,
while layout A could result in the use of larger modules and efficient use of available floor area.
All these factors and conditions need to be taken into account when determining the modular
layout for the adaptive reuse project. Table 1 summarizes the pros and cons of each layout.
72 | P a g e
Legend
- Existing/Open Floor Space
- Volumetric Module
- Existing Column
- Existing Walls
Figure 35: Layout A1 Floorplan
73 | P a g e
Legend
- Volumetric Module
- Existing Column
- Existing Walls
Figure 36: Layout A1 3D View and Detail
74 | P a g e
Legend
- Volumetric Module
- Existing Column
- Existing Walls
Figure 37: Layout B1 Floorplan
75 | P a g e
Legend
- Volumetric Module
- Existing Column
- Existing Walls
Figure 38: Layout B1 3D View and Detail
76 | P a g e
Plan and 3D views of possible modular scheme layouts shown in figures 35 through 38
with additional variations provided in the Appendix. A Grasshopper script was utilized in Rhino
to quickly model and generate layouts and building schemes, this script is attached in the
appendix. Within the proposed layouts A and B, many different modifications can be made to
comply with project or site constraints such as building side accessibility. Plans and figures for
layouts were created using the floorplan of a generic historic warehouse building, based on a
building in the Industry City complex in Brooklyn, NY. The building consists of a column grid at
15’ in each direction, with four bays in one direction and fifteen in the other, and four stories in
total. While the grid consists of 15’ square bays, the modules must be 13’ wide and 14’ tall to
allow for approximately 1 foot of clear space between the structure and the module allowing for
connections and access, this is reflected in the provided figures.
Table 1: Summary of Pros and Cons of Each Proposed Layout
Layout A Layout B
Pros • Less overall space needed within • More flexible support for a
floorplan variety of layouts
• More efficient use of floorplan • Less modification for exterior
space walls needed
• Less disturbance during
construction or installation
processes
• Simplified installation
Cons • More modification to exterior walls • Potential Restriction to smaller
needed to create installation ports module size
• Can be less efficient if there is little • More disruptive installation
access to building walls procedure
• Less efficient use of space
• Need for greater module
movement may limit module
uses
77 | P a g e
5 Discussion
This concept takes advantage of the shared enablers for each of the constituent concepts,
modular and adaptive reuse, as well as combining benefits and mitigating some drawbacks of
each. However, this does not eliminate all the constraints and considerations of each design
strategy. Table 2 summarizes the benefits and compares the three concepts, modular, adaptive
reuse, and the combination of the two with further discussion below.
Table 2: Comparison of Circular Building Concepts (Positives in Blue, Negatives in Red)
Modular Adaptive Reuse Hybrid Modular Adaptive Reuse
Faster and more efficient Preservation of historic Flexible use of spaces allowing for
construction structures continuous adaption
Less construction waste Less construction works Faster and more efficient
overall construction
Cheaper labor cost for Less construction waste Preservation of historic structures
construction
Option for mass Difficulty with preservation Less Construction Waste
manufacturing for of old materials
additional economic
benefits
Extra cost due to module Specialized labor may be Less construction work than new
transportation needed construction projects
Restrictions in needing to Difficulty with adapting an Option for expansion to a multi
design for modular older layout to a new use building system
spaces
Lack of modular Adapting an older layout to a
fabricators modularized space may be easier
due to the common use of narrow
grids
See adaptive reuse and modular
5.1 Benefits
Traditional new construction projects tend to be significantly disruptive to neighborhoods
in terms of effects on noise, traffic congestion, and pollution as well as requiring enough space
on site or nearby for construction staging. Both adaptive reuse and modular construction projects
78 | P a g e
require less construction materials and labor than traditional new construction projects so this
concept, an amalgamation of the two, would be able to similarly provide an effective project
within the tight requirements for a high-density urban area.
The use of volumetric modules in an adaptive reuse context shortens the schedule from that of a
“regular” adaptive reuse building project, adding on to the benefit of a shorter schedule from an
adaptive reuse project compared to a new construction project. Some of the additional costs
associated with a modular project compared to a traditionally constructed project are mitigated
by this hybrid concept. While the need for module fabrication infrastructure is not reduced, the
material cost for each module is diminished.
This concept provides a significant amount of flexibility with the degree of building
preservation that can be supported. Each project and community for which the project is done are
unique, and different levels of preservation may be desired or feasible. Culturally significant
architectural styles can be preserved with minimal alterations with facades being adapted and
restored for the project. Alternatively, a historical building façade that is not necessarily feasible
to meticulously restore and adapt can make use of a building’s internal systems and structures to
introduce new modular spaces with a purpose-built façade. However, this application does not
take advantage of the capability of the concept to preserve cultural history.
With the need for modules to comprise the structural system of the building removed,
modules designs can accommodate more framing layouts and subsequently more interior layouts.
With only the dead and live loads of the modules themselves along with construction loads to be
considered for structural design, lighter framing and more sustainable materials such as timber
can be more easily used along with more openings if needed to connect modular spaces.
79 | P a g e
The flexibility of this concept is not limited to the scope of the building itself but is also
prevalent in the operation of the building for both the operators and tenants. As mentioned
previously, this concept can support a variety of space uses giving owners and operators the
flexibility to adapt to local community and market needs through the swapping of modules.
Tenants benefit from this flexibility by having bespoke spaces prepared to their specifications
with the ability to transfer the module in its entirety to another location with the hybrid modular
setup (provided future expansion). Operational downtime due to renovations can be significantly
reduced though the swapping of modules instead of interior work rendering the space unusable.
The most significant benefit of this concept is the increase in sustainability in the project
through the promotion of a circular economy, as with each of the constituent design strategies.
The lifecycles of both the adapted building and the modular spaces are shifted from more
conventional linear ones to circular ones. It has the potential to extend the operational life of the
buildings by decades and possibly indefinitely for the modular spaces (at least the components of
the modules) due to their ability to be relocated, updated, retrofitted, or repurposed if needed.
Both outcomes offer significant reductions from the construction waste that would be produced
with comparable new construction projects and renovations over the operational life of the
project.
Figure 39: Selected Applicable UN Sustainable Development Goals
80 | P a g e
This concept aligns well with various sustainability structures, a major example of this
being the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs, part of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development adopted by UN member states in 2015, form a call for action and
guidelines for the ending of poverty, improvement, of health and education, spurring of
economic growth, and reduction of inequality all while fighting climate change and working to
preserve oceans and forests (United Nations, 2015). Goals #9, 11, 12, and 13, shown in figure 37
directly align with the proposed building concept, while goals #14, 15, and 17 are more
indirectly affected. The concept allows for the building of resilient, inclusive, innovative, and
sustainable infrastructure making cities and settlements themselves more resilient and
sustainable. It also directly involves sustainable consumption and production patterns and is an
example of action being taken to combat climate change and its impacts.
5.2 Limitations
Despite the benefits that this concept provides, it retains technical limitations and
considerations for each constituent design strategy while reducing some of the barriers to their
implementations.
This concept cannot be applied to just any adaptive reuse project. The process of
selecting a building for an adaptive reuse involves thorough analysis and assessment of
suitability, however, this concept likely has more requirements than other reuse projects. The
degree to which existing systems need to be expanded and rerouted to support the new scheme
along with the restructuring of the building façade can cause issues and even force a building that
would be suitable for a simpler or less comprehensive adaption project to be unsuitable for this
concept. Where a modular building would be purpose designed to support a modular scheme, an
adaptive reuse must be able to support a modular scheme without being designed for it. New
81 | P a g e
construction floorplans could be designed with modularization and discretization in mind, but for
this concept existing floorplans and structures would be modularized after construction which
can result in inefficient use of space with areas that are unsuitable to be included in the modular
spaces or for the attachment of services or structural connections.
Working with old and culturally significant buildings can pose challenges to the
construction and retrofitting process. Wear and tear over the course of decades of use can cause
materials and components to have additional and possibly unexpected fragility. There can be
unseen damage, which should be factored into the new design, that can show up and change
plans mid-project or mid-operation.
The use of volumetric modules in this concept provides great flexibility and control of
whole spaces within the building, and the benefits of modular construction are mentioned in this
thesis, but challenges with its implementation are not addressed. The current state of the built
environment is that there are not enough module fabrication facilities to make modular
construction widely available or feasible except for areas with proximity to such a facility or
through the import/shipment of modules from a facility. While modules can be efficiently
constructed in a controlled environment, the need for them to be transported over long distances
to the project site takes away from the benefits of the construction method. The transportation
increases construction costs and would cause module modification over the course of the
building life to be expensive for the same reason. In addition to the costs of transportation, the
extra emissions and energy use for the transportation of the modules to and from the building site
takes away from the sustainability benefits provided by the concept. Sites that are close to
module fabricators are particularly suitable for this proposed concept because they will mitigate
the mentioned limitations brought by modular construction.
82 | P a g e
The use of volumetric modules within an existing building such as in this concept can pose
challenges to the preservation of the architectural value of a historic building. The need for the
preservation of the façade, the most visible aspect of a building’s cultural and architectural
significance will provide a significant constraint on the project. This determines the feasibility or
the project as a whole and needs to be catered for in the design of the access ports for modules.
The processes of modification, disassembly, and reassembly of an old façade structure carries
risk of causing unintentional damage which would further complicate the project. It may be more
feasible to recreate a similar façade panel system to match the original design or style, but this
increases the labor and material cost of the project and reduces the value of the concept.
Modification and retrofit of existing building systems can lead to unintentional damage to
the interior of the building or the existing systems themselves. In the cases where a building only
requires an addition of capacity and not a complete redesign of a system, construction work can
conceivably damage architectural finishes, pipes, conduits, or beams. This would increase the
scope of the project, necessitating extra repairs and material and energy cost and at an extreme, a
full replacement of the system to be modified.
Along with the limitations to the practical implementation of this concept, limitations and
restrictions in local building codes can affect the feasibility of this concept. Modular construction
can be allowed in various forms as well as adaptive reuse, but the combination of the two
concepts may require significant further studying and analysis to ensure code compliance and to
gain approval form local building authorities.
83 | P a g e
5.3 Future Considerations
The concept being proposed is a possible solution for issues within the built environment.
There are many avenues for further refinement and advancement of the concept that were not
included in this thesis thus far, some of those are mentioned here.
While the concept was conceived to be applied to old or historic buildings in urban areas
to help create more adaptable and sustainable infrastructure, it can also be applied in other
contexts. One possible application can be for emergency use such as in an area damaged by
natural disasters or war. In cases where building was damaged past the point of it being
occupiable, but the structure is still in recoverable condition, the proposed concept can be applied
to provide a quicker return of the building to a useable condition. In the common cases of
damage to a building envelope, the removal of the remaining portions of the façade could
facilitate greater ease of access to retrofit the building’s services and install modular spaces than
in a regular undamaged building. Applying this concept can provide useable spaces for
residential or commercial use in the near aftermath of a disaster faster than a standard
reconstruction process could.
Additionally, the concept can be applied to buildings are not necessarily culturally
significant but are still facing demolition. The application of volumetric modules into an existing
building can be applied in much the same way, but likely with less risk and uncertainty if the
building is more modern. Greater documentation and less need for preservation of existing
elements can simplify the project procedures and make it cheaper than if it was a historically
significant building and the same sustainability and economic benefits can still be observed.
Implementation of such a hybrid modular adaptive reuse concept would be most
beneficial on the scale of multiple buildings, neighborhoods, or even municipalities. This would
84 | P a g e
justify the construction of a module fabrication facility to support this concept, as well as
encourage other types of modular construction in the area. Having a set of project sites with
relative proximity to this facility would help decrease the costs and emissions of the concept
through the reduction of transportation time for modules to project sites. Module operations such
as refurbishment, upgrade, or disassembly would be significantly sped up allowing for owners
and tenants to enjoy the full benefits of this concept with more efficient adaption of the building
spaces to client needs than if the fabrication facility was located far away or modules were
imported. Another possible benefit of having a local fabrication facility and multiple compatible
buildings is that it would allow easy swapping of modules between these buildings if the same
type modules were used, and tenants wish to relocate with their space. The implementation of
such as system would require close cooperation with a contractor partner with modular
experience to support this concept on a larger scale.
Since the concept removes the need for modules to support any loads other than their own,
as mentioned before, lighter materials and framing schemes can be used opening the opportunity
for using more sustainable materials than more common module construction. The use of light
gauge steel, aluminum, or timber is more beneficial than using common heavier materials
because it is easier and safer to accommodate the lighter modules within existing buildings.
Furthermore, the concept can serve as a testbed for the application of new construction materials.
With a variety of ongoing research into new sustainable construction materials, their application
into a fairly low-risk (structurally) concept such as this one can provide proof of concept or at
least an opportunity for the material to be applied where it would not be able to be on a larger
new construction project.
85 | P a g e
6 Conclusion
The unsustainability and inflexibility of the built environment along with the need to
preserve cultural history create a demand for changes to the way building construction is
approached. A proposed solution to these problems is a building concept that helps implement a
circular economy through the combination of adaptive reuse and hybrid modular construction.
The proposed concept involves the installation of volumetric modules into an existing
building that acts as a permanent host structure providing means of egress and services to a
variety of different uses and spaces. It is intended to provide easily adaptable and replaceable
spaces to accommodate quickly changing local and market needs while preserving the
architectural and cultural value that an older building can hold especially those of old factories or
warehouses that define a neighborhood despite falling into disuse. Making use of the structural
system, services, and building envelope of a building significantly reduces the need for new
construction that causes unnecessary material and energy waste, circularizing the lifecycles of
the existing components and materials. Any new construction for the concept is done with
circular design strategies in mind such as designing for adaptability and modular design which
helps extend the building and component materials’ operational lives and prevents additional
material from ending up in landfills in the future.
For an old existing building to support modular spaces being installed, some building
retrofit is needed to route services and egress to each module location, providing a standardized
hookup that can support a variety of module uses. Utilizing former warehouses or factories for
this concept is most suitable because such buildings were designed for heavy loads and with
regular grids, both of which help facilitate the application of this concept. Standard grids and
heavy structural systems mean that the layout of modules throughout the floorplan is easier and
86 | P a g e
little if any structural retrofit is needed to support modules. To help with the implementation of
such a concept, an overview of factors and considerations is provided in the appendix, with brief
explanations for each.
This concept takes advantage of complementary advantages and limitations of adaptive
reuse and modular construction to help promote a circular economy and sustainable built
environment. However, despite the benefits and the variety of buildings this concept can support,
there are still issues with the current state of the construction industry that impede its
implementation. Individually, modular construction and adaptive reuse projects require
significant buy-in from stakeholders and a desire to commit to the concept despite economic
costs. Similarly, the combination of hybrid modular and adaptive reuse will require significant
buy-in due to economic costs, but also due to the added difficulty caused by greater modification
and construction with fragile architectural facades. Wider awareness and incentivization of
circular economy design strategies is necessary to change the built environment and construction
industry to combat climate change. When project stakeholders can commit to circular design
strategies despite perceived short term economic losses, then the industry will be able to change.
Until then, the implementation of solutions like this proposed concept can be used as a
demonstrator of such strategies and help push the industry in the direction of a circular economy.
87 | P a g e
Appendix
1 Additional Circular Economy Diagrams
Figure 40: Sample of Circularized Building Lifecycle with strategies (Foster, 2020)
88 | P a g e
Figure 41: Circularity Strategies in order of increasing priority
89 | P a g e
2 Additional Concept Modular Layout Figures
Figures are provided on the following pages
90 | P a g e
Figure 42: Industry City Building Floorplan
91 | P a g e
Figure 43: Baseline Building Floorplan
92 | P a g e
Figure 44: Baseline Building 3D View
93 | P a g e
94 | P a g e
95 | P a g e
96 | P a g e
97 | P a g e
4
98 | P a g e
99 | P a g e
Figure 51: Layout B2 Floorplan
100 | P a g e
Figure 52: Layout B2 3D View and Detail
101 | P a g e
Figure 53: Grasshopper Script used to Generate Concept Massing Layouts
102 | P a g e
3 Factors that facilitate the implementation of adaptive reuse and hybrid
modular in a building project
Thorough building documentation
• All facets of the building should be documented and kept available through plans,
reports, surveys, and testing to ensure full understanding of conditions during all phases
of the building lifecycle. All components should be permanently tagged for easier
modification and reuse.
Open floor plans
• Buildings should have minimal interior walls or other structure that cannot be easily
removed or relocated to allow for layouts to be easily adapted or changed. More space
allows for more opportunity to maneuver within a building such as for the installation of
modules into a building.
High floor to ceiling heights
• Like open floor plans, having more vertical space allows for easier maneuvering within a
building and more space to situate utilities throughout a building.
Regular grids
• The use of regular, rectilinear grids in the laying out of a building and its structural
system allows for more common building components to be used and makes adaption
easier in the future. Grid spacing should be kept consistent throughout a building to
ensure a greater utilization of the floor plan in the case of module insertion. A grid
spacing should be kept to a minimum of 15’ of clear spacing between structural elements
(may include architectural finishes) to ensure the maximum utilization of module
dimensions which are most likely to be restricted by city transportation/trucking limits.
Façade panelization
• Where a façade is to have a port for module insertion the portion of the enclosure that is
to be removed should be reconstructed as a panel to be replaced after module insertion or
on the exterior face of the module to maintain façade continuity. This preserves the
character of the building while still allowing the requisite access for adaption and module
insertion. Caution must be taken to ensure that the façade is not damaged during the
process of removal and reconstruction or that loads are safely redistributed in the case
where the exterior walls are load bearing.
Non-permanent connections
• The use of non-permanent connections is necessary for future disassembly and
replacement of any building component. An example of this is using bolted connections
for structural elements where possible instead of welds or glue. Applicable for both the
building and modules.
Layering of building systems
• Building systems such as electrical, plumbing, and HVAC should be discretized and
layered to ensure each system can be safely accessed and modified without obstruction or
damage to other systems. Applicable for both the building and modules.
103 | P a g e
Reserve capacity of building systems
• All building systems should have extra capacity to ensure that a wide variety of uses and
conditions can be supported throughout the operational life of the building. This does not
necessarily apply to modules because they can be modified to support any use condition.
For adaptive reuse projects, the building structure, and other systems to a lesser degree,
should have been designed for heavier loads than those that will be seen throughout the
new adapted design life.
Building accessibility
• The building should be accessible from all sides for module insertion at more locations
allowing for greater utilization of available floorplan space. A decision should be made
whether it is feasible to insert modules at individual locations or through a few ports for
the entire building depending on how many sides are accessible and how much staging
space around the building is available.
Material simplicity and quality
• High strength and durable materials should be used wherever possible to minimize future
repair or modification and to allow for disassembly and reuse at the end of the building’s
useful life. The use of composite materials such as reinforced concrete, or composite
metal deck is not recommended due to the difficulty in separating individual materials for
future salvage and reuse.
104 | P a g e
Bibliography
Arup. (n.d.). Circular buildings toolkit. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from
https://www.arup.com/expertise/services/advisory-services/circular-buildings-toolkit
Caballero, P. (2020, December 19). Empire Stores / S9 Architecture | ArchDaily. ArchDaily.
https://www.archdaily.com/895040/empire-stores-s9-architecture
Collon, S., Verhaegh, R., Verheggen, B., & Vola, M. (2020). A living room for a city. The Arup
Journal, 2020(2), 28–33.
de Cesari, C., & Dimova, R. (2019). Heritage, gentrification, participation: remaking urban
landscapes in the name of culture and historic preservation. In International Journal of
Heritage Studies (Vol. 25, Issue 9, pp. 863–869). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1512515
di Pasquale, J., Innella, F., & Bai, Y. (2020). Structural Concept and Solution for Hybrid
Modular Buildings with Removable Modules. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 26(3),
04020032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000423
Dobbs, R., Remes, J., Roxburgh, C., Smit, S., & Schaer, F. (2012). Urban world: Cities and the
rise of the consuming class.
Empire Stores | BUILT — S9Architecture. (n.d.). S9 Architecture. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from
https://s9architecture.com/empire-stores
Empire Stores – Silman. (2022, January 26). Silman.
https://www.silman.com/work/projects/view/empire-stores/
Farnsworth, D. (2014). Modular Tall Building Design at Atlantic Yards B2. www.arup.com
Foster, G. (2020). Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to
reduce environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507
Gonzalez, M. F. (2019, January 16). LocHal Library / CIVIC architects + Braaksma & Roos
architectenbureau + Inside Outside + Mecanoo | ArchDaily. ArchDaily.
https://www.archdaily.com/909540/lochal-library-mecanoo-plus-civic-architects-plus-
braaksma-and-roos-architectenbureau
Hudson River Park Trust. (2020). Pier 57 Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Hunt, M. O., Ross, R. J., Wang, X., Soltis, L. A., Asce, M., Leavitt, R. R., & Cai, Z. (2007).
Assessment of In-Place Wood Floor Systems. Journal of Architectural Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1076-0431200713:130
Lawson, R. M., Ogden, R. G., & Bergin, R. (2012). Application of Modular Construction in
High-Rise Buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18(2), 148–154.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000057
105 | P a g e
LocHal Public Library Tilburg, Public city forum and Library, Civic Architects. (n.d.). Civic
Architects. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://www.civicarchitects.eu/projects/lochal-
tilburg
New York (N.Y.) Department of Buildings., N. Y. (N. Y.). (1968). Building laws of the City of
New York: 1938 Building Code : edited and amended to December 6, 1968. NYC Dept. of
Buildings.
OECD/IEA. (2017). Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 Catalysing Energy Technology
Transformations Executive Summary. IEA, 12.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2021, December 16). Americans are less likely than
before covid-19 to want to live in cities. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic
Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-
likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/
Pier 57 – Handel Architects. (n.d.). Handel Architects. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from
https://handelarchitects.com/project/pier-57
PIER 57 - LOT-EK ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN. (n.d.). LOT EK. Retrieved April 9, 2022,
from https://lot-ek.com/PIER-57
Pier 57 – Silman. (2020, July 17). Silman. https://www.silman.com/work/projects/view/pier-57/
Rockow, Z. R., Ross, B. E., & Becker, A. K. (2021). Comparison of Building Adaptation
Projects and Design for Adaptability Strategies. Journal of Architectural Engineering,
27(3), 04021022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000481
Rogelj, J., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., Handa, C., Kheshgi, H., & Kobayashi, S. (2018).
Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of
1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission
Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate
Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. International Panel on
Climate Change IPCC, 95–163.
Ross, B. E., Chen, D. A., Conejos, S., & Khademi, A. (2016). Enabling Adaptable Buildings:
Results of a Preliminary Expert Survey. Procedia Engineering, 145, 420–427.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.009
Scherer, J. (2016, January 24). Empire Stores: From Warehouse to Shopping Center. Dumbo
NYC. http://dumbonyc.com/blog/2016/01/24/empire-stores-dumbo-brooklyn-shopping-
center/
United Nations. (2015). THE 17 GOALS _ Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
WEF. (2016). Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology.
106 | P a g e
What are gentrification and displacement. (n.d.). Urban Displacement Project. Retrieved March
18, 2022, from https://www.urbandisplacement.org/about/what-are-gentrification-and-
displacement/
107 | P a g e
ProQuest Number: 29206316
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

A Concept For Sustainable Building Projects Using Hybrid Modular and Adaptive Reuse Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Concept For Sustainable Building Projects Using Hybrid Modular and Adaptive Reuse Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE COOPER UNION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART

ALBERT NERKEN SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

A Concept for Sustainable Building

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

ALBERT NERKEN SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

through its completion.

research and refinement that may be necessary.

Letter of Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. i

Figure 1: Linear Building Lifecycle Phases (Foster, 2020) ............................................................ 5

Table 1: Summary of Pros and Cons of Each Proposed Layout ................................................... 77

[Thesis content will start on the following page]

1.1 Problems Facing the Built Environment

in 2018 (Rogelj et al., 2018).

inflexible building stocks.

crucial as areas around the world keep building to match growth.

A common symptom of growth is the gentrification. Neighborhoods see economic investment

1.2 Introduction to Possible Solution

implementation of circular economy design strategies. A circular economy strives to reduce

through a repurposing of existing buildings instead of demolition to facilitate new construction.

advantage of overlapping requirements.

2.1 Circular Economy/Circular Design

destination in a landfill as in a linear lifecycle. A description of a linear lifecycle is given in

figure 1, and an example of a circularized lifecycle is given in the Appendix.

Circular design strategies help mitigate the environmental impact of construction in

increasing benefit to a circularized and sustainable environment). The mentioned circular

provided in the appendix.

materials (dematerialization), preservation and extension of resources (natural and processed),

which are listed in the framework and will be further discussed.

remanufacturing, and reuse of building individual components, adaptive reuse of whole

buildings, or the use of salvaged materials in new construction.

discussed further in another section.

level strategies are going to be discussed further.

construction or for retrofitting existing buildings as in adaptive reuse projects. Adaptability, in

deconstructed, refurbished, or otherwise repurposed to help promote economic, environmental,

overlap with DfA and other CE strategies.

intersection of the two is noted but not as well researched.

authors sought to determine what physical characteristics of a building facilitated or impeded

most actionable, the Design Features them was focused on.

broadness of the feature names and descriptions.

found to be crucial and a common source of problems in DfA implementation. Modern

mostly involving connections, component accessibility, standardization, and modularity. Many

of which are enablers of CE.

the better for DfD and DfA.

designing a building to adaptable.

practices for the implementation of a circular economy.

2.2.1 Adaptive Reuse

them different from designing a new building to be adaptable.

for future adaption.

2.3 Modular Construction

Modular construction, in the context of this thesis paper, involves prefabricated

manufacturing and construction. Module size needs to be compatible with manufacturing

mass between spaces.

additional costs as well.

an economy of scale, as well additional transportation and installation costs compared to

traditional construction need to be considered in the planning stages of a modular project.

70% (most of which could be recycled as well).

2.3.1 Hybrid Modular Construction

quite wasteful and harmful to the environment.

A concept for a hybrid modular building is presented as a solution to multiple issues in

mobility in working classes and global industries.

Figure 4: Hybrid Modular Building Concept (di Pasquale et al., 2020)

The three main forms of modular construction, self-supporting, core-supporting, and

for module insertion sequencing is provided in figure 6.