(This draft will mainly be a very early and raw way of organizing and thinking about information and possible arguments)
Much of the content and readings of this class has discussed urban reuse, often advocating in favor of it. Thus, I am interested to see what are opinions and results from both sides of the argument and will seek to argue whether or not urban reuse or adaptation is positive or negative.
Adaptive Reuse is often defined along the lines of taking old structures and adapting or redeveloping them for new uses.
- Ghiradelli Square is the first major American example. The square started as a headquarters for a chocolate company and was planned to be replaced by an apartment building in 1962. However, William and Lurline Roth bought the land to preserve it and transformed it into a public space for various shops. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardelli_Square)
- Petco Park, home to the San Diego Padres that opened in 2004, preserved the historic brick structure of the Western Metal Supply Co. and incorporated it into the design. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petco_Park)
- The Beltline in Atlanta has taken abandoned rail lines and has replaced them with walking and biking trails that will be complemented by MARTA connections and streetcars.
- Historic Preservation
- Sustainable: requires less new materials to change structures and spaces
- Cultural Preservation
- Can transform abandoned spaces and help economy
- Potentially more energy efficient (http://www.planetizen.com/node/54031)
- Potentially made out of hazardous materials
- May not be able to handle modern needs
- May not have been built with certain demographics in mind, like women, disabled, etc.