COSTO - BENEFICIO

As discussed earlier in section 1.1, there is broad support for strategy to improve the environmental performance of existing dwellings, and the literature suggests that adaptation and renovation offers considerable

opportunities for improvement, however, there are drawbacks associated with

85

the implementation of policies and extensive programmes focusing on reducing operational energy use through renovation.

3.5.1 Renovating existing buildings is complex

There is convergence among researchers that increasing the life of a building through adaptation can make a significant contribution to the sustainability of existing buildings, including lower material, transport and energy consumption and pollution (Bullen and Love, 2010). However, there are ‘challenges

associated with retrofitting older building stock’ to improve energy-related performance (Marsden Jacob Associates and Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2009: 18). Bullen and Love highlight a number of broad issues in relation to adapting existing commercial buildings and improving performance, including on-going maintenance costs associated with an older building, technical problems associated with adaptation such as condition of the existing structure, services and fabric, and existence of hazardous materials, and difficulties in meeting regulatory standards for health and safety, and environmental performance which are also relevant to older residential buildings. Douglas (2006) and Latham (2000) further elaborate on the complexities of adapting heritage buildings which may be summarised as:

technical difficulties associated with the building or systems; deficiencies in technical knowledge or skills; competency in procedures; capability to deliver on objectives whilst working within policy constraints; inadequate

understanding of the existing building and its significance. Several technical publications in the form of ‘how to’ guides and case studies, have been produced; this guidance, aimed at homeowners and practitioners, seeks to achieve better energy performance whilst protecting those features that contribute to heritage significance (for example, Changeworks, 2008; Energy Saving Trust, 2005; English Heritage, 2008b; 2011; Heritage Council of Victoria, 2009; Historic Scotland, 2010; Prince's Regeneration Trust, 2010).

86

3.5.2 Different understandings of sustainability

Within the built environment sustainability has become synonymous with

‘green’ design or systems to reduce energy and CO2 emissions, and using environmentally friendly materials in buildings. For historic tangible resources such as buildings, Matero and Teutonico (2003) argue that the aim is notably different, as the physical resource is finite and cannot be easily reproduced. In this context, sustainability means ensuring the continuing contribution of heritage to the present through the thoughtful management of change

responsive to the historic environment and to the social and cultural processes that created it. This different understanding of sustainability leads to a focus on different aspects: in the former, a preoccupation with improving efficiency through introduction of technical systems, and the latter with avoiding unnecessary interventions into the physical fabric, or that would otherwise reduce cultural heritage significance into the future. Thus a contention emerges from the two understandings.

To overcome conflicts amongst different interests and values, Pereira, (2007) proposes a further understanding, termed cultural sustainability. The notion of cultural sustainability reflects the objectives of conservation and sustainability i.e. to use for present needs and to transmit the maximum significance for future generations. This has similarities with the approach of sustainable conservation advocated by Muñoz Viñas (2005: 183) who regards

sustainability as a ‘crucial notion’ underlying contemporary conservation, contends that the objective should be ‘maximum benefit’ to present users whilst not reducing meaning to future users. However, as discussed previously in section 3.2, the benefits of conservation are not easy to measure. Both of these precepts require that the present generation may use and adapt the cultural asset only to the point where future generations will not be reduced in their capacity of understanding and their multiple meanings and values. Whilst having merit, this raises issues over how to ensure that present use will not reduce significance of cultural heritage for the future, and how to predict future generations’ values.

87

3.5.3 What takes precedence—environmental performance or heritage?

As attention has turned to reducing energy use and related emissions from buildings, there is suggestion that heritage conservation has become displaced by other objectives such as environmental sustainability (State of the Environment Committee, 2011). In its report into the economic and environmental potential offered by energy efficiency, the Productivity Commission (2005: 236) noted that important issues such as the

consequences of diversity among individuals and buildings, and the loss of building features that individuals value more than energy efficiency, had been largely overlooked by policy-makers, noting that ‘Some home buyers may prefer to have a less energy-efficient home if that is what is required to obtain certain highly-valued characteristics’. Furthermore, higher levels of energy efficiency may only be sustained through trading-off other features that occupants’ value.

There is a perception amongst other groups, as noted by the recent independent report presented to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (State of the Environment Committee, 2011), that heritage is expendable, and at risk at being over-ridden by the green building agenda, with current sustainability policies and guidelines biased towards removing historic buildings and fabric and replacement with recycled materials and new energy-efficient structures, and modifications to the building envelope and significant investment in efficient systems or innovative technologies are required to satisfy current approaches. In the face of overwhelming pressure for heritage buildings to meet new environmental and energy performance requirements, May Cassar (2009: 8, 10) has observed that, in borrowing cultural assets from future generations, ‘If we are to lose original features in order to make historic buildings more energy efficient or to increase options for reuse, we must quantify and compare the performance of old and new measures ... Since the

88

measures that we take will increasingly affect the integrity and therefore the meaning of historic buildings, we need evidence to justify the inevitable changes in significance and value to the public that major interventions to reduce and improve energy use entail’.

3.5.4 Household expectations

As discussed in section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 environmental, legal, as well as functional and social factors contribute to obsolescence of the existing dwelling stock, and also influence the level of intervention. There is a

suggestion that the extent of renovation activity is an indication that the older housing stock is failing to meet the (increasing) expectations of households (Kintrea, 2007). In examining the relationship between obsolescence and housing aspirations, Kintrea contends that some elements of the housing stock will inevitably become obsolete with improvements in functionality. In this scenario, the physical resource, such as space, services and condition of the physical fabric, and capacity for adaptation, in conjunction with the cultural resource (Nutt et al., 1976; Kintrea, 2007), are weighed against the

expectations of households about what housing should provide, with different weightings on attributes depending on a household’s needs and aspirations.

Kintrea observes that in some instances the physical resources of traditional dwellings can be mitigated by the ‘cultural resources of their high quality and attractive townscape settings’ (Kintrea, 2007: 332). However, depending on cultural preferences, changes in households’ needs associated with changing household arrangements; demands for internal space driven by the complex social life of households; and the accumulation of goods associated with activities necessary for contemporary living may over-ride other

considerations. Both Shove (2003) and Kintrea (2007) note a general shift upwards in expectations of ‘comfort, cleanliness and convenience’; technical innovations such as indoor plumbing and central heating, have ‘implications for what people expect and for how they conceptualise what is normal and necessary’ (Shove and Hand, 2005: 11). Kintrea argues that public policy also plays a significant role in promoting new and higher standards, leading to an

89

‘upward leverage of expectations for all households, therefore, contributing to the process of obsolesence’ (Kintrea, 2007: 323). Whilst demand for older housing with high cultural resources may continue, Kintrea contends that there is an ‘attributes gap’ between older housing and new housing that can offer more features, including en suite shower rooms in addition to family

bathrooms; utility rooms; patio doors opening up into outdoor living spaces;

large dining kitchens; a second toilet; and off-street parking. Features such as central heating and double-glazing, although once luxury items are now seen as increasingly ‘normal’. The incorporation of ‘environmentally-friendly’

features in new housing, often absent from older housing, is also rising in importance.

Taking a cultural approach to obsolescence and renovation, Shove and Hand (2005) recognise the link between elements of the home and the kinds of activities and ways of life that can be pursued or imagined within the home.

Images of normality are influential as consumers attempt to match possession with desired performance that is, how they see themselves living. A question therefore emerges over whether existing dwellings can accommodate the changing images of domestic life identified by Shove (2003) and Shove and Hand (2005) and which are themselves shaped by available forms and

designs. Where new, or more desirable products are available, there is also a risk that the gap between existing and desired performance for residents of older housing will widen. If this cannot be bridged by renovation to provide new amenities owing to physical, cost and other constraints, the long term desirability of some forms of older housing may be in doubt. The obsolescence of older properties is inadvertently encouraged by government policy to

improve the quality and sustainability of new homes; one of the most notable differences between new and older homes is the ability to meet standards for energy efficiency.

90 3.5.5 Performance of older buildings

As noted earlier, the environmental performance of traditionally constructed buildings is imperfectly understood. A lack of reliable data to inform decisions to upgrade these buildings to meet regulatory obligations driven by the climate change agenda, and to meet homeowner aspirations, is a concern expressed by Swallow (2011). This issue is illustrated in an empirical study by Hubbard (2011) in the UK which challenges the accepted standard adopted for air permeability incorporated into the approved software for assessing energy performance of existing buildings. Further, a recent study of thermal

transmittance through building fabric (Rye, 2011) indicates that performance of traditional buildings is somewhat better than previously assumed using

standard assessment methods. Initiatives which seek to improve aspects of environmental performance, if not proven, can irreversibly alter the

significance, whether architectural, historic or other significance, without achieving the improved performance being forecast—a point which is eloquently made by Cassar (2009).

3.5.6 Regulatory standards and compliance

Existing buildings in Victoria are subject to increasing performance

requirements relating to energy efficiency through the Building Act1993 and associated regulations and standards. As from 2008, any new building work (which includes alterations and additions to a heritage building) must comply with the Regulations. In some instances, where the building work exceeds 50 per cent of the volume of the existing building, the existing building may also need to be brought into compliance⁵. Further, existing Class 1 dwellings are required to meet the same standard as for new dwellings. Generally, the Regulations provide the Relevant Building Surveyor with discretion as to how these requirements are applied. Heritage dwellings are not exempted from the requirements for energy performance, which have the potential to adversely impact on the cultural significance of the heritage building (Balderstone, 2012).

5 The Building Regulations 2006 (s.608).

91

As noted in Chapter 2, the majority of existing dwellings in Victoria were built prior to the introduction of standards for energy performance, and many older dwellings do not meet contemporary standards for environmental

performance; their physical characteristics may present difficulties for achieving standards as required by the building regulations. The inability to insulate walls, under floors, or to add to the roof area, where this would adversely impact on heritage values, could affect the ability of heritage structures to meet contemporary energy requirements as determined by standard assessment methods. Currently there is no data available on how many heritage buildings may be affected, and the impacts. Research by Woods et al. (2009) demonstrates that benign improvements such as the use of shutters, heavy curtains and secondary glazing can significantly improve thermal performance and comfort, and draught stripping can reduce leakage or drafts by 85 per cent. However, modest measures such as these are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the standards for thermal performance and energy efficiency (Wong et al., 2011), and more drastic interventions would be necessary for compliance. Whilst many small adjustments can be made to accommodate the changing needs of inhabitants without detriment to the cultural heritage significance, making a functional change can result in the historic evidence being compromised, often to an unacceptable extent. As observed by Rowney (2004) considerable change to the internal fabric often occurs during adaptation, even though the exterior of the building may

experience little change. Changes may also affect intangible values linked to the use of the place, including associations, and meanings.