Search results

Existing old building stock needs retrofit of structures and performance upgrading. Retrofit is often neglected, either lacking understanding of maintenance importance or to keep living costs low. Retrofit is inevitable. Depending on a buildings geographical location, condition or expected time of use; demolition of building or increment space is worth considering. This study looks at the economics about which is the best option: renovation and energy efficient upgrading of existing building or replacement of existing building.

Research method is case study. The same case building – size, age, existing performance as well as renovation and new performance – studied at different regions. These are (1) growing city, (2) stable city and (3) shrinking city. Life cycle cost analysis bases on payback periods. The most important input data are the rent and occupancy rate on each area.

In growing cities, both renovation and replacement of existing buildings are feasible options. In other two areas, payback periods of renovations are rather long and acceptable only if building is in own use. Often retrofit is necessary because of the poor condition of the building.

This study looks at the subject only from building owners economical point of view and ties building to its location. Life cycle assessment (energy use and greenhouse gas emissions) has analysed earlier (Nippala and Heljo, 2010).

Analysis gives the most feasible option to different regions.

This study raises the debate on how realistic it is to expect the building stock to meet the EU’s energy saving and greenhouse cut targets.

The purpose of this paper is to study views of owner-occupiers concerning infill development as a mechanism for financing major repairs in apartment buildings and financial benefits they require from the infill development for accepting it near their homes (on the plot of their housing company).

The data used draws upon a survey of 894 respondents concerning residents’ views on infill development in Finland. The required financial benefits from the infill development were questioned in both relative proportions of the expenses related to major repairs and concrete monetary sums.

First, the findings indicate that the financial benefits owner-occupiers require in order to accept infill development are significant, covering about two-thirds of the costs of major repairs during following ten years or over 75 percent of an (imagined) upcoming pipeline repair. Second, approximately one-fifth of the respondents regard that no economic benefit is enough to make them support infill development. Third, people’s decision-making concerning infill development is complex, involving also many other factors than monetary.

This paper provides insight into the feasibility of infill development as a means to finance major repairs from the perspective of owner-occupiers. The paper has strong policy implications as it highlights the significance of the public authorities and their policies in enabling the infill development.

This is the first academic study to focus on owner-occupiers views and financial requirements for the infill development as a means to finance major repairs in apartment buildings.