Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Avoiding Obsolescence (1993)

Obsolescence is the condition of being antiquated, old fashioned, outmoded, or out of date. The obsolete item is not necessarily broken, worn out, or otherwise dysfunctional, although these conditions may underscore the obsolescence. Rather, the item simply does not measure up to current needs or expectations (see box).

Obsolescence results when there is a change in the requirements or expectations regarding the use of a particular object or idea. The danger of earthquakes, for instance, has persuaded many communities to modify building codes to mitigate the consequences of such a disaster. This, in turn, has rendered many structures effectively obsolete since they no longer comply with

the most recent safety regulations. In a less dramatic case, numerous office buildings have become obsolete because they cannot accommodate the increasing dependence of businesses on personal computers and an array of new communications equipment. In most cases things or concepts that are obsolete continue to function but at levels below contemporary standards.

As was described in Chapter 1, when reduced performance of a facility affects the activities of building occupants, the impact can result in lost efficiency, rising costs, reduced output, and declining morale. Even if the occupants are not affected directly, property values may decline as potential tenants and purchasers look to more modern facilities to meet their changing needs and increased expectations.

External changes that can cause obsolescence include introduction of new technology, neighborhood deterioration, or shifts in public demand for the services and amenities a facility provides. Such changed requirements or expectations regarding the shelter, comfort, profitability, or other dimensions of performance are typical, inevitable, and—in many observers' opinion—accelerating in pace.³ Federal agencies, like other building owners, have found it necessary periodically to modify facilities in order to bring them up to date and to remedy features that no longer fulfill user needs. Often, these modifications are especially costly because the designs of older structures are not adapted easily to new systems, finishes, and interior layouts. In extreme cases of obsolescence, it has been more cost effective to demolish and replace structures rather than renovate them. For example, St. Louis's Pruitt Igoe low-income housing project was demolished because of the project's apparent exacerbating effect on the social problems it was meant to solve.

Sometimes problems arise because agency design guidelines are outdated or do not address new requirements, sometimes, when new materials or products are emerging rapidly, there is a general lack of information upon which to base facility decisions; and sometimes the slow pace of the federal budgeting process permits needs to shift while authorizations are sought to construct facilities for

which programming and design are complete already. All of these are causes of obsolescence.

The initial capabilities of a facility and how it is maintained, though not causing obsolescence directly, can influence the onset of obsolescence. For example, use of inflexible partitioning systems or failure to maintain mechanical systems can hasten the time when users or owners judge that a facility is no longer adequate for their needs, particularly if, at the same time, other facilities and mechanical systems offering better performance have become available.

The impact of obsolescence may be directly adverse, as is the case when changes in neighborhood character cause declines in rents or when new concerns for energy conservation lead owners to decide that a building's heating or cooling demands are excessive. Frequently, obsolescence may simply mean that new technology or design standards offer improved performance compared with the existing facility can deliver, and users are placed at a disadvantage compared to occupants of newer or modernized facilities.

Obsolescence may have consequences for the user's business. For example, the adoption of optical bar-code technology in motor vehicle freight management has led to longer trailers, necessitating longer loading bays for U.S. Postal Service facilities. Older post offices—that is, those with short bays and low roofs—are seriously obsolete regarding this changed technology. Similarly, the advent of multimedia office automation systems (i.e., integrating sound, video, and still imaging with data storage and access) could revolutionize office design and use by replacing conventional voice and data communication.

Apart from the major monuments that survive, sometimes for centuries, with function unaltered, most facilities, to some degree, become obsolete before their structures basically unsafe or otherwise unfit for use. However, obsolescence becomes a significant design and management issue when it occurs prior to the end of the design service life: the length of time for which a building, subsystem, or component is designed to provide at least an acceptable minimum level of shelter or service, as defined by the owner.⁴

For many types of buildings, and for purposes of financial analysis, this design service life typically is assumed to be 15 to 30 years. Interior finishes and technology subsystems generally are expected to have much shorter service lives, whereas structural frames, foundations, and exteriors are recognized to be longer lived. These expectations of design service life provide the basis for making many decisions in the course of facilities planning, design, and management.

Service life often differs from physical life: the actual time it takes for a building, subsystem, or component to wear out or fail, or the "time period after

which a facility can no longer perform its function because increasing physical deterioration has rendered it useless" (Kirby and Grgas, 1975). Sometimes failures caused by design or fabrication errors bring an early end to the physical life. However, more typically, over the years roofs need replacing, mechanical equipment breaks down, metals corrode, and sealants erode, regardless of users' needs, economic factors, or technological advances. These conditions are not obsolescence, although the repairs or replacements may incorporate materials or parts that use new technology and thereby defer or redress obsolescence.

For example, the physical life of the basic structure and many of the interiors of the U.S. Capitol building are approaching 200 years and are likely to continue for additional decades. Nevertheless, obsolescence over the years has led to many changes in electrical and mechanical systems and to construction of several new buildings to provide offices and meeting rooms when the original plan became inadequate. In contrast, the Washington, D.C. old central post office, constructed on Pennsylvania Avenue at the end of the nineteenth century, was by the 1960s essentially obsolete and abandoned by the U.S. Postal Service in favor of newer and more functional facilities. However, the facades and structure were preserved when adaptive reuse in the 1970s converted the building to offices, a shopping mall, and a tourist attraction⁵ (Craig et al., 1984).

Whatever the cause, any element that has reached the end of its physical life has, in fact, failed and must be replaced, repaired, refitted, or abandoned. An element that has reached the end of its service life, on the other hand, can continue to function (albeit at less-than-adequate performance) and may or may not be replaced or refitted. Obsolescence can end the actual service life sometimes years before the designers anticipated that the end would occur (see box).

The many separate systems that compare a building (e.g., lighting, HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning], roofing, and cladding) must each perform well for the building's overall performance to be adequate. If any one system fails or becomes obsolete, the entire building may be judged unacceptable.

Figure 1 illustrates conceptually the progression of a facility's performance during its service life (i.e., following completion of construction).

"Performance," meaning the facility's ability to provide the shelter and service for which it is intended, can be measured by any of a variety of parameters, depending on the particular facility type or subsystem being considered. For example, roof performance might be characterized by the likelihood that no leakage will occur, and HVAC systems might be characterized by energy-efficient use. Measures may also include financial, economic, or sociological

Figure 1 A conceptual view of service life.

factors. The complexity of building systems defies definition of any single parameter adequate to measure all aspects of performance. Hence, to judge performance or obsolescence effectively, one must consider each functional system or subsystem.

As shown in Figure 1, performance at initial occupancy—the facility's initial capability—is typically less than the design ideal. Generally, a modest "shakedown" or "shakeout" period of time necessary for the building, subsystem, or component—and its operating personnel—to reach this anticipated optimum level of performance. Careful commissioning of new facilities can help to assure that much of this shakeout is accomplished prior to occupancy. Problems unresolved in the shakedown period or a design that fits poorly with the user's needs will be reflected in a peak performance level below an optimum that might otherwise have been achieved.

Assuming that the facility's initial capability does approach the optimum peak performance, the new facility will continue to deliver that performance, barring catastrophe and with proper operations and normal maintenance, at a reasonably steady level for some years. But there inevitably begins a slow decline owing to wear, aging, and functional change. Eventually, performance falls to a level that users judge to be the minimum acceptable. Because of the performance drop, the users may move, owners may take action to renovate their facilities, or the facilities may be demolished and replaced.

The design service life of facilities is projected to be the time required for performance deterioration to reach minimum acceptable levels. Efforts to make precise predictions of the length of service life, physical life, and the course of performance with time—for major building components, subsystems, and entire buildings—have been the subject of study for several decades, and progress has been slow (refer to Appendix D). Experience, custom, and rules of thumb continue to be the primary sources of estimates for these parameters. Design decisions and owners' investment decisions typically are based on an assumption that adequate performance can be delivered for 15 to 30 years (a design service life, as previously defined). Rarely, however, does this period elapse without some periodic renewal or refurbishment—replacement carpets, painting, and overhauling of compressors, for example—that increase performance during the service period and effectively extend the service life (see Table 1).⁶

A variety of regulatory requirements and design practices influence actual service lives; also, in the private sector, tax laws and the lending practices of financial institutions may have as much or more to do with determining this time period than does engineering information. For example, safe and stable building structures typically survive beyond the time periods over which their accounting values are depreciated to zero. In practice, actually, most buildings provide adequate service over periods considerably longer than those explicitly considered in design, and the physical life for a building as a whole normally can be expected to extend beyond the design service life—to 20 to 40 years or more. As Table 1 illustrates, anticipated service lives very substantially among building types and building subsystems.

If maintenance is neglected or conditions of use are more demanding than anticipated during design, performance deterioration may proceed more rapidly than expected. As Figure 2 illustrates, this deterioration is indicated by a more steeply declining performance curve, and the minimum acceptable performance is reached sooner. Thus, the service life is reduced. Such a reduction in service life—below design levels—is typically is judged a failure by users or owners, although sometimes a maintenance effort above "normal" levels can extend the service life beyond its design target.⁷

Figure 2 Maintenance practices can influence service life.

For the sake of simplicity, Figures 1 and 2 portray as unchanging the levels of performance judged to be optimum or the minimum acceptable as unchanging over the period of the facility's service life. This is seldom the case in practice, except perhaps regarding a few basic aspects of performance, such as structural stability and shelter from inclement weather. More typically, users' and owners' expectations change over time as a result of the development of newer facilities, the introduction of new products, and increased experience (see Figure 3).

For example, new lighting technology and product designs coming on the market may offer lower energy consumption and make the existing lighting fixtures seem old fashioned. People also may come to expect faster elevators, installed data transmission systems, electronic security systems, and personalized zoned heating and cooling controls. Figure 3 portrays the rising expectations that may cause performance to reach minimum acceptable levels much sooner than they would otherwise. (On the other hand, occupants of older buildings may accept some aspects of performance that would be judged unacceptable in a new facility. Such declining expectations sometimes have the effect of extending the facility's service life.)

Figure 3 Standards or expectations of performance may change with time.

Shortening of the service life because of rising expectations is the essential characteristic of obsolescence. As was already, obsolete systems frequently are replaced even though they are performing at levels that were considered adequate at the time of design. If they are not replaced or refurbished, they impose a variety of other costs on the building's users and owners. These costs spring primarily from losses in productivity of the people who use the facility. Staff forced to work under awkward or unhealthful conditions perform less effectively than their competitors and feel stress. Output is restricted or diminished, and absenteeism and health care costs may rise.

A number of factors, falling roughly into four broad categories, may cause rising expectations, obsolescence, and increased expenses:

1. Functional factors, that is, those related to the uses a building or spaces within the building are expected to serve (e.g., when the building's occupants change);

2. Economic factors, referring primarily to the cost of continuing to use an existing building, subsystem, or component compared with the expense of substituting some alternative (e.g., when a building cannot compete effectively with its newer neighbors for tenants and rents);

3. Technological factors, referring to the efficiency and service offered by the existing installed technology compared to new and improved alternatives

(e.g, when electrical power distribution and grounding systems are no longer able to accommodate the demands of current office automation); and

4. Social, legal, political, or cultural factors, that is the broad influence of social goals, political agendas, or changing lifestyles (e.g., when a building fails to meet the requirements set in new legislation for accessibility by people with physical disabilities).

In fact, when owners or users judge their facilities (or some components of their facilities) to be obsolete, they often arrive at the conclusion because of the complex interaction of many such factors.

Factors in the fourth category, and particularly promulgation of new regulations or standards, are particularly important because they can cause a sharp rise in performance requirements within a short period of time. Figure 4 illustrates the effect. The Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, is forcing many building owners to make physical changes in their otherwise satisfactory facilities to enhance accessibility by handicapped persons. Similarly, the removal of asbestos from many school buildings is a response to public health concerns, even though the response may not be required by law. Appendix C discusses further the effect of regulatory factors in fostering obsolescence.

Figure 4 Changes in standards of performance may be relatively rapid.

One of the options for prolonging the service life of a facility is rehabilitation or renewal. Repairing walls and repainting interiors, replacing old

light fixtures with more efficient ones, and moving interior partitions to accommodate new functions are among the activities that building owners and users undertake periodically to improve the facility's overall performance. Figure 5 illustrates how these periodic renewals raise performance level and extend service life.⁸

Figure 5 Periodic renewals raise performance and can extend service life.

Obsolescence becomes a significant problem when it occurs in the early years of a facility's service life. Although the committee could find no comprehensive basis for estimating the scale of facilities obsolescence problems, anecdotal evidence suggests that the problem is substantial. With frustrating

frequency, new hospitals, research laboratories, and office spaces are, to quote an official of one major university, ''obsolete before construction is complete.''

Unprecedented rates of new business formation, corporate mergers and consolidations, and growth in the information-based sectors of the U.S. economy of the 1970s and 1980s have forced much of the functional obsolescence. Committee members familiar with both commercial real estate management and government facilities utilization note that 3 to 5 year intervals now are typical for virtually complete changes in office-space utilization. As a result, many large institutions are choosing modular partition and furniture systems for their major facilities in order to make it easier to reorganize space to fit the reorganized company or agency. Other institutions have invested additional funds as part of the design and construction of new facilities in order to make provisions for later expansion and changes in patterns of use (see box).

Economic factors have tended to match these functional changes. Facilities leases are written for shorter periods of time and, in the case of commercial office space, commonly are renegotiated every 5 years. Rapidly growing

property values, high inflation, and high interest rates in the past two decades have shortened substantially the time horizon for facility investment decisions, forcing more rapid economic obsolescence of older facilities. The trend has been most notable in some residential markets, where "tear-downs"—demolition of sound older houses in order to permit new construction on the property—has become commonplace.

The severely depressed real estate market of 1991 supported the contention of some professionals (e.g., Pilzer, 1989) that there has been too much new construction at a time when rates of business expansion have declined. In addition, for users of retail space, brand-focused, higher-efficiency (as measured in dollar sales per square foot) mass merchandisers are becoming predominant, reducing the overall demand for retail commercial space. These trends, coupled with the impact of computer-based mail and telephone ordering, just-in-time delivery, and, consequently, reduced inventories, point to a continuing decline in the need for retail space and warehouses. Similar downsizing is occurring in many manufacturing businesses, and the move to smaller offices and to the "telecommuting" that permits information workers based at their homes to be linked by telecommunications into a productive corporate network may lead to similar results in the office sector. Taken together, these trends suggest that many new facilities have become obsolete.

The energy crisis of the 1970s and subsequent lesser fuel-price shocks have stimulated development of energy-saving technologies for HVAC equipment (e.g., direct digital controls, variable air-volume devices, and electronic sensors and software for controlling system balance), new insulation materials, and energy-conserving facade and roof designs (Kelsey and Webb, 1990; Sequerth and DeFranks, 1987). Such developments have rendered many older HVAC systems—and sometimes entire buildings—obsolete.

Rapid change in telecommunications and in computer technologies has had a similar effect on buildings, giving rise to the new professional activity of "wire management." Buildings lacking such elements as raised floors, easily relocatable data-grade cables, and switches to accommodate local area computer networks and private telephone systems are viewed by many users as obsolete (Building, 1985; Building Design and Construction, 1986; Building Research Board, 1988; Doyle 1985; Sraeel, 1988.) In the future, further advances in flat-wire and wireless technologies may reduce or eliminate the need for these raised floors and cables, thereby rendering yet other facilities obsolete.

Changes in the technology of equipment used in a number of fields and consequent shifts in work patterns also have caused facilities to be judged obsolete. Desktop personal computers, for instance, have supported greater reliance on ad hoc interdisciplinary teams rather than on a departmentalized organizational structure and linear-production work flow in many offices, leading in turn to office layouts that may change every 2 to 3 years. Research chemists have found that new discoveries and shifting research priorities, with

consequent demands for new equipment and lab configurations, have reduced the typical functional life span of chemistry laboratories to about 7 years.⁹ In hospitals, same-day surgeries—comprising only about 15 percent of cases a decade ago but currently over 60 percent in many facilities—have drastically altered patterns of space use and the demand for surgery and supporting laboratory facilities. Such new diagnostic and treatment technologies as positron emission tomography (PET) have brought to the hospital new large and heavy equipment that cannot be moved or housed easily in older buildings. Such highly specialized activities as intensive coronary care, trauma treatment, and neonatal medicine require uniquely equipped operating rooms that were not foreseen when older, and now obsolete, health care facilities were designed.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, now coming into full force, is the most recent example of social and political causes of obsolescence. Characterized as a civil rights law (Raeber, 1991), the ADA requires that new and remodeled buildings be fully accessible and safe for people with disabilities, and it introduces a new set of agencies (the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, new to facilities regulation) to issue guidelines and enforce requirements. The result of this social and political source of obsolescence may be to make many buildings that might otherwise be remodeled to accommodate functional or technical change too costly to update. Similar costs may result from imposition of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, applicable in lieu of ADA for federal and federally funded facilities.

A workshop sponsored by the committee (Appendix C) examined other such causes of obsolescence and identified a wide range of environmental and occupational health concerns, now emerging, that could become important in the next 3 to 5 years. These concerns are summarized in Table 2.

The costs of obsolete facilities are incurred when the effort is made to update the facility or when the user and owner lose operating efficiency owing to facility performance. It is these costs—imposed directly on the owners and managers of facilities, indirectly on users, or on both—that are the primary incentive to avoid obsolescence. Effective delay or avoidance of obsolescence can reduce the overall costs of facility ownership.

Avoiding obsolescence means following several courses of action: (1) planning and designing to avoid obsolescence and to provide the flexibility to respond to the early onset of obsolescence; (2) construction to assure that the

facility has the required characteristics to enable the performance anticipated in during planning and design; (3) operations and maintenance systems that monitor change and act (when possible) to increase performance or slow its degradation thereby deferring obsolescence; and (4) refurbishment and retrofitting to accommodate change. The losses through failure to manage effectively are measured in early occurrence of unsatisfactory performance, a reduction in service life, and costly obsolescence.

Many ways have been found to avoid obsolescence in the two decades since a speaker at a 1971 BRB symposium observed that routine renovation and rehabilitation, had for the past 50 years, been the most effective approach to taking advantage of most of the "architectural and mechanical changes occurring due to new technology" (Cherry, 1972). That speaker's experience in the early 1970s was that such items as column grids over 30 feet and underfloor wiring ducts in concrete structures, when evaluated on a discounted cash-flow basis, generally did not warrant the additional expense (although designing to provide up to 100 pounds per square foot of additional floor load-bearing capacity did give tenants and owners useful options for rearranging functions). Two decades later the conclusions have changed. The construction-related industries have found ways to reduce the costs and add flexibility, and others may yet be developed. Chapter 3 presents the committee's assessment of the experience and prospects for avoiding obsolescence and its costs.

Building Design and Construction. 1986. Retrofit expands wire capability of cellular floor. November:113–114.

Building Research Board. 1988. Electronically Enhanced Office Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Cherry, I. 1972. Office buildings. Building Research, Journal of the BRAB Building Research Institute 9(2):23–26.

Craig, L. A., et al. 1984. The Federal Presence: Architecture, Politics, and National Design Press, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Dell-Isola, A., and S. Kirk, 1981. Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Doyle, M. 1985. Older buildings ripe for telecommunications retrofit. Building Design and Construction. June:66–68.

Fong, C. K. 1990. The Construction Agenda. Singapore: Construction Industry Development Board.

Johnson, E. 1991. The Economics of Building. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kelsey, D., and D. R. Webb. 1990. Moving into digital control through retrofitting. ASHRAE Journal 32(7):12, 14–16.

Kirby, J. G. and J. M. Grgas. 1975. Estimating the Life Expectancy of Facilities. Technical Report P-36. Champaign, IL: U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.

Pilzer, P. Z. 1989. The real estate business and technological obsolescence. Real Estate Review 19(3):30–33.

Raeber, J. A. 1991. Federal accessibility The Construction Specifier. August: 82–89.

Sequerth, J., and T. DeFranks. 1987. "Intelligent" features upgrade facilities. American City and County. March:42, 45–48.

Sraeel, H. 1988. Retrofitting power distribution: Keeping pace with technology. Buildings. November:64–66.

Warburton, P. 1985. Designing for Change. Electronics and Telecommunications in Buildings. Building. July:46–47.