{"title":"适应性重用:重要的回顾","authors":"F. Lanz, J. Pendlebury","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Buildings have always been reused for both pragmatic and symbolic reasons. However, out of the turbulence of the mid-twentieth century, stimulated by reactions against modern ‘clean-sweep’ planning, a new field of policy and practice emerged in the 1970s to respond to the burgeoning conservation movement and growing environmental awareness, which came to be termed ‘adaptive reuse’. The last decade in particular has seen a flourishing of interest in adaptive reuse both on the ground and in scholarship. Today, the practice is witnessed across the architectural spectrum, from starchitects to the most modest community-generated projects. Adaptive reuse is ideologically supported through heritage and carbon reduction campaigning, and is evident in policy and education. In this paper, we critically review the rise of adaptive reuse scholarship and the emergent epistemology it represents, with a focus on the past twenty years and more recent monographs in the field. What we discern in these texts is a recent shift in the debate toward a more theoretical approach to the subject. While the debate on adaptive reuse has been continuously developing since the 1970s, it did so mostly with a focus on mapping and depicting an architectural phenomenon, and identifying tools and strategies to instruct practitioners and designers. However, more recent works on adaptive reuse are increasingly seeking to go beyond a pragmatic and practice-focused approach, and to investigate adaptive reuse in a more conceptual way. In doing so, they might open up the debate to new disciplinary contributions beyond the domain of architecture and design. This paper aims to outline and contribute to this shift.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":"30 1","pages":"441 - 462"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adaptive reuse: a critical review\",\"authors\":\"F. Lanz, J. Pendlebury\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Buildings have always been reused for both pragmatic and symbolic reasons. However, out of the turbulence of the mid-twentieth century, stimulated by reactions against modern ‘clean-sweep’ planning, a new field of policy and practice emerged in the 1970s to respond to the burgeoning conservation movement and growing environmental awareness, which came to be termed ‘adaptive reuse’. The last decade in particular has seen a flourishing of interest in adaptive reuse both on the ground and in scholarship. Today, the practice is witnessed across the architectural spectrum, from starchitects to the most modest community-generated projects. Adaptive reuse is ideologically supported through heritage and carbon reduction campaigning, and is evident in policy and education. In this paper, we critically review the rise of adaptive reuse scholarship and the emergent epistemology it represents, with a focus on the past twenty years and more recent monographs in the field. What we discern in these texts is a recent shift in the debate toward a more theoretical approach to the subject. While the debate on adaptive reuse has been continuously developing since the 1970s, it did so mostly with a focus on mapping and depicting an architectural phenomenon, and identifying tools and strategies to instruct practitioners and designers. However, more recent works on adaptive reuse are increasingly seeking to go beyond a pragmatic and practice-focused approach, and to investigate adaptive reuse in a more conceptual way. In doing so, they might open up the debate to new disciplinary contributions beyond the domain of architecture and design. This paper aims to outline and contribute to this shift.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"441 - 462\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2022.2105381","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Buildings have always been reused for both pragmatic and symbolic reasons. However, out of the turbulence of the mid-twentieth century, stimulated by reactions against modern ‘clean-sweep’ planning, a new field of policy and practice emerged in the 1970s to respond to the burgeoning conservation movement and growing environmental awareness, which came to be termed ‘adaptive reuse’. The last decade in particular has seen a flourishing of interest in adaptive reuse both on the ground and in scholarship. Today, the practice is witnessed across the architectural spectrum, from starchitects to the most modest community-generated projects. Adaptive reuse is ideologically supported through heritage and carbon reduction campaigning, and is evident in policy and education. In this paper, we critically review the rise of adaptive reuse scholarship and the emergent epistemology it represents, with a focus on the past twenty years and more recent monographs in the field. What we discern in these texts is a recent shift in the debate toward a more theoretical approach to the subject. While the debate on adaptive reuse has been continuously developing since the 1970s, it did so mostly with a focus on mapping and depicting an architectural phenomenon, and identifying tools and strategies to instruct practitioners and designers. However, more recent works on adaptive reuse are increasingly seeking to go beyond a pragmatic and practice-focused approach, and to investigate adaptive reuse in a more conceptual way. In doing so, they might open up the debate to new disciplinary contributions beyond the domain of architecture and design. This paper aims to outline and contribute to this shift.
期刊介绍:
METU JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE is a biannual refereed publication of the Middle East Technical University published every June and December, and offers a comprehensive range of articles contributing to the development of knowledge in man-environment relations, design and planning. METU JFA accepts submissions in English or Turkish, and assumes that the manuscripts received by the Journal have not been published previously or that are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Editorial Board claims no responsibility for the opinions expressed in the published manuscripts. METU JFA invites theory, research and history papers on the following fields and related interdisciplinary topics: architecture and urbanism, planning and design, restoration and preservation, buildings and building systems technologies and design, product design and technologies. Prospective manuscripts for publication in these fields may constitute; 1. Original theoretical papers; 2. Original research papers; 3. Documents and critical expositions; 4. Applied studies related to professional practice; 5. Educational works, commentaries and reviews; 6. Book reviews Manuscripts, in English or Turkish, have to be approved by the Editorial Board, which are then forwarded to Referees before acceptance for publication. The Board claims no responsibility for the opinions expressed in the published manuscripts. It is assumed that the manuscripts received by the Journal are not sent to other journals for publication purposes and have not been previously published elsewhere.