Adaptive Reuse for Multifamily Housing: Volume 4 ... - InformeDesign

Implications
VOL. 04 ISSUE 10
www.informedesign.umn.edu
A Newsletter by InformeDesign. A Web site for design and human behavior research.
cover image
goes here - fit
image to the
black box
using the
guidelines
A new atrium in an old building.
IN THIS ISSUE
Adaptive Reuse for
Multifamily Housing
Two Case Studies
Related Research
Summaries
Adaptive Reuse for
Multifamily Housing
Bill Hickey, AIA
Why adaptive reuse for housing? Why
tackle a decrepit, hulking structure with
code problems—inhabited by shoals of
vicious pigeons—instead of developing a
shiny new building?
Well, it’s not always that bad. Transforming
commercial structures for residential
uses is a time-honored practice that has
burgeoned beyond the stereotypical warehouse-into-(vaguely
legal)-urban-loft of
the 1960s and 70s. There are many reasons
adaptive reuse has become a strong
and growing part of the housing market.
Adapting a building for a new use is sustainability
at its most fundamental level,
it preserves urban context while adding
richness and vitality, and it often results
in innovative, unique residential units.
While many or most of the current crop
of multifamily reuse projects are in urban
settings, they are sometimes developed in
smaller towns and rural areas, especially
when the reused property has historical
significance. The level of effort and investment
involved tends to lead to owner-occupied
units. However, it’s not uncommon
to see lease–based projects in reuse,
which may be supported by incentives or
subsidies.
Adaptive reuse has unique aspects and
technical concerns, some obvious and
some less so. In general, these fall into
two categories:
• Process-oriented items can be loosely
defined as concerned with “care of the
artifact.” They are the structural, infrastructure,
and code-related issues that
must be addressed before the building
can become a functional residential
complex and can include everything
from historic preservation to hazardous
materials assessments.
• Design-oriented items weigh the intangibles
of character and context
against a thorough understanding of
market-driven needs. “Blue-sky” or unrestrained
design concepts have to be
balanced against the constraints inherent
to a major renovation project, in addition
to accounting for the usual concerns
inherent in a multifamily project.
Process
One of the most important tasks in multifamily
adaptive reuse happens early—
the assessment of candidate structures.
“Earning money on the purchase” is central
to successful reuse projects. A careful
review the basic physical and regulatory
conditions sets the expectations and defines
the opportunities and constraints of
the project.

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
Physical Qualities
Likely qualities of candidates for reuse as multifamily
housing include the following:
• A narrow floorplate. Narrow buildings will adapt
more readily to residential use, as they provide a
higher windows-per-unit ratio. This access to light
and air is more critical in residential developments
than in the previous commercial lives of many
buildings, and this limitation has held many architecturally
distinguished structures back from
transitioning to modern use. Many vintage buildings
have “C”- or “L”-shaped plans surrounding often-neglected
light courts that can be readily transformed.
More modern, deep-plan buildings can be
adapted with the insertion of lightwells, atria, and
other significant interventions, but the likely cost
of such work may be prohibitive.
• A robust structure. Older buildings are often
overstructured for the needs of modern residential
use, which can open up the potential for features
such as balconies, whirlpool tubs, et cetera.
• Irregular structure and materials. Conversely,
older structures can also have irregular elements
(e.g., non-orthogonal structural systems;
lightweight, clay, tile-formed, concrete floors) that
impose limitations. The key is matching client expectations
to likely building circumstances before
beginning work.
• Infrastructure surprises. It is usually obvious
that most buildings considered for adaptive reuse
will not have the internal heating, air conditioning,
electrical, or plumbing infrastructures suitable for
multifamily housing. What can be equally significant,
but less apparent, are the constraints posed
by inadequate utility services (e.g., water supply,
sewer access, storm water accommodations) outside
the building. Many buildings under consideration
for reuse have limited access to and/or antiquated
city services available. Such limitations can
be costly to rectify.
• Hazardous materials. The need for careful hazardous
materials assessment in older structures
can range from the familiar (asbestos, lead paint)
to the less so (pigeon guano in quantity must be
treated as hazardous). On the plus side, many jurisdictions
have funding sources available to assist
with abatement
• Adaptability. Construction types and quality can
be to levels not attainable (or at least rarely seen)
in modern construction. These construction types
tend to be low-tech and consequently easier to alter
(e.g., internal systems can be easily integrated)
The quirks of older buildings add interest and depth.
Codes and Regulations
• It is important to view code officials as partners.
Much of the code and review processes when
adapting a building for housing depends on judgment
calls and evaluations of in-place construction
that are, in many respects, negotiations. Further,
code officials represent cities or jurisdictions that
have a real interest in seeing an underutilized or
decrepit building restored to life.
• An understanding of long-term neighborhood
and area plans and trends is important. Buildings
ripe for reuse can often be found in disadvantaged
contexts. Any local, large-scale initiatives in
process could have a positive or negative effect on a
project.
• Fire exiting and accessibility issues almost always
need addressing. Many jurisdictions now
Where Research Informs Design®

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
have “conservation codes” designed specifically to
deal with the situations that come up in reuse of
older buildings. They set out methods for providing
uncompromising life safety provisions while recognizing
the inherent value of older construction.
• Most codes have acoustic separation criteria for
multifamily residential construction. These can be
quite daunting to deal with in reuse situations, but,
as a quality-of-life factor for residents, there can be
significant return on the effort.
• Historic Register issues should be reviewed. In
addition to the National Register, many state and
local authorities maintain registries that can impact
a project. Also, many jurisdictions maintain
rolls of properties considered “eligible for listing.” In
some circumstances, this status can be as restrictive
as an actual listing. If historic tax credits are
pursued as part of the project’s funding, historic
criteria can have significant impact on the design
and management of a reuse development. The constraints
and opportunities offered by this process
must be very carefully researched.
• Many authorities restrict placement of heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning gear. Restrictions
can involve sightlines, noise standards, and
other considerations. Impact on adjacent structures
also needs to be considered.
• Ironically, one of the most common points of friction
with city approval process revolves around
parking. Reuse projects are held to the same parking
supply requirements as new construction, even
though, almost by definition, people choosing to live
in these types of urban contexts are less dependent
on automobiles and use mass-transit more. Proximity
to transit and amenities—a walkable neighborhood—will
not only attract residents. It should
also help in negotiations with authorities to reduce
to what can otherwise be draconian parking provisions.
That said, understanding the total transportation
context is important. A large residential project
can create amenities, but it can rarely create a
bus line!
A candidate structure—the starting point.
The Dreaded “Ping Rating”
As mentioned above, most codes have acoustic separation
criteria. These usually take the form of specified
minimum values for Sound Transmission Class
(STC), a value determined by testing the diminution
of air-transmitted sound (e.g., speech) through construction
assemblies. These codes typically reference
a specified value and a required field tested value
(known as FSTC). The desired rating is attained by
adjusting the type of construction— the type of wall
framing, the amount of gypsum board or insulation
in the walls—to push the field test values above (i.e.,
quieter than) a specified level.
What is less well known, but can have tremendous effect
on all aspects of design of reuse projects is what
is commonly referred to as the “ping rating.” It deals
with how sound transfers through structure from
localized impacts. The classic example is high heels
on a hard-surface floor resonating through the structure.
It is specified by the Impact Insulation Classification
(or IIC) of the assembly, and also has a field
measured standard (FIIC). Dampening impact-transmitted
sound plays a huge role in resident satisfaction.
Where Research Informs Design®

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
Standards for minimum STC and IIC ratings vary,
with rental properties generally being allowed lower
values than owner-occupied properties. From a marketing
standpoint, though, values above the code requirements
will always be preferable.
Sound isolation is a particular concern in reuse
buildings because the floor and ceiling structure are
already in place and less can be done to attain required
standards. A common solution is to use carpeting
with underlayment pad, but in older buildings
with dense structures this will not be enough;
sounds will “ping through” sometimes a considerable
distance. Additionally, carpet is sometimes not preferred
in structures that have elaborate or decorative
flooring that can be featured as an amenity if left exposed
or for indoor air quality reasons. For example,
in a heavy timber structure with hardwood floors, a
designer’s first instinct is to feature both the floor and
ceiling, but this is would likely be an acoustic disaster.
Other common design responses can include additional
insulation, resilient channels, and/or multiple
layers of gypsum board on the ceilings. There are
also a number of products made with recycled rubber
that can be used as sound isolation under new hardsurface
flooring.
Design
There is perhaps no more critical task in adapting a
building for multifamily use than to exhaustively understand
the needs and desires of the potential residents.
This is especially important in adaptive reuse
because the pool of buyers or tenants for adaptive
structures is much smaller than for the larger housing
market. This process typically begins with an
evaluation of the basic programming elements, the
fine-grained market-driven requirements and desires
that any design process accounts for (e.g., the number
of bedrooms, the types of amenities).
Key to this process is recognizing the intangible aspects
of an adaptive reuse property and its capacity
to offer more than mere accommodation to potential
residents. This group will not be comparing an
adaptive project to a three-car-garage, mass-market
property in the suburbs. Rather, this population will
be looking for a building that reflects their values in
ways that commodity housing can not—from big-picture
ideas to the details and quirks of the particular
structure. They will value reuse as inherently more
sustainable than sprawl.
Amenity or eyesore?
Adaptive reuse further differs from a blank-slate design
in how the new use interweaves with the history
embodied in the building. Understanding how
this quality will attract potential residents can be
as simple as understanding whether they will view a
scarred, patched, multicolored “ghosted” floor as an
eyesore or as an intensely interesting record of the
building’s past lives. Either response is valid; what is
critical to the designer is anticipating the reaction by
thoroughly understanding the potential resident.
The quirky nature of reuse and the context of reused
buildings can give the residential units an air of customization
and individuality, though customization
may have only occurred incidentally. The design team
Where Research Informs Design®

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
must have a keen eye toward recognizing the value of
found artifacts and elements as these can add levels
of texture and become signature aspects of the reused
building.
Case Study 1: Transformative Adaptive Reuse
The Rossmor can be characterized as a transformative
model. It was a pioneering effort in a neighborhood
that had little housing stock, and, at the onset,
relatively few amenities or resources for residents.
Yet, an opportunity was recognized to lead a transformation
of the area by revitalizing a building that
had long-been underutilized and was suffering from
over 80 years of wear-and-tear.
The value of history, even an undistinguished history,
should not be underestimated. In many situations, it
is the opportunity to interweave the past and present
that makes adaptive reuse projects so rich and exciting.
The dynamic contrasts and layering of patina
and new work form an ongoing “built conversation”
that adds a sensual quality to both the new life inside
the building and to the local surroundings.
Two Case Studies
These projects are less than ten blocks apart in St.
Paul, Minnesota, yet represent divergent approaches
to multifamily adaptive reuse development.
An interior of the Rossmor.
Built as an ammunition factory for World War One,
the Rossmor building reached completion a month
after the Armistice. The building almost immediately
underwent its first adaptation into a boot factory.
Later tenants ranged from relatively mundane
(a church) to eccentric (a man who built boats on the
fourth floor). Though drifting, the building retained
its sturdy charm.
Sturdy charm and a C-shaped plan: the initial resources of the
Rossmor.
The development team determined that likely buyers,
attracted to the particular urban context, would
also prefer a more aggressive design vocabulary.
The residential units were developed accordingly in
minimalist, modern aesthetic. The building’s history
had been recognized as a significant asset, and the
preservation and highlighting of historical qualities
established a dynamic interplay with the more modern
aspects. Units are studio/ loft type with modest
kitchens and minimal bathrooms.
Where Research Informs Design®

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
Case Study 2: Capitalizing Adaptive Reuse
The Lowry building transformation stands out as an
example of capitalizing on the existing context by
recognizing subtle opportunities in an existing situation.
Originally the Lowry Medical Arts Building,
the Lowry building lost its original vitality with the
dispersion of medical offices into the suburbs. Subsequent
attempts to fill the building with medical or
other office tenants were not successful.
What had been missing was a critical, open-minded
reassessment of the building’s assets. The structure
was adjacent to the most significant parks and cultural
resources in the city, but because it had always
been an office it wasn’t perceived to have a viable future.
The development team understood
that a large part of the
adaptation was connecting the
potential interior life of the Lowry
to the existing, vibrant life
outside. Unit interiors were kept
relatively restrained, focusing
on found qualities—rescuing
the long-covered terrazzo floors,
removing walls that obstructed
An interior of the Lowry.
the spectacular views. Units are
predominately one bedroom, with open kitchens and
storage lofts over bathrooms.
Conclusion
There is a kind of romanticism, a gentle sort of iconoclasm,
in adapting buildings for residential use.
These revitalized buildings are sought after not only
for their amenities and features, but because to live
in one is a statement of one’s interests and values
that endure beyond current trends. Adaptive reuse
is fundamentally sustainable development and offers
a tremendous opportunity to enrich the present by
engaging the past.
The Lowry building, once the Lowry Medical Arts Building.
References and Sources
Older professional references can be of great assistance
when assessing likely construction conditions.
These include Architectural Graphic Standards.
The 5th Edition is a particularly useful version as
it is a snapshot of a transition time between historic
and modern construction technologies.
—Ramsey, C. (1956). Architectural graphic standards
for architects, engineers, decorators, builders,
draftsmen, and students. New York: Wiley.
How Buildings Learn is a good general introduction
to the circuitous paths the lives of buildings can take,
and the implications and possibilities of reuse.
Where Research Informs Design®

Implications
www.informedesign.umn.edu
—Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens
after they’re built. New York: Viking.
Historic Preservation is a good survey of restoration
work, whether the project at hand is a pure preservation
or an adaptive reuse project.
—Tyler, N. (2000). Historic preservation: An introduction
to its history, principles, and practice. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Much of the adaptive reuse process is learning-by-doing;
but one of the most important sources in reuse
work is the building itself. Assemblies should be examined
as they are disassembled; existing conditions
noted to determine likely causes as well as effects.
Materials removed should be salvaged and stockpiled
for future reuse, piecing in or matching existing construction.
Don’t toss those bricks!
About the Author
Bill Hickey AIA, LEED-AP, is a
principal with Collaborative Design
Group, Inc. in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. His recent work
includes multifamily housing,
mixed-use and transportationoriented
development, strategic
planning, and collegiate projects.
He is an award-winning designer
who is a frequent guest critic at
the University of Minnesota’s College of Design. Bill
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for Architectural
History and Historical Architect.
Related Research Summaries
InformeDesign has many Research Summaries about
adaptive reuse, multifamily housing, and other, pertinent,
related topics. This knowledge will be valuable
to you as you consider your next design solution and
is worth sharing with your clients and collaborators.
“Identifying and Preserving Good Urban Form”
—Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
“Why Walls Fall Apart”
—Performance of Constructed Facilities
“Parking in Historic Downtowns”
—Landscape Journal
“Attitudes Toward Environmental Noise”
—Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
“Built Environment, Walkability, and Neighborhood
Selection”
—Journal of American Planning Association
“Bachelor Pads: The Beginning of the Myth”
—Journal of Design History
“Planning Concepts for Residential Developments”
—Landscape Journal
Photos Courtesy of:
The Collaborative Design Group, Inc.
The Mission
The Mission of InformeDesign is to facilitate designers’
use of current, research-based information as a decisionmaking
tool in the design process, thereby
integrating research and practice.
Created by:
Sponsored by:
© 2002, 2005 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.