Stewardship of the Built Environment

Two quotations seem apt for introducing Stewardship of the Built Environment, an approach emphasizing reuse and preservation of our existing building stock. The first, “problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them,” by Albert Einstein, encourages examination of an underused path to seeking solutions to sustainability. As we find ourselves on an increasingly resource-depleted planet with a changing climate, we must rethink how we build and develop. Many people have become so accustomed to creating new things that the idea of reusing or adapting something that already exists is new to them. In the particular instance of the built environment, however, the sustainable solution may not lie solely in creating new green buildings but rather in recognizing a new way of looking at the problem and seeking a potentially overlooked solution through retrofit, reuse, and preservation.

Preserving and reusing buildings can be a significant part of transforming urban environments into sustainable cities. Social trends in the early twenty-first century indicate a growing interest in living in urban areas that provide a good quality of life, short work commute, walkability, local culture and entertainment opportunities, and a sense of place. The adoption of stewardship principles will require efforts from a broad spectrum of people who understand the social benefits and opportunities that preservation and reuse can provide. From professional practitioners in design, construction, and planning to community leaders, property owners, and private citizens, the key to adopting a stewardship approach will be attaining the skills and insights needed to create a more sustainable environment.

The evolution of building construction practices throughout the twentieth century has left a spectrum of good and bad practices that architects, engineers, contractors, planners, civic officials, and property owners must recognize to facilitate their efforts to achieve sustainability. Changes in architectural building technologies, particularly in the period after World War II, led to dramatic shifts in how buildings were designed, built, and operated. The nascent passive solar energy movement coupled with the two energy crises of the 1970s that prompted dramatic energy cost increases and heightened concerns over energy security led to a different way to view building performance. Building designers seemed to take note of these lessons and began to design more energy-efficient buildings.

Throughout the world, policy decisions are based on the economic projections or demonstrated impacts of a market-driven economy. As important as social and environmental considerations may be, the predominant question usually is how well a project pays back in economic terms. Under the current framework that defines success using strictly economic metrics, the philosophy of extraction and depletion and the ongoing demand to produce things quickly and cheaply will prevail. The ideals of social equity and environmental stewardship have held a lesser role in developing new opportunities for growth. In the pervasive economics-based decision system, potential projects must demonstrate an economic return to their investors or a reduced cost to accomplish economic goals. This chapter explores tax credits, grants, and other programs that are available in the United States for preservation and adaptive use projects. The chapter then demonstrates the broader economic implications of success in preserving and reusing buildings using common economic metrics (e.g., property values, job growth and increased tax revenues, increased income, jobs created per $1 million spent, and the cost of each job created). Although many advocates and consumers of cultural heritage do not specifically think in terms of economic benefit, the economic indicators regarding preservation and reuse definitively show significantly better outcomes than other economic incentives and activities.