by Helene Holland*
Since the 1960s, much of Europe and North America has seen a large process of deindustrialization. More than a hundred years after the Industrial Revolution, many factories and other manufacturing sites have been abandoned and their futures were left in question (Berger & High, 2019). In the 1970s, this large swath of abandoned industrial sites came at the same time as UNESCO’s adoption of The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Not only would environmental sustainability soon become a pressing issue, especially in urban areas, but the convention also raised concerns about preserving cultural heritage. It reaffirmed that protecting areas of heritage such as architecture made a large contribution to goals of sustainable development (UNESCO, 2021). This new direction for urban practices had a major impact on the industrial sites that were recently rendered useless. Rising environmental movements and energy costs also raised concerns about the resources utilized in demolish and construction of new buildings. Later coined “adaptive reuse,” a new architectural practice of reusing old structures was a fitting solution for these issues of cultural heritage and environmental impact.
Recycling the Past for a Better Future: The Social Impact of Adaptive Reuse at Berlin’s KulturBrauerei
While these creative designs have notable aesthetic value, this practice also has large potential for social change. This paper aims to examine exactly how adaptive reuse can positively or negatively impact urban spaces and what factors contribute to its success. The goal is not only to analyze how adaptive reuse has improved urban spaces but to also take a critical approach to any areas needing improvement. In particular, this paper will examine the KulturBrauerei located in the Prenzlauer Berg neighborhood of Berlin as a case study that offers valuable insights into how this practice can be utilized in various ways. The research method used will include archival research, observation, and an assessment of media to ascertain how the use of adaptive reuse at this site impacts its surrounding community.
- Literature Review
Adaptive reuse is an architectural practice that has been rising in popularity for decades. Simply put, the practice involves implementing new structures and functions into existing buildings. Buildings are often abandoned for a multitude of reasons which include costly maintenance, economic changes, or demographic shifts (Mısırlısoy & Günçe, 2016). While it may often be thought of from an architectural perspective for its aesthetic and design qualities, research suggests that adaptive reuse has numerous societal benefits. Literature on the topic often contains many overlapping positives which showcases that adaptive reuse holds great potential for overall bettering society if widely implemented.
Studies have elicited numerous strategies and models for adaptive reuse. Cantell (2005) demonstrates that policy and zoning are crucial aspects of encouraging the practice, and many cities have begun implementing it as a solution for affordable housing. Case studies in the U.K. have revealed how policy surrounding brownfield development has been successful in terms of sustainability (Ball, 2002). This study uses a framework based on structural and agency factors to analyze processes in Stoke-on-Trent. Most frameworks include social, cultural, and environmental assessments. Developers have had a positive response to the reuse of industrial buildings thanks to sustainability benefits (Ball, 1999). According to a survey conducted in Western Australia, building owners also seem to favor the practice over demolition (Bullen, 2007).
These assessments of the overall success of adaptive reuse vary but share common themes above. Indicators across these fields as well as physical and economic impacts have been derived from scientific studies (De Medici et al., 2019). Another assessment involves the criteria for prestigious European awards: the NRP Golden Phoenix award for renovation and the Europa Nostra for cultural heritage. Some of these criteria include social value creation, sublimation, environmental sustainability, economic value creation, and innovation (Arfa, 2022).
These criteria alone illustrate the vast potential for good this practice has. As the previously mentioned studies demonstrated, sustainability is almost always a concern. Young (2012) demonstrates the limits when addressing different sustainability factors, and asserts that a framework should holistically include economic, political, and environmental policies. Across the board, social, environmental, and economic consequences are considered (Hao et al., 2019). Additionally, the cultural heritage which reuse buildings can preserve is another frequently discussed issue. The preservation of historical architecture and industrial heritage have an impact that contributes to adaptive reuse’s versatile advantages (Martini et al., 2016).
While there is a plethora of assessments and models for analyzing adaptive reuse architecture, a canonic evaluation technique has yet to be developed. Although much of the literature concerning the topic seems to favor the practice across the board, certain authors have taken a more critical approach (Hao et al., 2019). The most solidified aspect of existing literature is the numerous impacts that the practice can have. Most papers show a large amount of overlapping themes, demonstrating adaptive reuse’s great potential for fulfilling many societal needs with little competition from other possible approaches.
- Conceptual Framework
Considering the many advantages that adaptive reuse projects offer, their success cannot be evaluated by a singular factor. Many theories towards the practice tend to only consider one perspective, leaving out the fact that the field is quite interdisciplinary (Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2011). While projects can be evaluated from an aesthetic perspective, this paper will focus on social impact. Nevertheless, architectural success does have an impact on certain criteria such as the preservation and collective memory. The evaluation in this paper will be an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on social aspects of adaptive reuse.
The approach will utilize some of the criteria described by Arfa et al. (2022) to assess the social effectiveness of adaptive reuse buildings. The criteria are based on the jury process for the NRP Golden Phoenix, an award in the Netherlands for adaptive reuse projects. The Netherlands is a leader in the practice, especially when it comes to housing and heritage.
The first evaluation point will be social value, which will be a combination of the social value creation and sublimation criteria laid out for the NRP Golden Phoenix. Social value creation involves the sense of urban renewal and collective memory which adaptive reuse generates, resulting in a greater sense of pride in one’s community. It also includes how the new functions taken on by the site benefit the neighborhood. These criteria tie in with sublimation, the quality with which a project preserves history and creates a new space. The greater the sublimation, the greater social value a project will have for its community’s pride. These concepts combine to make overall social value. This criterion involves one of the largest themes in adaptive reuse theory: heritage. The practice becomes more valuable to a community when it successfully preserves its history to maintain an area’s historic identity.
The second evaluation point will be environmental sustainability. This criterion is the other large theme present in adaptive reuse. Much of the practice’s potential for sustainability can be explained by the “circular economy” model wherein waste is minimized by transforming existing structures for new uses (Stahel, 2016, 435). The lower the amount of waste produced, and the less new materials are used, the more sustainable adaptive reuse projects are. The energy efficiency of new facilities will also be considered as criteria for the project’s long-term impact. This criterion contributes to its overall social effectiveness in terms of safeguarding the environment and creating a more sustainable future.
These points of evaluation utilize established theory and cover the two largest advantages prevalent in adaptive reuse projects. While there are many other theories for evaluating the social impact of projects, some are more complicated and do not offer straightforward benefits. Economic value creation, for example, involves bringing jobs and tourists to an area with adaptive reuse. While this may benefit some, it can also contribute to gentrification without proper housing policies in place. It is also crucial to note that there is limited data available on the KulturBrauerei in terms of environmental impact, but these criteria can be evaluated through a survey of the general impact similar projects have in comparison to demolition and new construction. The two points of evaluation used in this paper span multiple disciplines to cover the largest advantages adaptive reuse offers as a practice as opposed to demolition.
- Case Study
Prenzlauer Berg’s KulturBrauerei, or “Culture Brewery,” is a multi-use cultural center located on the intersection of Schönhauser Allee and Sredzkistraße that is built inside of a former brewery (Fig. 1). The neighborhood has historically been the site of tenement housing and poor living conditions, but before the mid nineteenth century, it was mostly made up of farmlands and was home to several breweries and industrial sites. After Berlin’s expansion, it became a densely populated area and was the product of rapid urban planning. In the period after World War II, housing costs were kept low thanks to many undamaged buildings, which resulted in a large population of young artists in the area. During the reunification of Germany, six sections of Prenzlauer Berg were designated for urban redevelopment, including the area around the KulturBrauerei (Eigler, 1996). Although the renovations made in the area led to better living conditions, it has also contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in the neighborhood (Levine, 2004).
The KulturBrauerei began as the Schultheiß brewery complex built in the late nineteenth century. The site stood at 25,000 square meters with six courtyards and over 20 buildings ranging from fermentation rooms, bottling facilities, to a bar and restaurant for visitors. The brewery is considered an excellent example of nineteenth century industrial architecture, and the facility was largely designed by architect Franz Heinrich Schwechten, architect of the notable Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church. He modeled it after a medieval castle complex with elements such as courtyards and a tower at the southwest corner. Its numerous structures included everything needed from brewing to distribution. Most of the buildings were made of yellow or red brick in a Neo-Romanesque style, and while the design is largely functional, Schwechten also prioritized aesthetics to make the brewery monumental. He included brick ornamentation throughout the complex and added decorative stonework to the western facade. These features made the design stand out as a significant piece of industrial architecture.
The site went through many changes and expansions, and by 1920, it became the world’s largest lager brewery. During World War II, prisoners of war were forced to work at the facility. It resumed regular operation in 1945 largely undamaged, however, brewing went into decline along with many other industries. By 1967, the buildings were in poor condition, and beer production stopped. Some of the facilities were then used as a furniture store and a sports casino (KulturBrauerei gGmbH, n.d.). Despite deindustrialization, the site had a long history that Berliners deemed worth preserving.
In 1974, the plant was designated as a monument as the city wanted to protect its important history. A nightclub called Franz was opened in the former administration building during the GDR period in 1970. In 1991, the KulturBrauerei gGmbH was established as a nonprofit organization. TLG Treuhand Liegenschaftsgesellschafts mbH eventually took ownership of the property and aimed to develop it as a multiuse culture center with spaces for commercial and nonprofit establishments. This concept was developed in hopes that commercial use would make subsequent maintenance more economically viable. In 2000, much of the redevelopment had been completed, and tenants moved into their homes at the newly renovated KulturBrauerei. The completed project resulted in more than 40,000 square meters of space for a myriad of uses.
Table 1
Historical Timeline of the KulturBrauerei
| 1853 | Jobst Schultheiss acquires the brewery and Schönhauser Allee property of August Heinrich Prell and eventually makes Schultheiss a well-known name in the brewing industry. At the time, the property was simply a storage cellar. Schultheiss opened a bar on the site. |
| 1864 | Jobst Schultheiss sells the brewery to Adolf Roesicke. |
| 1867 | Adolf Roesicke expands the Schönhauser Allee property from 2 to 12 acres of land. The brewery transitions into a full-scale industrial company. |
| 1887 | Adolf Roesicke expands the property to its contemporary area of 25,000 m². Architect Franz Heinrich Schwechten designs new facilities for the expanded brewery which are built in the coming years. |
| 1937 | Schultheiss-Brauerei AG is named a “National Socialist Model Company.” |
| 1938 | The brewery is now considered a military business. |
| 1941-1945 | Polish, French, Italian, and Ukrainian prisoners of war are forced to work at the site. At the end of World War II, brewing continues as a state-owned company. |
| 1967 | The brewery ceases production due to the poor condition of the plant. After machinery is removed, a wholesale furniture store and sports casino use the buildings. |
| 1970 | The Franzclub opens in the old administration building. |
| 1974 | The complex is awarded monument status and is therefore a protected piece of architecture. |
| 1991 | KulturBrauerei gGmbH is founded and the revival of the old brewery begins. |
| 1998-2000 | Construction takes place to renovate the complex and establish a multiuse cultural center. |
Note: Timeline information comes from “Die Geschichte der KulturBrauerei” by KulturBrauerei gGmbH, n.d., (https://www.kulturbrauerei.de/gelaende/geschichte/).
The design for renovating the brewery needed to be a balance between respect for its monument status and practicality. Architects Stefan Weiß and Matthias Faust were trusted with reviving the old complex while maintaining its historic heritage. Construction took place from 1998 to 2000, and the resulting complex is a restoration of most original elements as well as some modern ones. Everything in the monumental structure that needed replacing used the same materials as the original, including support structures and roof tiling. Even the courtyards were restored to their original brick paving. The western facade needed repairing, but only damaged pieces were replaced (Gympel et al., 2001). Interiors were kept simple and modernized, and a few modern elements can be seen from the complex’s exterior. As of 2023, the KulturBrauerei’s directory lists 48 tenants making use of the complex. These tenants include a grocery store, museum, cinema, commercial offices, restaurants, performance art spaces, a bike tour company, and retailers.
4.1 Social Value
The first step of the evaluation involved a general observation of the complex’s architecture and atmosphere. The majority of the buildings are made of a distinct yellow brick, while some use red brick. During the site’s renovation, as little masonry as possible was replaced, so most of the materials seen from the exterior are historic (Gympel et al., 2001). It is not difficult to tell that the site is historic as many details from the old brewery have been retained. Besides the historic brick, there is a preserved smokestack next to the cinema. The smokestack rising above the buildings with its decorative brickwork makes the KulturBrauerei’s industrial heritage evident. Additionally, many buildings at the complex have large signs labelling their original use in black letters. The western facade still reads “SCHULTHEISS BRAUEREI” and is adjacent to the southwest tower which reads “KulturBrauerei”. Above the sign for the grocery store REWE, “Flaschenbier – Abteilung” (“Bottled Beer Department”) is displayed in big letters. These signs bring together the old and the new, and the design intentionally reminds visitors of the historic significance of the site. The northeast entrance also features a map of the complex which labels the original uses of each building while also listing their contemporary tenants.
The successful sublimation of the project is also achieved through its modern interventions. Its concept is overall effective because the old brewery has many qualities that fit the needs of a multi-use cultural center. The variety of different sized buildings accommodates everything from office spaces to a dance studio. Schwechten’s medieval castle inspired design creates convenient courtyards for pedestrians and holding events. The windows around the complex are new and functional, but still match the aesthetics of the originals. While much of the historic character is maintained, the modern renovations are made visible. There are some buildings such as the grocery store or museum that use automatic glass sliding doors. Most of the interiors utilize modern design and do not expose the historic brick. Oh (2010) notes that the project successfully creates a new function while minimizing any changes to the site’s historic exterior. The space functions for modern needs but has many reminders of its past. Scholars maintain that historical buildings like the KulturBrauerei have a positive impact on their surroundings, and its preservation of heritage creates a shared visual sense of identity. It also improves the confidence of residents by reviving a building that was out of use and run down. New uses for such structures can bring a better sense of safety for the community (Aigwi et al., 2023).
The sublimation of the KulturBrauerei impacts its social value creation. The interactions that it fosters are positive indicators of overall social value according to the framework. There are often numerous bikes or electric scooters parked within the complex, as well as pedestrians walking through or using facilities. Visitors in general seem to be from a variety of age groups. Its historic architecture conveniently provides a complex where a diverse array of people come together for both leisure and productivity. All the tenants listed can be seen in Figure 3. The many uses provide recreational, commercial, educational, and productive spaces in a dense area. Multiuse complexes benefit neighborhoods by making leisure and necessities more accessible within a small area. In a study on urban regeneration, the KulturBrauerei was found to successfully generate new economic and social benefits for Prenzlauer Berg by providing a cultural and artistic space (Oh, 2010). An assessment of media published on the KulturBrauerei showed overall positive responses by locals and tourists.
At a foundational level, the KulturBrauerei is a strong case of adaptive reuse that has high social value. This criterion is met through contributions to its community and successful historical preservation. As a landmark with a known history, the complex symbolizes the heritage of the area and the industries that built it. Not only does it contribute to local identity, but it also appeals to residents and outsiders alike with its various commercial and non-profit activities. Within the conceptual framework, these findings are reaffirmed by each research method.
4.2 Environmental Sustainability
Specific data about the environmental impact of the KulturBrauerei is limited, but preliminary research gives a general idea about the sustainability of the project both during and after construction. According to the NRP Golden Phoenix award, environmental sustainability during the construction phase can be evaluated by the project’s reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste (Arfa et al., 2022). Since the KulturBrauerei’s renovation took measures to demolish and replace as little of the historical complex as possible, it adheres to the model of “circular economy” which reduces waste. It follows the first kind of circular economy model which involves extending the life of material that is out of use through renovation and repair (Stahel, 2016). The historic brick paved courtyards did need replacing, but the overall impact of the project follows sustainable principles since its majority is reused.
The United States EPA affirms that the model used by the KulturBrauerei is an environmentally friendly alternative to demolition. Even an energy-efficient building partially made of recycled materials would take 65 years to make up for the energy expended during demolition (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). An adapted complex like the KulturBrauerei makes a significant reduction in waste and energy consumption. Other literature on similar adaptive reuse projects shows that by avoiding demolition and solid waste, the KulturBrauerei reduced large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. According to Mohamed et al. (2017), demolition takes up 48% of the solid waste created in a building’s lifetime, and 8% during construction. In theory, the KulturBrauerei potentially reduces its total solid waste and emissions by up to 56%. However, further research is needed to evaluate the exact number. Nevertheless, the KulturBrauerei’s method did reduce the need for new building materials. Production of such materials accounts for 56% of worldwide CO2 emissions (Mohamed et al., 2017). The reduction in demolition or new construction shows positive sustainability.
While these preliminary findings are based on broader research, more specific information was achieved through the achievements of a similar project. Hasik et al. (2019) conducted an analysis of a beer bottling plant in Philadelphia that was adapted into an office building. Like the KulturBrauerei, it was an old industrial plant that needed new roofing, interiors, and windows. A juxtaposition of its lifetime environmental impacts compared to a new construction found that 53 to 75% of negative environmental factors such as greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste were reduced by the adaptive reuse project. Although imprecise, this data illustrates that the KulturBrauerei likely made a drastic reduction in environmental impact compared to demolition and reconstruction.
The second set of criteria in the framework involve the resulting energy efficiency of completed projects. Although most reuse projects reduce emissions in the construction phase, their design can expend more energy in terms of everyday use and repairs. Poor insulation is one factor. Although renovation is a good opportunity to build more energy efficient facilities, the KulturBrauerei falls short. As a historic landmarked building, it is not required to meet current energy standards. Its Energy Performance Certificate evaluated by EU guidelines stands at an E rating (Büro mit loft-charakter, n.d.). Ranging from H at the lowest to A+ at the highest, the KulturBrauerei has subpar energy efficiency.
- Conclusion
This case study provides a basis for further criticism and research on the practice of adaptive reuse. Although more research is needed to assess the social impacts of the KulturBrauerei alone, these preliminary findings illustrate the potential good adaptive reuse holds as a practice. As far as design, the KulturBrauerei was found to successfully incorporate a mixed-use concept that preserved industrial heritage. The cultural and commercial functions of the project had overall positive social value creation for its neighborhood. Although its energy efficiency falls short, it also had a positive impact in terms of environmental sustainability during construction. It should be noted that the KulturBrauerei has been tied to conversations about gentrification in Prenzlauer Berg (Levine, 2004), but urban regeneration can be overall positive if proper policies are in place to prevent rent increases.
In theory and in practice, adaptive reuse is an effective solution for creating new spaces that would otherwise be environmentally or financially costly. As the KulturBrauerei illustrates, the practice can convert retired structures into useful spaces that preserve cultural heritage. However, this case study also proves that these projects should be evaluated individually and critically in order to reach full potential. The energy efficiency of the KulturBrauerei shows that more research and critical analysis for specific criteria could refine the practice as a whole.
References
Aigwi, E., et al. (2023). Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings as a Sustainable Tool for Climate Change Mitigation within the Built Environment. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 56. 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102945.
Arfa, F. H., et al. (2022). Criteria of “Effectiveness” and Related Aspects in Adaptive Reuse Projects of Heritage Buildings. Sustainability, 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031251.
Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2011). Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of cultural heritage: a literature review. Structural studies, repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture XII, 118, 155-163.
Ball, R. (1999). Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant industrial buildings. Building Research & Information, 27, 140-148, https://doi.org/10.1080/096132199369480.
Ball, R. (2002). Re-use potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regeneration issue in Stoke-on-Trent, Journal of Property Research, 19, 93-110, https://doi.org/10.1080/09599910210125223.
Berger, S., & High, S. (2019). (De-) industrial heritage: An introduction. Labor, 16(1), 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-7269281.
Bullen, P. A. (2007). Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings. Facilities, 25(1/2), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770710716911.
Büro mit loft-charakter – super lage an der Kulturbrauerei. Immowelt. (n.d.). https://www.immowelt.de/expose/29mmu58?bc=13.
Canell, S.F. (2005). The adaptive reuse of historic industrial buildings: Regulation barrier,best practices and case studies. Master Thesis: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA, 40.
De Medici, S., et al. (2019). Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Impact Assessment of Two Adaptive Reuse Projects in Siracusa, Sicily. Sustainability, 12(1), 311. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010311.
Die Geschichte der KulturBrauerei. Kulturbrauerei. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2023, from https://www.kulturbrauerei.de/gelaende/geschichte/.
Eigler, F. (1996). Art and Money: Cultural Innovations within the Urban Setting of Prenzlauer Berg. In B. Becker-Cantarino (Ed.), Berlin in Focus Cultural Transformations in Germany. Essay, Praeger.
Gympel, J., et al. (2001). Die Kulturbrauerei in Prenzlauer Berg. Be.bra.
Hao, J.J.L., Tam, V.W.Y. (2019). Adaptive reuse in sustainable development, International Journal of Construction Management, 19, 509-521, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1459154.
KulturBrauerei gGmbH. (n.d.). Die Geschichte der KulturBrauerei. Kulturbrauerei. https://www.kulturbrauerei.de/gelaende/geschichte/.
Levine, Myron A. (2004). Government Policy, the Local State, and Gentrification: The Case of Prenzlauer Berg (Berlin), Germany. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26:1, 89-108. 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.007.x.
Mısırlısoy, D. & Günçe, K. (2016). Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.05.017.
Mohamed, R., et al. (2017). Adaptive reuse: A review and analysis of its relationship to the 3 es of Sustainability. Facilities, 35(3/4), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/f-12-2014-0108.
Oh, D. H. (2010). A Comparative Study on Successful Cases of the Advanced Urban Regeneration: Granville Island, Vancouver vs. KulturBrauerei, Berlin. Journal of Korean Urban Management Association, 23(1), 175-197.
Repellino, M. P., et al. (2016). Growing Environment Culture through Urban Design Processes. South Architecture, 2, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-0232.2016.02.000
Stahel, W. (2016). The circular economy. Nature, 531, 435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/531435a.
UNESCO. (2021). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, April 18). Smart Growth and Preservation of Existing and Historic Buildings. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-preservation-existing-and-historic-buildings.
Yung E.H.K., Chan, E.H.W. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36, 352-361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001.
*Helene Holland completed her junior year at NYU in 2023. She is currently studying Urban Design and Architecture Studies, and was in Berlin for spring semester 2023.