|
Our Heritage: The Value of Historic Buildings |
|
|
|
Written by Donough Cahill
|
|
Wednesday, 01 December 2004 |
Ireland’s architectural heritage comprises a rich stock of buildings ranging
from grand country and town houses to industrial and agricultural buildings. There
is an ever growing appreciation of this heritage throughout the country at both
a grass roots and central government level. Recent planning legislation and programmes
such as the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage have sought to protect
and broaden our knowledge of this important resource. These initiatives facilitate
a recognition of this heritage asset not only in terms of its general cultural
amenity value but also in terms of the role its preservation can play in sustainable
development; successfully adapting and reusing old buildings can provide a financially
and environmentally efficient alternative to new development works.
Waste
New buildings clearly play an important role in the evolution of both rural and
urban landscapes but there is an environmental cost to this. It is recognised
that the construction industry is one of the largest waste generators in the country
and though efforts are being made to curtail this less than 50% of such waste
is recycled. In 1998 a reported 2,708,958 tonnes of construction and demolition
waste was generated of which 1,171,572 tonnes (43%) was recycled. It is intended
to increase this to at least 85% by 2013 – a very welcome initiative.
Environmental Costs
Modern building materials are generally reliant on large scale industrial processes
that can emit very substantial levels of "greenhouse gases", can require
significant energy consumption and are often transported hundreds if not thousands
of miles. For example the manufacture of cement alone accounts for 3% of "greenhouse
gases" produced worldwide and the manufacture of PVC demands a lengthy process
that requires a significant consumption of energy.
PVC
Though PVC is used extensively in modern building processes it is recognised as
being particularly harmful to the environment. There have been many reports addressing
the threats posed by PVC which generally recognise the following issues: the manufacture
of PVC produces toxic by-products; it is difficult to recycle and so inevitably
ends up in landfills at the end of its useful life; it does not biodegrade and
can release harmful additives in these landfill sites; it is hazardous when it
burns because of toxic gases produced.
The use of PVC in old buildings is particularly inappropriate. PVC windows pose
significant problems as they not only substantially erode the distinctive character
of old buildings but can also limit adequate ventilation which can lead to fungal
growth and damage to the fabric of the structure. As PVC only possesses a limited
lifespan their replacement of historic windows, with a proven lifespan of hundreds
of years, is made even more unfortunate.
Traditional Building Materials
The materials used in old buildings stand light years away from modern construction
materials. In the construction of vernacular buildings access to materials was
limited by costs and transport difficulties. For this reason materials were generally
sourced locally with renewable resources such as timber used for windows, doors
and roofs and straw, reeds and other materials used for roofing. Stone and lime
or clay would also have been sought for in the locality. On a grander scale where
costs and transport permitted, handmade bricks were first imported as ballast
and later mass-produced indigenously. Fine grained woods were also imported as
the stock of native Irish woods had largely been depleted. These buildings, having
now acquired a distinctive patina of age are quite irreplaceable and serve as
a legacy to the craftsmanship of the past.
Though the replacement of modern building techniques with those of the past
is certainly not necessary, the preservation and reuse of our existing historic
building stock should be vigorously promoted as part and parcel of national,
regional and county based development strategies. In doing so there is a clear
saving of energy and material costs or what is termed a building’s embodied
energy – the energy consumed by all the processes associated with the
production of a building. This environmental benefit is reinforced as a sustainable
form of development through the retention of heritage assets and the economic
potential provided by these.
Heritage Led Regeneration
Historic buildings lend appeal to towns and cities throughout the country defining
their character and contributing to a sense of place. They can also play a crucial
role as a catalyst for the regeneration of areas providing a backdrop against
which investment can be attracted. These processes can be facilitated through
government incentives and grants which in turn have the potential to leverage
private sector investment. The Urban Renewal Tax Incentive schemes introduced
from 1985 onwards have contributed to this process though often accompanied by
considerable controversy. On a lesser but still significant scale are conservation
grants provided by the Heritage Council, Local Authorities, the Urban and Village
Renewal Scheme and the Irish Georgian Society.
The best known heritage led regeneration project in Ireland is Temple Bar where
18th and 19th century buildings sit most comfortably with well designed new
buildings such as the Green Building and others on Curve Street and Meeting
House Square. In the UK examples abound with English Heritage’s Heritage
Dividend reports highlighting the success of urban regeneration projects in
Newcastle and Norwich amongst other places. The potential role of heritage to
attract investment in to urban areas is recognised in historic towns across
Europe with cities as diverse as Tallinn in Estonia, Kiev in the Ukraine and
Diyarbakir in Turkey reassessing this key asset.
Recent reports prepared by Dublin City Council and by the Australian Government
have also sought to study the benefits of conserving historic building but went
further in assessing not only the financial benefits but also the environmental
and social benefits of reusing historic buildings.
The Dublin City Council report, Built to Last, The Sustainable Reuse of Buildings,
went one step further through quantifying these benefits. The report assessed
the refurbishment and restoration costs of five buildings of varying age and
condition within the city. It compared these with the theoretical costs of demolition
and construction of similarly sized structures in their place. It was found
that in all but one of the cases, where the required works were particularly
extensive, that the financial costs of the new build were greater than those
for the conservation and reuse of the existing building. Additionally, it was
determined that the conservation and reuse option had lower whole life costs
(initial capital costs, opportunity costs and future costs) than the new build
option.
Conclusion
Sustainable development seeks "to meet the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Bruntland Report,
1987). The environmental benefits of conserving and reusing our historic building
stock helps to achieve this goal and through doing so provides clear economic
and social benefits. |
