Plagiarism Declaration

I hereby declare: that except where reference has clearly been made to work by others, all the work presented in this report is my own work; that it has not previously been submitted for assessment; and that I have not knowingly allowed any of it to be copied by another student.

I understand that deceiving or attempting to deceive examiners by passing off the work of another as my own is plagiarism. I also understand that plagiarising the work of another or knowingly allowing another student to plagiarise from my work is against the University regulations and that doing so will result in loss of marks and possible disciplinary proceedings against me.

Signed

Date

[1]

Joe Waller 7thApril 2011

21.1-Functional Adaptability- Building Resilience

Cardiff University Supervisor- Prof. Y. Rezgui

[2]

Contents

Page Number

1.1. Abstract.......................................................................................................6 1.2. Introduction.................................................................................................6 1.2.1.Solutions.......................................................................................................7 2. Literature Review............................................................................................7 2.1. Introduction...............................................................................................7 2.1.1. Functional Adaptability................................................................................8 2.1.2. Adaptive Re-Use........................................................................................8 2.2. Adaptable Approaches.....................................................................................9 2.3. Structuralism...............................................................................................11 2.3.1. Generality.............................................................................................13 2.3.2. Elasticity........................................................................................................13 2.3.3. Flexibility...................................................................................................13 2.3.3.1. Flexibility Measures..........................................................................14 2.3.3.2. Modularity.........................................................................................14 2.3.3.3. Prefabrication/ Standardisation................................................................14 2.3.3.4. Disassembly.....................................................................................15 2.4. Technological Adaptability.............................................................................15 2.4.1. Services........................................................................................................15 2.5. Conclusion (Literature Review).....................................................................15 3. Case Studies.................................................................................................17 3.1. Adaptahaus...............................................................................................17 3.1.1. ComfortAdaptahaus............................................................................19 3.1.1.1. VentilationAdaptahaus ..................................................................19
[3]

3.1.1.2. LightingAdaptahaus.......................................................................20 3.1.2.Building Technology Adaptahaus...................................................................21 3.1.3. Problems With Adaptahaus........................................................................25 3.1.4. Conclusion Adaptahaus..........................................................................25 3.2. The Igus Factory..........................................................................................26 3.2.1. Adaptability measure --Igus Factory................................................................26 3.2.1.1. Flexibility --Igus Factory.....................................................................26 3.2.1.2. Generality--Igus Factory.....................................................................27 3.2.1.3. Elasticity --Igus Factory........................................................................27 3.2.2. Building Technology --Igus Factory................................................................28 3.2.3. Conclusion --Igus Factory........................................................................29 4. Design Work............................................................................................................30 4.1. Design Problem..........................................................................................30 4.1.1. The Building...........................................................................................31 4.1.2. The Site................................................................................................32 4.2. Design Report............................................................................................34 4.2.1. Abstract --Design Report.........................................................................34 4.2.2. Introduction --Design Report...................................................................34 4.3. Design Brief................................................................................................34 4.4. Design Ideas..............................................................................................36 4.5. Building Technology --Design Report................................................................36 4.6. Design Philosophy.......................................................................................37 4.7. Design Management ...................................................................................37 4.8. The Building Structure..................................................................................39
[4]

4.9. Construction Outline....................................................................................39 4.9.1. Building Design Layouts...........................................................................41 4.9.1. Phasing................................................................................................43 4.9.2. Main Construction Elements....................................................................45 4.9.2.1. Prefabricated Panels.........................................................................48 4.10. Costing...................................................................................................49 4.11. Building Services --Design Report.................................................................49 4.11.1. Ventilation for Air Quality and Cooling.....................................................50 4.11.2. Space Heating.....................................................................................50 4.11.3. Lighting --Design Report........................................................................51 4.11.4. Waste and Plumbing............................................................................51 4.11.5. Electricity Outlets................................................................................52 4.11.6. Fire Protection....................................................................................52 5. Using Renewable Energy................................................................................53 6. Conclusion --Design Report.............................................................................55 7. Bibliography.................................................................................................56

[5]

1.1. Abstract Currently the UK has a large number of unused and unwanted buildings, yet inner city development and expansion is happening. The reason a new building is often more financially viable and suitable for a developer, is that unlike old buildings they can be built for the developers specified needs. The old building stock we have is largely designed for the need of the client who acquired it and therefore, once this building has served its proposed purpose, it does not always adapt easily to newer, more modern needs. This report hopes to explore ways in which new builds, through methods of functional adaptability, can avoid the pitfalls that have caused so many white elephant buildings in the United Kingdom.

1.2. Introduction When referring to functional adaptability, it is the process of changing the activity that occurs within the space so that the occupant is able to define the purpose of a space. When thinking of modern living, ideas of open plan living and increased comfort are things that come to mind. On the flip side most UK houses were built to create lots of segregated rooms, many of which were separated with heavy load bearing walls; these are what make it very expensive when modifying the spaces inside. Yet even now houses are being mass built with defined, sleeping, living and dining areas, which people are required to adapt to. Ultimately though there is not a huge demand for more adaptable living, nor is there a problem, cemented by the issues surrounding adaptability, for home owners trying to sell a house. So when considering the functional side of adaptable building, domestic dwellings may not be the ideal place to focus efforts just yet. Another area of interest for where functional adaptability could serve a purpose is for larger high rise, offices or flats, public
[6]

buildings and the health care sector; these are areas where demand for services change rapidly, and it could help by reducing the financial impact of change(Webb et al. 2007).

1.2.1. Solutions When considering the need for functional adaptability you first must consider the purpose of a building. A building has a technical purpose for which it was designed. A building also has a social-economical purpose based on the users need for the building. The economical lifespan of a building is the amount of time for which the proposed purpose of the building is important to the occupier (Wilkinson et al. 2009). When this building has reached its economic death is when the building risks becoming redundant. One option would be to reduce the physical life span of the building, to meet the shortened functional necessity of the building, such as with the XX-office, where the building life span was reduced to 20 years (Post and Willems 2005). This resulted in 45% reduction in resource consumption (ibid). This resolves the sustainability aspect but does not supply a good solution for the functional aspect of the issue. Another option is to create some method of increasing the economical lifespan of the building which will help balance with the technical purpose; this is the form of spatial and functional adaptability this report aims to analyse.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction This review is of the current research surrounding Functional adaptability within architecture and the construction industry. The main focus will be on the techniques that
[7]

must be incorporated in design to allow for an adaptable structure. The application of these architectures will create a more sustainable and future proof construction process, with long economic benefits. There is a wide variety of research around adaptability and methods for application and in this report I hope to bring them all together to give a good understanding on how to advise a design team, and also to design for adaptability.

2.1.1. Functional Adaptability It is important to start out with a definition of functional adaptability, which can be referred to for the rest of this paper. Functional adaptability is the process of changing the use of a space without having to make structural alterations. Designing for adaptability increases the economic life span of a building and allows it to easily cope with change.

2.1.2. Adaptive Re-use Another important sub-strain of functional adaptability is adaptive re-use. This is important in terms of reaching sustainability targets but also for developers who own disused buildings. Latham (2000) defined adaptive re-use as; A process that retains as much as possible of the original building while upgrading the performance to suit modern standards and changing requirements. This is one of the best definitions for the term as it highlights many of the key factors that make adaptive re-use so important. Firstly it is defined as a process that retains as much of the original structure as possible. Bullen (2007) highlights that there is a lot of history and culture encapsulated in a building, and particularly in the outer shell. It is for this reason there are planning regulations that prevent from complete destruction of buildings. Ultimately though, if the majority of the structure is maintained there is very little

[8]

demolition work. Demolition work by nature is time consuming expensive and results in a large number of pollutants being let into the atmosphere and so, to remove this stage of the process means that the building should be more sustainable. Upgrading the performance is essential. If the performance was not upgraded then the new building is still unlikely to meet user needs. It is also important during adaption of structures; new technology is incorporated to meet changing demands (Nakib 2010).

2.2 Adaptable Approaches In its simplest form the idea of functional adaptability is not a new or unused concept. It lies in simple design decision that results in a space that has no pre defined function. For example Davison et al. (2006) explains how Reid Architecture Consultancy used and adapted current building stock to satisfy their changing needs. Reid started consulting from a Georgian town house that was initially built for wealthy families with servants. This is an example of adapting the function of a building for an alternate use. The initial design of the town house was suitable for adaptability due to its high ceilings and generous room sizes. These features have led to these town houses being used as hotels, offices as well as its original purpose which is as a high class residency. (Davison et al. 2006) This is a low tech and rudimentary approach to adaptable design. When Reid outgrew their town house they relocated to a 1960s office structure. This was a structure that was considered low quality and unsuitable due to low storey heights; no reception, one lift and no air conditioning (Davison et al. 2006). This shows that when the building was designed originally it was not with adaptability in mind, as it had poor generality measures; low ceilings. It also only had one lift, meaning the flexibility and hence the divisibility of the structure was poor. It also had no reception and no air conditioning meaning that it was not fit for purpose as a
[9]

comfortable modern office. On the other hand the building did have a narrow plan which lent itself to natural ventilation, a simple and open plan with large spans, allowing compartmentalisation if necessary (Davison et al. 2006). This meant that significant changes could be made to make the building more suitable for a high class office environment. This case study shows that existing building stock can be adaptable, even if it was not considered at design stages. This paper introduces the concept of loose fit, which is where the structure does not restrict the purpose. With simple changes like larger rooms, non load bearing walls and narrow floor plans, the function of each area of the building can be changed with minimal structural changes. The text also breaks down factors that affect the capacity of a building to adapt (ibid). This is broken down into 6 main areas which are; Storey heights Building Proximity Plan Depth Structural grid Vertical Circulation Fire Safety.

Provided that these 6 factors can be satisfied, adaptive re-use is an economically and sustainable approach to building. More high tech designs incorporate techniques such as prefabrication and modularity, which is the most common flexibility measure used (Arge 2005). It is these techniques which need to be explored so as that design teams are aware of applications for these technologies when building in a sustainable manner, which is in the forefront of social and political issues. This is largely to do with the fact that all new homes are required to achieve
[10]

carbon neutrality by 2016, in new rules outlined in 2006 by the British government to try and meet overall carbon reduction targets of 60% by 2050 (BBC 2006).

2.3. Structuralism In the 1970s there was an architectural movement called structuralism. From within this movement came some key adaptability concepts that are essential for understanding adaptability from first principles (Arge 2005). These are; Generality, Flexibility and Elasticity. Generality- is the ability of a building to easily change to user needs without changing its properties. Flexibility- is the ability of a building to meet changing functional needs of the user by changing its properties easily. Elasticity- is the ability of a building to extend or be partitioned relative to changing user needs. These 3 concepts cover most of the approaches to functional adaptability and will be referred to throughout the paper by those three definitions. Table 1 shows a list of different technologies that can be used in adaptive design, with each being sub divided into one of the three adaptability principles. The table is extremely useful in giving an architect a starting point for sizing, when design a new structure.

[11]

Table1- Technologies used in adaptive design (Arge2005)

Within these 3 concepts there are three more sub areas which must be considered. These are; structure, space plan and services (ibid). Structure- you have to allow for change of function when considering design loads, also allow for extension outward, or another storey. Space Plan- it should be possible to change the space plan depending on user needs. Services- should be installed so as to allow extra loading on the systems as well as easy access.

[12]

When designing for adaptability these are the main concepts to keep in mind. Beyond that the building components must be considered. Further to that there are adaptive techniques that should be thought about.

2.3.1. Generality There are many factors that can be incorporated at the design stage in order to increase the generality of the spaces within a building. This can be making rooms that are oversized, to incorporate many functions, and the spans should be as large as possible with as few internal columns and load bearing walls as possible(Fuster et al. 2009). Making sure lighting and electricity outlets are sufficiently spread is also important, so as not to limit use of spaces.

2.3.2. Elasticity When a building is required to elastically adapt there are many ways it can do this. For the easiest most effective solution, it should be possible to deconstruct external envelope, to accommodate the extension. Also the services should be easily connected to the new sections, without overloading them. Developers are aware of elasticity, and it is often a structural design consideration as it is the cheapest area of the three to invest in (Arge 2005).

2.3.3. Flexibility Flexibility of the structure, allows the internal layout to be remodelled. These measures are put in place to help mitigate risk as much as possible (Gil and Tether 2010). When designing for flexibility the structure should be designed to take an extension or possibly
[13]

another storey, or internal reconfiguration consequently foundations and other load bearing components should be over engineered to accommodate this (Fuster et al. 2009).

2.3.3.1. Flexibility Measures Although these spatial adaptability measures hold some bearing over the other primary principles, it is flexibility where they have the most influence. All the techniques below when combined together will give a building the best possibility of coping with change in unpredictable circumstances.

2.3.3.2. Modularity Modularity is the most commonly used flexibility measure (Arge 2005). The concept of modular design is simple, building in lots of smaller standardised sections, or modules that when combined create the building. This is ideal when considering elasticity of a building as if extra space is needed extra modules can be easily added.

2.3.3.3. Prefabrication/ Standardisation As in a Channel 4 programme (Grand Designs, 2011), prefabrication of building components in weather proof conditions allows, for building to much smaller tolerances. It also means that different trades can work on separate parts of the build meaning less delays, hence more efficiency. Standardisation of building parts could be revolutionary in terms of building sustainability (Grand Designs, 2011). It would allow for building components to become reusable and not necessarily in the same building. If building components could be reused, in the long run it could dramatically reduce the cost of building through mass production. Nakib (2005) highlights that standardisation really
[14]

equates having a consistent size and weight of component with their connection, locations and physical format the same in every case.

2.3.3.4. Disassembly Making buildings that can be disassembled ultimately solves the problem caused by demolition. This also adds in the sustainability factor of recycling components, either back to raw materials or preferably back into a building structure (Gil and Tethere 2010).

2.4. Technological Adaptability

2.4.1. Building Services It is technological adaptations and advancements that allow our buildings to be designed for adaptability. New technology is called for and defined by the necessary function. It is for this reason that when considering functional adaptability you cannot ignore technological adaptation; after all without adaptable lighting and ventilation systems, flexibility would not be possible (Nakib 2010). It is also extremely important to understand future technology or at least speculate what may come so as that it can easily incorporated.

2.5. Conclusion (Literature Review) In order to make the most of adaptive technologies they have to be used in clever ways that adapt to the situation. It is important that designers and architects understand the technologies, their applications and the cons to designing without considering adaptability. It should also be understood that although adaptability should not be neglected there are applications where it is more essential. For example, office buildings, flats and hospitals are
[15]

all areas where by functional adaptability should be at the fore front of design. Adaptability is also something that should be balanced by other risk management methods. Over investment in functional adaptability for an investor could mean big financial cost, so adaptability measures should be considered over their life cycle not just a capital investment and applied sensibly.

Going forward, it seems necessary to design a building using adaptive techniques, by analysing existing case studies and the literature. Although offices and health care are perhaps the most important areas for which adaptability should be used, within the constraints of this report, designing one of those mentioned may be too time consuming. There are other types of buildings, where these adaptive techniques could be demonstrated on a smaller scale. The building that will be demonstrated is a community centre that has become too small. Community centres in the UK are being closed regularly as council budgets are cut; they are often the first thing to have their funding stopped. This is argued by Paul Whyatts (2011) article in The Derby Telegraph; Playgroup boss steps in to save community centre from closing. In this article it is explained that the council have completely removed funding to a centre meaning a member of the community is choosing to take it over at great personal expense. Ross (2011) reports in the Press and Journal, that Aberdeen council, who currently own 24 of the citys 51 community centres, have decided to lease all of their centres to private management. This is likely to mean that any centres that cannot find private funding will end up closing as the councils no longer have funding to support them. This is why adaptability is important for community centres. Many community centres are not economically viable due to their restrictive use. It is important that owners and councils
[16]

should be able to use these buildings to provide revenue, even in extreme economic climates. Functional adaptability would go some way to allowing that, and this is what the design sections will try to explore.

3. Case Studies In order to help with the re-design work, it seems natural to critically analyse and understand some existing examples of buildings that incorporate functional adaptability. This report will analyse the Adaptahaus in Cumbria and the IGUS factory in Cologne. The Adaptahaus is a residential case study, which is perhaps more closely related to the community centre, but it is the techniques and technologies that this report will try to focus on.

3.1. Adaptahaus Adaptahaus is the brain child of Alan Dawson, who worked with architectural steelwork for over 35 years. He designed the Adaptahaus even though he had no architectural experience. It was an idea that spanned and was perfected over for 22 years. The concept was such that the whole build would be prefabricated with no wet trades on site. On the 27th February 2011 the build was documented on the Channel 4 documentary Grand Designs. Adaptahaus was designed as a family home with functional adaptability at its heart. The main marketing point for Dawsons design is: Efficient Minimal waste Energy efficient Safer on site Future proof
[17]

The way Dawson achieves these things are by extensive use of adaptability measures. He plans for change by incorporating flexibility measures with moveable internal walls, as well as adaptable lighting and ventilation. The house was also designed with generality in mind. This is incorporated by the large spans and large floor to floor heights. Elasticity measures lie naturally in the structures dismountable frame, meaning that external walls can be easily removed to accommodate an extension. The real beauty of the concept lies in the fact that once manufactured, it only takes 20 days to construct the building. It is a precision built structure that is made to millimetre tolerances in a factory (Grand Designs, 2011). This means that when the foundations are laid the anchor bolts for the columns have to be placed with extreme accuracy otherwise the frame will not work as intended. The tolerances are such that when the frame is in and the panels are clamped in place, the structure is almost completely air tight, which goes a long way to making the building energy efficient. After the foundations are laid, the steel frames are manufactured and the panels are pre-fabricated, the most difficult task must take place. This is transporting the large steel sections to site from the factory on the back of a lorry (ibid). This is problematic as it is necessary to create frames with large spans so as that wall panels do not become too small, as this would remove some of the efficiency of building in this way. Furthermore, this means the frames are 4m wide. This is inconvenient for anyone trying to share the road with the lorry. This then becomes a logistical issue and is the trickiest thing to overcome in the build. Once at the site the large sections are then craned onto the anchor bolts and secured with 6 nuts per column. It only takes one day to crane in all the steel framed sections. On day two the curved glass section is craned in and the lower level walls start to go in. By day 5 the roof goes on and the building is airtight. It then only takes a further 15 days to move in to the structure. The original deadline had to
[18]

be extended as Dawson underestimated the time it would take to cover the joints between panels (ibid).

This innovative building technique is made possible by the technologies used to create a comfortable living environment and also hold the structure together. Dawson designed for user comfort by building an air tight building, providing a good ventilation system and considering visual comfort with good adaptable lighting.

3.1.1. Comfort --Adaptahaus

3.1.1.1. Ventilation --Adaptahaus Adaptahaus uses a whole house ventilation system with a heat recovery pump.

Dirty warm air removed from the rooms and taken for heat recovery Cool clean air from outside warmed and pumped into the rooms Cool clean outside air from

Dirty air from inside after 80% of the heat removed

Figure 1- The pipe network for the heat recovery ventilation system in Adaptahaus. (Alan Dawsons Associates(ADA) 2010)

[19]

The heat recovery system is not only effective for user comfort but also enhances the buildings eco-credentials (ADA 2010). The ventilation system itself is a mechanical one, which gives better control of the internal conditions. It is able to use a mechanical system without being energy hungry, by recovering 80% of the heat energy that would otherwise belost to the outside air. From the official Adaptahaus website (ibid) it is suggested that this system changes the air in the building once every 2 hours, meaning the air is much fresher than could possibly be achieved by natural ventilation.

3.1.1.2. Lighting --Adaptahaus The lighting used was low energy 3W LED downlights, that are pre-installed into the ceiling sections. The lighting performs 3 primary functions; To enable occupant to work and move around safely. To enable occupant to efficiently perform tasks within the space. To provide visual comfort.

Using lots of low energy low power lighting gives you a better LUX distribution and helps to aid visual comfort by removing shadows, provides low light differential across the space and avoids light reflecting off surfaces.

3.1.2. Building technology --Adaptahaus When considering comfort you cannot ignore the air tight construction which allows the ventilation system to be so effective. Figure 2 shows the method by which the external panels are clamped in place.

[20]

Figure 2- The clamps and building material used on Adaptahaus (ADA 2010)

When considering the spaces and function, the finishes on the panels are negligible. On the other hand, the Breather membrane and the clamps are essential to how the building becomes airtight. Air tightness will affect comfort which then makes it an adaptability issue. Further to this, the entire build is based on the idea that the building has to be future proofed and that the internal spaces are adaptable. This is made possible by the fact that the services are pre-fitted in each of the building components, meaning walls, floors and ceilings. This then allows for the internal walls to be moved and plugged in to any other position depending on the desire of the user. This requires the services to meet without male or female connectors, so as that there are no limitations from the wall sections.

[21]

Figure 3 -shows how all the services are carried within the structure itself. (ADA 2010)

Dawson initially set the house up based on his needs and his desires but during the Grand Designs programme they showed a computer model of how the walls could be moved around. Dawson wanted an open plan space on the ground level as is desired by many people at this time, with just a few small separate spaces as shown in Figure 4.

[22]

Figure 4- Ground Floor Layout of Alan Dawsons Adaptahaus (Grand Designs, 2011)

The only separate spaces at ground floor level are a small toilet, an entrance hall, a small office and a utility. Although the services run through the walls and so theoretically could go anywhere through the building, Dawson has smartly kept the water and waste requirements of the building close together as indicated by the triangle in Figure 4. This helps prevent the water from needing more than mains water pressure to pump water to the outlets (ADA 2010). Also you will notice Dawson Installed a lift in his house and although this may seem odd to some people, there is a reason for it. He is a man in his sixties and he has designed this house to be future proof. Many people when they reach old age end up being forced from

[23]

their homes as they cannot cope with the stairs. This is why it is important to design homes that are able to accommodate a small lift. On the first floor the plan has been rather more segmented:

Figure 5- First Floor Layout of Alan Dawsons Adaptahaus (Grand Designs, 2011)

This floor has been segmented to have 3 large bedrooms, all with ensuites, with the master suite including a seperate dressing room as well. The first floor boasts a gym that looks out onto a double height atrium, which is the main indulgence of the house.

[24]

3.1.3. Problems with Adaptahaus The overall aesthetic of the building will not be to everyones taste. The nature of its construction means that there are alot of joints that need to be covered and this does result in a grid like interior. If someone was not put off by this, it is an extremely clever, efficient and adaptable way to build.

3.1.4. Conclusion (Adaptahaus) The Adaptahaus is a revolutionary idea with functional adaptability at the forefront of its design. Alan Dawson Associates do offer community building design services as a product and this could be a very suitable manner in which to build a community centre because it is futureproof, meaning it can adapt to the neccessary changes of function. The build is quick and clean, so the owner will still be able to keep the centre open throughout most of the construction proces, which should minimise loss of earnings.

3.2. The Igus Factory The Igus factory in cologne, designed by Nicholas Grimshaw, is home to a plastic products manufacturer. This type of work leads to an unpredictable and ever changing future (Fuster et al. 2009). Due to the nature of manufacture, the factory needed to be able to cope with change. This responsibility was handed to architect Nicholas Grimshaw. It was designed in such a way that virtually all the components were moveable. This means that at any time with very little effort the internal configuration can be changed, or an external wall could be removed to allow for equipment to be brought in.
[25]

As this is a factory, it would be unnecessary and unwise to analyse how the comfort levels are maintained in such a large structure, as this hold little to no bearing on the community centre design project. What this report will try and focus on is the factories ability to reconfigure its space, and also its ability to extend.

3.2.1. Adaptability measure (Igus Factory)

3.2.1.1. Flexibility Flexibility is in the genetics of this factory. It hosts a manufacturing company that requires and demands flexibility and with its entire lack of fixed components; it is perhaps the most flexible structure in the world. It has no load bearing walls and the only objects structurally imposing on the 29,000m2 floor plan is seven 2m diameter columns. The internal layout can be changed as needed and even the office space can be moved using a fork lift truck (see Figure 6).

[26]

Figure 6- The structural skeleton of the Igus factory Phase 1, the 4 64m2 sections (Grimshaw (n.d))

3.2.1.2. Generality The Igus factorys primary function is defined as something that is not sizeable. The machinery necessary to manufacture the products in the factory will vary in shape and stature. The Igus factory is built to cope with this, with its huge 33m spans and 8.4m ceiling heights, it is likely to be able to house any piece of machinery. The huge spans are made possible by large suspended cantilevers, which are connected to the columns, which are 40m high and 33m apart and support the entire roof structure.

[27]

Figure 7- Igus factory, Cologne (Grimshaw (n.d))

3.2.1.3. Elasticity The site where the factory resides is 40,000m2 and currently the facilities on that site cover 36,000m2. 29,000 of those square meters are contained within the main factory, with a further 7,000m2 being used as permanent offices, training and additional fabrication (Grimshaw 2010). The build has already demonstrated its flexible credentials since move-in in 1994, with a vast extension that added more than half the floor plan of the original factory.

3.2.2. Building Technology It is the clamps that hold the sections in place that make the building so flexible. They simply need to be loosened and turned through 90o then the sections can be easily removed by just 2 people (Crother 2000). The sections are extremely light due to the fact they are made from aluminium and can be manually moved by just two people. All electrical connections hang down from the ceiling meaning that machinery can be plugged in anywhere in the factory.

[28]

As this factory is just clamped together it does mean that should the factory become unsuitable or become unused then it could be dismantled and used in another structure. This make the building itself recyclable, which is important for sustainability issues, and also means the building components hold value and not only as a complete building. Design for disassembly may in the short term have added economic and possibly environmental costs, but on the much larger scale of the life cycle of resources, the long term benefits are potentially much greater. (Crother 2000) When first constructed, Grimshaw understood the desire for flexibility; meaning no internal walls. He also knew the importance for the business and office strain of the organisation to be able to work in peace. Grimshaw designed moveable pods, which housed the office structure. These pods are completely sound proofed and completely mobile, within the extents of the factory. It is innovative solutions like these that transform building methods. A flexible build like the Igus factory is naturally going to have a higher capital cost. In line with other reports it is believed that designing for adaptability will add 20-25% to the cost (Arge 2005). This is compared to the lowest cost solution which was 12 million (build cost to completion in 2001). This high set up cost, if designed well, should pay back over time assuming that internal remodelling takes place.

3.2.3Conclusion (Igus factory) The Igus factory is a really extreme example of building for functional adaptability; nevertheless it is something that clearly works. The factory has been designed without compromise on a high budget and consequently is absolutely flexible. It is important that

[29]

function plays a key role in the design of any building and it should be understood that the required function within a building is likely to change over time.

Upon analysis of two existing buildings, that have incorporated functional adaptability measures, the report will move focus on to the community centre remodelling project. When designing this community centre, the techniques and technologies discussed so far will be considered and incorporated wherever possible and practical.

4. Design work It is important for architects and designers to be able to design for adaptability, and for the future. This section of the report will go into some detail by means of a worked example. The example project will concentrate on how the technology and techniques talked about so far can be used in the redesign of a community centre. Adaptability is important for community centres as famously they struggle to make money and the result of this is that many end up closed and disused as discussed previously. There are more important and perhaps effective uses of functional adaptability such as high-rise housing, office structures and the health care sector, but for this project many of the ideas can be demonstrated on a smaller scale by using the community centre example.

4.1. Design Problem The current building has many problems, mainly poor facilities and lack of space. This is due to outdated design which needs to be brought up to date. Figures 8 & 9 show the current spatial configuration of the building. The community centre offers a large multi-use hall, a nursery and some rentable space used for seminars and meetings. This alone does
[30]

not bring enough revenue to the centre. The centre is currently used by young mothers and church goers, as well as small businesses for meetings and training days. If the centre does not react and become more attractive as a centre for a wider range of users then it will eventually become un-economically viable and have to shut down. The council have agreed to extend funding if the building accommodates a 250m2 library. The following report will aim to solve this design issue.

4.1.1. The Building

Figure 8-Ground floor configuration of existing building (Kwan 2011)

[31]

From Figure 8 it is clear to see how limited the facilities are and the urgency for new space and revenue streams. Figure 9 below displays much of the same, with little to offer in terms of income opportunity. It has been decided then that the centre is in need of renovation so as that it can effectively serve the community once again.

Figure 9-First floor configuration of existing building (Kwan 2011)

[32]

4.1.2. The Site The site of the development (Figure 10) is close to a Sainsburys supermarket and a therefore a busy road.

Figure 10- Site map, including community centre and supermarket locations (Kwan 2011)

[33]

Figure 10 shows the wooded area to the west and the road to the eastern side of the building. Logic therefore dictates that the building should grow to the north and/ or south.

4.2. Design Report

4.2.1. Abstract (Design Report) Functional adaptability has an application in architecture; to increase the amount of time which a building provides optimal purpose. The community centre project will identify ways in which adaptability measure can be incorporated to optimise space usage.

4.2.2. Introduction The community centre has reached a stage where expansion is necessary to create new revenue schemes, and make it a more enjoyable place for the community. This report follows the design process to highlight thought processes and design decisions throughout the project. The project follows all the way from design brief to the proposed scheme, with the design decisions being justified throughout. A SketchUp 3D model of the proposed design has been produced in order to visualise some of the concepts and will be used throughout the report. (This 3D model is supplied on the CD that is attatched.)

4.3. Design Brief The community centre is and must function as a community centre. It must be a viable solution to the problems posed by the current building. In the brief it highlights the need for visual aesthetics as well as providing the functional and adaptability factors. It is not enough to design and endlessly adapt a structure as it is largely council funded, it must be
[34]

competitively cost efficient. Necessity for design flexibility will be included at the design brief stage, as it is important to maintain economic viability of the centre and also the sustainability credentials. Within Europe it is necessary to adhere to the requirements of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD 2002). To conform to this standard the community must maintain a comfortable thermal environment, and meet energy targets that must be verified at design stage (Giuliani et al. 2011). As this project is focusing on spatial adaptability, these energy scores will not be calculated.

In order to satisfy the client, the following brief was agreed on: There must be 250m2 of library space to meet council requirements and gain planning approval. Spaces must be flexible to meet user needs. Internal walls must be moveable and reusable according to the needs of occupants. Factory assembly of main structural and envelope elements. Sustainable components wherever possible. Local sourcing of components when available. Natural day lighting should be used to minimise electric lighting while minimising solar gain in summer and maximising passive solar gain for heating in winter. Ventilation must be energy efficient incorporating the principles of best practice in natural and mixed mode design. Lifetime structure design to take into account economic life time and overall energy performance. Rainwater harvesting to reduce water consumption for toilet flushing and cleaning Purposes (ibid).
[35]

Provision for renewable energy systems including future proofing to implement systems as they become economically viable.

4.4. Design ideas Many shapes and ideas were explored when considering the foot print of the final structure, but it was the idea of modularity that resulted in the final design shape. This idea of modularity means that: Many of the internal and external components can be prefabricated and standardised, meaning a much higher quality of manufacture. Decreases the complexity of the build, which will decrease build time and labour cost. The building can be easily extended by adding extra modules.

4.5. Building Technology It is essential when considering adaptability to involve and maximise the technologies that are available. The technology available has been designed by experts that have devoted much of their lives to adaptability measures, and it is this experience that can be harnessed in the form of: Plug and Play connections are required to provide the structure with adaptable services and the ability to quickly change internal layouts. (As in Adaptahaus) Adaptable lighting HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning). VAV (Variable Air Volume), adaptable ventilation.
[36]

Flat soundproof ceilings Services through floor space and walls Multispace folding partitions (Davison et al. 2006)

Throughout the design it will be carefully considered where to use the technology available to maximise the benefit.

4.6. Design Philosophy As the designer it is imperative that when designing a building, design decisions are justifiable. It is on this basis that the design philosophy was decided and it is as follows; the building must be a fit for purpose community centre with the community at its heart. It must efficiently serve all ages and social groups within the community, whilst being able to create and maintain an income that allows the centre to thrive in all conditions. It must be somewhere people will enjoy spending time and money. It must be adaptable in terms of its purpose, to suit what is required by the community.

4.7. Design Management approach As in the Adaptahaus project the community centre will be designed from prefabricated, pre-serviced components. These parts will be standardised, with plug and play characteristics. This will allow the building services engineer to be involved before the manufacture stage. Traditionally the design process has been fixed from an early stage by architectural concepts (Giuliani et al. 2011). If the building services engineers can get involved at an earlier stage, they can use their expertise to optimise the design of the services. The client is also involved at this stage with a lengthy wish list highlighted in Table

[37]

2. By including the necessary people at the concepts stage; it ensured that costing and design aspirations remained compatible (ibid).

Table 2- Clients wish list for the community centre (Kwan 2011)

[38]

4.8. The Building Structure The existing building has no internal load bearing walls and consists of a steel frame with brick cladding. Internally there is a lift that is not in an ideal location, but it would be expensive and problematic to move. The existing staircases are also installed with sufficient fire protection and as such they will remain in their existing positions. As a starting point, the building will grow from the existing structure with the stairs and lift remaining in place. When extending the building, a structural steel frame will be used as this will just bolt directly onto the existing building. The current building was not designed for adaptability, so this part of the design is an adaptive re-use. As such, this section must be treated differently to the new sections which are specifically designed for spatial adaptability. The new building envelope is inspired by Alan Dawsons Adaptahaus, and will be completely prefabricated in sections in a factory which will be craned into place onsite. These sections will be prefabricated and pre-serviced and plugged into place onsite. The foundations of the extensions will be over engineered to allow an extra storey if one should ever be needed; the existing foundations were never designed for this so consequently, all extensions to the current building will have to be horizontal. The current roof shape is not very accommodating to an extension and as such it will be completely remodelled. This is more for aesthetic reasons than structural, although it will help to tie the structure together and claw back previously lost floor plan.

4.9. Construction Outline The starting point of design was the idea of modularity, so the community centre will be capable of taking many different floor plans. Figures 11 & 12 show two possible schemes. The first is set out to accommodate a day centre, perhaps for the elderly (Figure 11). Figure
[39]

12 is for the situation where the day centre is under used and hence extra office space is acquired. These are just two possible floor plans. The main benefit of modular construction, with standardised components, is that new rooms could be ordered to replace the existing components; which could be recycled. This acts as a flexibility and elasticity measure.

Figure 11- Proposed first floor plan

Figure 12- Alternative floor plan

The alternative floor layout (marked in red) is indicative of the concept of functional adaptability. The ability to change the building to suit the business is a key guiding force to the design.
[40]

4.9.1. Building Design Layouts

Fire exit

Main entrance

Figure 13- North-east view of ground floor

Fire exit

Figure 14- South-west view of ground floor

Figure 15- View from the east of the first floor layout

[41]

Figure 16- North west view of the first floor layout

Figure 17- North west view of the entire building

Figures 13 to 17 show in 3 dimensions the design proposal and show how the spaces interact. Combined with figures 11 and 20, gives a good idea as to how the rooms interact with each other.

[42]

4.9.1. Phasing It is important to consider the phasing of the build, as the client will be losing money all the while construction is occurring and this should be minimised. The new part of the build should be extremely quick, clean and efficient, whereas the refurbishment of the old building does create tradition building problems. Fortunately the proposed building methods are relatively but not completely unobtrusive compared to more the established building methods.

The proposed phasing of the build is as such: Phase 1 Ground works would need to be done with all foundations and mains services laid and anchor bolts positioned. At this stage the existing structure could be open for business as usual. Phase 2 The original building would need some cladding removed to expose the structure, in order to accept the new frame. This stage is potentially intrusive for certain parts of the buildings and for the two extensions will affect the rooms at the corners of the current building. Phase 3 Complete the south wing of the build, so that business can run from the new extension. Phase 4 Complete the north wing of the building, which includes preparing the existing structure to take the extension. Phase 5 Integrate new and old structures by removing the adjoining cladding, and joining the gaps.
[43]

Phase 6 Remove the roof and crane in new roof sections. At this stage internal wall sections would be craned into the existing part of the community centre. During this stage the centre would have to be closed. Phase7 Joiners are required at this stage to fill the gaps between panels, internally and externally. Phase 8 Complete internal furnishing and retro fitting of the toilets and kitchens. Phase9 Complete landscaping and access routes to the centre. This may include outside play areas for children, foot and cycle paths and disabled parking.

Phases 5 to 9 are likely to be extremely intrusive and limit the ability of business to keep operating. As such there could be other avenues to explore but this is beyond the boundaries of this document. The nature of adaptive re-use is that there will be partial demolition, which is also intrusive. As the walls themselves are not structural, the cladding on the existing building would not need to be completely removed until such time when both the old and new are to be integrated. This would need to be discussed further with the client because eventually, as mentioned, there will be disruptive demolition work on the existing building. This means the client would have to decide whether to take the hit from the start and accept the demolition would close the business for a short while. Alternatively, as in the proposed phasing, the client could try and take minimal disruption from the start and stay open for business as long as possible before necessary demolition works.
[44]

4.9.2. Main Construction elements The design proposed consists of completely prefabricated components that are built in a factory then transported to site. There will be: A structural steel frame. Wall panels, which are pre-serviced and decorated. Floor panels that are fully serviced and fitted with chosen flooring. Large roof trusses, with pre-wired light fittings.

The building was designed for modularity and as such the basis was a grid. Each rectangular section is 3.4x2.3m with internal walls 150mm thick and external walls 300mm thick. Figure 18 shows the ground floor with the design grid superimposed onto it.

19m m 2.6m 3.55m 41.25m Figure 18- Ground floor with building dimensions 2.6m 11m

The floor to ceiling height of the building has been designed as 2.7m, with 300mm first floor panels. This ceiling height is guided by Table 1 (Arge 2005) and increases the functional adaptability of the structure as a generality measure.

[45]

The existing structure is absorbed by the new extensions and obviously this increases the building foot print dramatically. The internal area rises from 605m 2 to nearly 1500m2 and this growth is demonstrated by Figure 19..

Figure 19- Building footprint, within the new structure.

It s clear from Figure 19 that the footprint has increased; although not by the two and a half times that the internal floor area has. This is in part is thanks to taking back first floor area that was lost to the pitch in the roof. This pitch has been removed as it limits what can be done on the east and west side of the building, when considering the reconfiguration of the internal layout. The new first floor layout as proposed is shown in Figure 11. It is important to understand that this is a design proposal and would have to be accepted by the client. The first floor is designed to accomodate the day centre, the youth centre, 2 designated offices, changing facilities, rentable space and 120 theartre seats. This satisfies client wishes 6-12 (not including 11). The new ground floor layout (Figure 18) shown below, accounts for 235 auditorium seats, a small shop and the library which includes a flexible area with a multispace folding partition.
[46]

The ground floor also boasts a coffee shop, large seating facilities, a large nursery and a multipurpose hall. The hall was not specified on the clients wish list but as a business the hall wil positively impact as it can be rented out for sports or other activities which will create revenue.

Figure 20- Ground floor spactial layout

These facilities account for clients wishes 1-5. This leaves only 11, 13, 14 and 15 unaccounted for. These decisions can be explained as followed: 11- Learning suite- The suggested uses of the learning suite are not specialist enough that one of the rentable spaces or the hall would not be suitable. 13- Accomodation- Accomodation is something that is unlikely to benefit users of the centre positively. If the client deemed in the future that accomodation was essential this could be easily incorporated into the day centre section of the first floor, at the expense of the day centre. 14- Storage- Although mentioned on the first floor plan, storage is important when considering multi use of rooms. Fortunately with the racked seating in the

[47]

auditorium, and space under the stairs at the nursery end, there is plenty of built in storage and plant space. 15- Outside space- This has been considered in the phasing plans and a patio would be supplied at the west side of the building. This would be accessed through the auditorium area. An outside play area for children would also be available through the nursery/ hall area. The design then only neglects the clients wish for accomodation in the centre, although this has been considered for the future.

On both the ground and first floor, the ADAs Adaptahaus panels are used to supply services and partitions. Also on the ground floor, there is flexible library space that can be segregated using a multispace, folding partition. This is important to offer the centre as an extra rentable room, whereas on the other hand the council require 250m 2. Therefore, this should be considered as a multifunctional space and serves more than one purpose, which is made possible by Multispace technology.

4.9.2. Prefabricated Panels The prefabricated panels in the community centre are taken from Dawsons (2010) Adaptahaus design. ADA offer a service in design and manufacture, and their patented engineered panels are the inspiration for the design. As such this design requires the panels to be manufactured by this company, who hold the patent. The design of the panels is shown in Figures 2 & 3. It may very well be possible to improve on Dawsons system, but he spent 22 years developing and inventing this technology, so for now it will be accepted as the best known solution for the design.
[48]

The building panels in question house all the buildings services in the cavities, and through the structural frame. Although the panels can be manufactured by the engineering firm, each building has its own requirement for building services.

4.10. Costing This projects focus is the spatial adaptability and lifecycle functionality of a building and as such no detailed costing has been done. It can be expected though that this scheme costs 20-25% more than the cheapest solution which was 12 million. This excess capital cost should pay back over its life time provided there is some evolution of the internal spaces.

4.11. Building Services --Design Report Building services were considered at design stage and incorporated in building panels. This allows for quicker and less disruptive erection on site. It also acts as a flexibility measure. If the building components contain the services then they are not constrained to a single position, as in Dawsons Adaptahaus. The panels are designed so as that when they are moved, they can be quickly plugged in and then become fully functional. The services contained within the walls are plumbing, waste, heating, ventilation and electrics.

It is suitable in a building of this size to use a Building Management System (BMS). This will be used in order to control lighting and the hybrid ventilation. The BMS is important in a public building like this as building regulations dictate certain levels of comfort, which need to be monitored. It may also help reduce energy consumption by only using mechanical ventilation and artificial lighting when necessary. BMS is an excellent solution to control comfort and is also affordable as computers are inexpensive nowadays.
[49]

4.11.1. Ventilation for Air Quality and Cooling Mixed mode ventilation will be needed on this site, as there are sections where the road interferes with areas that are required to be sound insulated. Also, being so close to the road raises air quality issues. Cooling will be provided by a whole building Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, with a heat recovery pump. This is to create a controllable climate within the building, whilst having the energy efficiency of a heat recovery pump. The mechanical ventilation system will be assisted by opening windows for natural ventilation, with most with upper fanlight and outward opening casement windows being the optimum solution. These provide double openings that should be sufficient to ventilate a room that is 6.75m deep. The mechanical ventilation will work on a whole building system as in Figure 1, controlled by a BMS.

4.11.2. Space Heating Space heating will be provided by the HVAC system, wherever possible passive solar gains will be maximised for winter heating, but some of the ventilation outlets will be fitted with heating coils to provide space heating. Due to the size of the building and because certain core areas have insufficient window area, mechanical heating and cooling is regrettably necessary.

[50]

4.11.3. Lighting --Design Report With the potential of changing the shape and size of internal spaces, lighting is extremely important; it must be adaptable, and unrestrictive. The best solution is of widely spread spot lights or down lights on a dimmer switch. This will give good and controllable light distribution and helps aid visual comfort. Using FOLD systems (2003) lighting design tool, it was found that to provide sufficient lighting at the working plane, which is approximately 400 when needed, 9- 55W down lights per 3.4x2.3m section will be sufficient. These will be placed at 1.1m and 0.75m centres respectively. This will be supplemented by good natural day lighting to reduce the necessity for artificial light and light levels will be monitored by a BMS to ensure artificial lighting is not being used unnecessarily.

4.11.4. Waste and plumbing It is possible to transport waste through the wall panels, but naturally the further it has to travel the more pumping will be required and this will be noisy and energy hungry. This has prompted the decision to try and group the wet services as close together, as is sensible. As such, the toilets and the kitchen have been clustered in a central location in the building; shown below in Figure 21.

[51]

Figure 21- Toilets and kitchen cluster (Ground Floor)

4.11.5. Electricity Outlets Plug sockets often help dictate room layouts, seemingly limiting the function of that space. This has been considered so plug sockets will be sufficiently and evenly spaced across the walls to remove this issue.

4.11.6. Fire Protection As the construction is a flexible one with the potential to have no internal walls it is essential that the building is sufficiently protected in the eventuality of a fire. To do this a sprinkler system is included and has outlets throughout the whole structure. Fire exits are evenly and adequately spread throughout the ground floor.

[52]

The services considered would be designed in great depth by a building services engineer. It is essential to understand how the services can affect the comfort of people using the building, and it is comfort levels that force services to be considered in functional adaptability. It is important that wherever possible the ventilation systems and lighting systems are supplemented by natural means. This is a sustainability issue but also an issue that impacts on running costs. Secondary to reducing energy consumption it would be wise to incorporate renewable energy sources in the design.

5. Using Renewable Energy Although the purpose of this project is to analyse space and flexibility of the architecture, renewable energy deserves a mention because of sustainability targets that all buildings must now reach by law. There are many types of renewable energies that could be incorporated at the design stage, such as:

Solar water heating and Photovoltaics: For this technology to be viable it would have to be proven that solar levels are sufficient in the area. Typical Pay Back Period: Photovoltaics 75-150 years, Solar Water Heating 15-25.

Solid Biomass Heating: This is a proven, cheap and relatively clean power source but it is labour intensive. This technology could be easily incorporated on request of the client. Typical Pay Back Period: 15-50 years

[53]

Combined Heat and Power (CHP): This is a technology whose merit lies in its minimal energy wastage. It works best as a community power source. Typical Pay Back Period: 35- 65 years

Wind Energy: The site would need to be surveyed to test wind levels to know whether this technology would be economically viable. Works much better as a large stand alone, rather than an urban roof mounted fan. Typical Pay Back Period: 10-15 years

Ground Source Heat and Cooling Systems: This works best when using deep boreholes, so this should be fitted at initial construction stage and not retrospectively. Typical Pay Back Period: 35- 65 years

Fuel Cells as CHP: Widely considered the future of energy, Hydrogen fuel cells have zero emissions. With that considered people do have to start using it for the technology to be effective, but as of now it would be risky. Typical Pay Back Period: Unknown

[54]

It is unnecessary to go into any further detail as to which renewable sources could be included; but it is an important note due to the regulations imposed by the government on carbon reduction. It is for this reason that renewable sources should be incorporated.

6. Conclusion Design Report Based on the site in question, there are probably more organic and more aesthetically exciting architectures possible. The design itself was architecture conscious, but ultimately function and longevity were the driving force and in this case beauty has been foresaken for function. Based on the design proposal, it is now necessary for a structural engineer to finalise the frame design a building services engineer to develop the service plans, and then the build could move forward. The final conclusion is that buildings should be designed for their whole life expectancy and not just for their initial occupancy, despite the extra cost.

[55]

7. Bibliography

Alan

Dawsons

Associates

(ADA)

(2010)

Adaptahaus

[online]

Available

at:

http://www.adaptahaus.co.uk. [Accessed: 23/03/2010] Arge, K. (2005) Adaptable Office Buildings: Theory and Practice, Adaptable Office buildings, 23 (3/4), pp.119-127. BBC (2006) Zero carbon homes plan unveiled. BBC news [online] 13th December 2006. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6176229.stm. [Accessed 27th January 2011] Bullen, P. A. (2007) Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings, Sustainability of commercial buildings, 25 (1/2), pp.20-31. Adaptahaus, Grand Designs (Series 10, Episode 7) (2011) Channel 4 [Documentary] February 27th 2011. Crowther, P. (2000) Building Disassembly and the Lessons of Industrial Ecology. [Technical Report] Brisbane: Collaborative Approaches. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2848/1/Crowther-CIB-QUT-2000.PDF. [Accessed:29th February 2011] Davison, N., Gibb, A.G., Austin, S.A. and Goodier, C.I. (2006) The Multispace adaptable building concept and its extension into mass customisation. In: Adaptables2006, TU/e, International Conference On Adaptable Building Structures Eindhoven The Netherlands 03-05 July 2006 [online] Available at: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk. [Accessed 3rd November 2010].

[56]

European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2002) The European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF . [Accessed 30th March 2011]

Fort, H. (2011) Lease deal on unfit community centre sparks anger. Get Bracknell [online] 22 February. Available at: http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2066257_lease_deal_on_unfit_community_cent re_sparks_anger. [Accessed 30th March 2011].

Fuster, A., Gibb, A., Austin, S., Beadle, K. and Madden, P. (2009) Adaptable Buildings: Three Non-Residential Case studies. [Online] Available at:

http://www.changingroles09.nl/uploads/File/Final.Fuster-Gibb-Austin-BeadleMadden.pdf. [Accessed:23/12/2010] . Gil, N. and Tethere, B.S. (2011) Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementary, Research Policy 40 (2), pp. 415428. Giuliani, I., Aston, W. And Stewart, A. (2011) The Design and Development of an Adaptable Modular Sustainable Commercial Building (Co2nserve) for Multiple Applications. International Journal of Ventilation, 8(2), pp.123-134.

Grimshaw, N. (n.d.) The flexible igus factory in Cologne [online] Available at:
http://www.igus.co.uk/wpck/default.aspx?Pagename=Factory&C=GB&L=en. 10th March 2011]. Kwan, A. (2011) Intro to Module EN3211 .EN3211. Cardiff University, Unpublished. [Accessed

[57]

Nakib, F. (2010) Technological Adaptability, an Approach Toward A Flexible and Sustainable Architecture. Conference on Technology and Sustainability in the built Environment. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3-6 January 2010, King Saudi University. Saudi Arabia.

Post, J. and Willems, M. (2005) Towards a New Building Technology [online] Available at: www.bwk.tue.nl/ade/includes/download.php?fileId=306. [Accessed 1st November 2010].

Webb, R.S., Kelly, J.R. and Thomson, D.S. (1997) Building component reuse: An FM response to the need for adaptability, Facilities, 15 (12/13), pp. 316-322.

Wilkisnson, S.J., James, K. and Reed, R. (2009) Using building adaptation to deliver sustainability in Australia, Using Adaptation in Australia. 27 (1), pp.41-61.

Whyatt, P., 2011. Playgroup boss steps in to save community centre from closing. Derby Telegraph [online] 23rd March 2011. Available at:<

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Playgroup-boss-steps-save-community-centreclosing/article-3362063-detail/article.html>[Accessed 24th March 2011]

[58]