restoration, reuse and energy retrofit for the enhancement ... · design (wbd), an important...

Rocco Curto*, Alice Barreca**, parole chiave: enhancement of modern heritage,Diana Rolando*** functional redevelopment, energy retrofit, economic and

financial evaluation, Whole Building Design (WBD),Problem Based Learning (PBL), UNESCO heritage, Ivrea

Restoration, Reuse andEnergy retrofit for theenhancement of 20thCentury Heritage: alearning experience onthe Ivrea Site Inscribedon the UNESCO WorldHeritage List

journal valori e valutazioniNo. 21 - 2018 41

This article illustrates a learning experience conductedin the context of the Atelier “Architecture heritagepreservation and enhancement” held by the Politecnicodi Torino. This experience dealt with the theme offunctional redevelopment and energy retrofit of theOlivetti properties built in Ivrea in the 20th century. Thevalue of these buildings, which represent differentexpressions of the Modern Movement and differentbuilding and functional typologies, has been recentlyacknowledged thanks to the addition of the site “Ivrea,industrial city of the 20th century” to the UNESCOWorld Heritage List. The Atelier used innovative,structured and internationally recognized pedagogicalapproaches and involved the application of projects

economic evaluation methods. During the entireduration of the didactic activities, two approaches wereimplemented: the Whole Building Design (WBD), whichconstitutes an important reference for integrated andsustainable planning, and the Problem Based Learning(PBL), which guides the interaction between teachers,students and stakeholders throughout the Atelier.Starting from the Atelier learning objectives and theWBD and PBL approaches, theories, tools andmethodologies of analysis were identified, payingparticular attention to the integration of evaluation withrestoration and other disciplines and to the role this mayplay in the definition of enhancement projects. Multiple and concrete results were achieved, both at an

Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION

The training objectives and the tools for the enhancementof the heritage of historical and architectural interestdeserve today to be considered in relation to functionalredevelopment and energy retrofit, taking into account theentire life cycle of buildings and the peculiarities of modernheritage buildings and complexes, such as 20th centuryarchitecture.

Although modern heritage has been the focus of attentionby UNESCO, ICOMOS and DOCOMOMO for about 30years – a rather short period if we consider the entire historyof the protection of architectural and urban heritage –currently the processes of functional redevelopment andenergy retrofit of this kind of heritage are not yet sufficientlyinvestigated. In fact, if on the one hand modern heritage isparticularly vulnerable in terms of protection, because it ismore recent and, due to its scarce recognition, it is poorlyappreciated by residents and tourists, on the other, it canplay a central role in the achievement of the goals set bysustainable city development (Marinò, 2015).

Redevelopment projects on modern heritage must take intoaccount the different types of buildings and functions(residential and industrial buildings, intended for services,etc.) and the different expressions of the ModernMovement (rationalist, organic, radical, brutalistarchitecture etc.). In particular, the delicate balancebetween energy performance, protection of architecturalelements, financial and economic advantages and benefits- not only environmental - must be sought on the basis ofthe individual architecture and typology.

Energy retrofit is defined by the Ministerial Decree onminimum building requirements (DM Requisiti minimi26/06/2015), issued by the Italian government in 2015, as theset of interventions that have an impact on the buildings’energy performance, and today constitutes a mandatoryprocedure in the restoration of modern and historicalheritage, in compliance with the provisions of the 2017European Standard, implemented by UNI EN 16883: 2017(Standard FprEN 16883, 2017).

Economic evaluation plays an important role inexperiencing with innovative technologies aimed at savingenergy. In particular, the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis –defined by ISO 15686 – 5:2008 – allows to optimize therelationship between costs and quality (not only in terms ofenergy efficiency but also in terms of architectural design, ina broad sense), considering the entire life cycle of thebuilding and all its components (Langdon, 2007). The LCCanalysis strengthens the interaction between technologicaland planning choices and constitutes the first step in theeconomic evaluation process that must be subsequentlyintegrated into the analyses of costs and revenues and/or ofcosts-benefits (Basbagill et al., 2013; Islam et al., 2015). The economic-financial objectives, together with the social,environmental and economic ones must in turn beconsidered among those set by the Whole Building Design(WBD). In fact this approach places the sustainable andefficient building at the centre of the integrated designprocess, pursuing multiple objectives simultaneously(accessibility, functionality, conservation, safety,sustainability and maintenance of aesthetic andarchitectural qualities).

The assessment of transformation and energy retrofit costs,compatible with the functions and building characteristicsof modern heritage, can only be addressed with anintegrated design approach. According to this, the adoptionof new technologies capable of improving energyperformance not only with regard to plant components, butalso with regard to the building envelope and taking intoaccount also the consequences that these have in terms ofproperty market value.

The reuse and energy retrofit projects on the building stockmust be evaluated considering both marginal costs andmarginal prices, as well as the advantages not only in termsof comfort and energy savings but also in relation to thepotential increase of the property market value. At atheoretical and operational level, the cost value, traditionallyestimated through the bill of quantity, must be reinterpretedtaking into account the principles of Life Cycle Thinking,considering interventions on badly preserved and obsolete

journal valori e valutazioniNo. 21 - 201842

educational level, and with respect to the real impact onthe public administration for the enhancement andfuture management of the UNESCO site.The Atelier made use of a Geographical InformationSystem (GIS) created and designed in order to integratethe “building scale” of the single projects with the scaleof the urban project, considering the whole set ofarchitectures as a unitary system integrated with theterritory.On the one hand, GIS allowed to collect and analyze allthe detailed information concerning tangible andintangible assets and, on the other, to collect andanalyze all the data concerning the productive,

economic and social structure of the territory. Thisallowed identifying the demands useful to define thenew functions of the buildings, thus formulating ashared project Masterplan.On this basis, more than 30 projects for restoration,functional redevelopment and energy retrofit weredefined, their economic-financial feasibility was thenevaluated, through the integration of economic-estimative tools (Life Cycle Costing - LCC andDiscounted Cash Flow - DCF). Lastly, the most importantstakeholders of the territory of Ivrea, involved in theAtelier, recognized the value and potential of the resultsachieved, confirming their actual feasibility.

Restoration, Reuse and Energy retrofit for the enhancement of 20th Century Heritage:a learning experience on the Ivrea Site Inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List

buildings against the entire life cycle (Zacà et al., 2015;Fregonara, 2015; Barthelmes et al., 2016). It is necessary tosimultaneously consider and integrate the restorationinterventions with those aimed at energy efficiency of thesystems and of the envelopes, and those aimed at the reuseof modern heritage, which presents architectural andconstruction features in relation to different functionaltypologies.

20th Century heritage is often in a good state ofpreservation, but is extremely obsolete both in terms ofenergy efficiency (due to the presence of heat bridgeslinked to the use of reinforced concrete, and to highthermal transmittance caused by extensive glazed surfaces)and considering their actual functions. Moreover, projectsfor the enhancement of the existing heritage, in most cases,are functional to the establishment of new activities and/orprivate and public services, for which the economic andfinancial feasibility in turn must be evaluated with respect tothe entire life cycle of the assets and, in particular, withrespect to their management (Legner et al., 2016).The estimation of the costs of restoration, energy retrofitand transformation of buildings is therefore a crucial stepto identify and select the optimal design scenarios and, italso constitutes an important step in the cost-revenue andcost-benefit analyses.

Evaluation is simpler in the case of the most common,ordinary types of buildings, such as residences and offices.On the other hand, it is more complex for buildingsclassified as belonging to the so-called “special” typologies:industrial buildings, industrial services, stations, buildingsfor exhibitions, etc. In these cases, in fact, the greater thesize of the buildings the higher the degree of complexity,both as regards energy solutions and as regards thearticulation of spaces and functional allocations.

Starting from these premises, this article intends to report anlearning experience carried out within the “Architectureheritage preservation and enhancement” Atelier, duringwhich two approaches were adopted: the Whole BuildingDesign (WBD), an important reference for integrated andsustainable design process, and the Problem Based Learning(PBL), which supported students in dealing with the casestudy of the enhancement of the Olivetti heritage, part of thesite “Ivrea, industrial city of the 20th century”, listed as WorldHeritage by UNESCO as of July 1, 2018. In particular, it shouldbe considered that the Olivetti architectures were conceivedas a single system to be enhanced, integrated into theterritory, taking into account its economic, productive andsocial dynamism. During the Atelier, the economic-financialfeasibility of the projects for functional redevelopment andenergy retrofit of the single buildings was assessed throughthe integration of economic-estimative tools (LCC and DCF).While we refer to other publications for the description ofspecific results regarding some of the buildings analyzed(Barreca et al., 2017), the objective of this article is to illustratethe general methodological approach adopted and theresults achieved at a system level for the enhancement of theentire urban area.

In the first part of the article, the learning objectives of theAtelier are explained and the two approaches taken asreferences during the entire duration of the didacticactivities, which are WBD and PBL. In the second part, thetools and methods of analysis adopted are illustrated, withparticular attention to the role that economic evaluationplayed in the definition of the enhancement projects.Finally, the third part illustrates the results achieved duringthe Atelier, not only from a didactic perspective, but alsoand above all with regard to the actual impact on the publicadministration in the context of the enhancement andfuture management of the UNESCO site.

2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES OF THE ATELIER

The multidisciplinary Atelier “Architecture heritagepreservation and enhancement” takes place during the firstsemester of the second year of the Master’s Degree coursein Architecture for Heritage preservation and Enhancementof Heritage held at the Politecnico di Torino. The Atelierintegrates the disciplines of urban restoration andeconomic enhancement in an interactive and synchronicdialogue, in order to provide students with multidisciplinarytools and approaches useful for dealing with the complexityof projects and processes, considering both the urban scale(widespread heritage, urban system) and the architecturalone (single buildings). The Atelier focuses, in fact, on theproblems of knowledge, conservation, restoration,economic feasibility, enhancement, promotion andmanagement of assets and heritages of widely recognizedcultural value.

Starting from these general training objectives, during theacademic years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, students addressedthe problem of how to carry out the functionalredevelopment and energy retrofit of the Olivetti heritageof Ivrea, starting from WBD and experiencing with theinnovative didactic approach of PBL. This learningexperience is also part of the European project “Citylab:Engaging Students with Sustainable Cities in Latin America”,co-funded by the European Union under the “Erasmus+:Higher education – International Capacity Building”program, and among the short-medium and long-termteaching and research activities listed in the UNESCO SiteManagement Plan (Section “C - Capacity Building”, action“C-3.3 - Degree courses, doctorate (Ph.D.) programmes andresearch theses, Research projects on the Industrial City ofthe 20th Century and modern heritage management”) (Cityof Ivrea, 2012 - updated to 2017).

The enhancement of the UNESCO site “Ivrea, industrialcity of the 20th century” depends largely on theredevelopment of an entire portion of the city, recognizedas a model of modern industrial city, consisting of acomplex urban system made up of well-preservedbuildings with an exceptional architectural quality. Themore than 100 buildings included in the UNESCO sitewere made by architects from the “Modern Movement”(such as Figini and Pollini, Gardella, Vittoria, Gabetti and


Isola, Cappai and Mainardis, Sgrelli). They were conceivedas non-separable elements, integrated parts of a unitaryurban system of high historical, architectural andenvironmental value, which represents thematerialization of the social model of community(CommunityMovement) on which Adriano Olivetti basedhis production model and his conception of industrial city(Olivetti, 1945). This exceptionality was also recognized inthe document with which the World Heritage Committeemotivated the registration of the site in WHL UNESCO(WHC, 2018). This document underlines the value of thisheritage as a testimony of an era and of a modern visionwhich is emblematic of the transition from mechanical todigital production. Among the typologies of buildingsthere are: industrial buildings, a research centre, officebuildings, social services, residences, a thermal powerplant, a kindergarten, etc. Particularly noteworthy are: theformer Company Canteen and leisure centre, the SocialServices Centre and the Officine ICO (production centre),the Western Residential Unit (Talponia) by Gabetti andIsola, an example of hypogean architecture, the formerSertec Offices Building by Sgrelli, an example of brutalistarchitecture, and the Eastern residential unit (formerHotel La Serra) by Cappai and Mainardis, an exceptionalcase of radical architecture (Coscia and Curto, 2017)(Figure 1).

The functional redevelopment and energy retrofit of thesebuildings, which are of high historical-architectural valuebut not very efficient from an energetic point of view, poseda challenge for the students of the Atelier, a challenge thatis today all the more actual, after the inscription of the sitein the WHL UNESCO. In fact, the future management of theUNESCO site will have to ensure an integration betweenenhancement strategies, based on the establishment of newfunctions and the implementation of interventions toachieve energy efficiency, together with projects forheritage protection, aimed at preserving and maintainingthe identity of the area and of the single buildings. Takinginto account the achievement of this important and difficultobjective, the students had to plan interventions ofrestoration, reuse and energy retrofit, consistent under theaspect of protection, and feasible in economic and financialterms. In particular, the energy efficiency was treated,starting from WBD, as a priority objective in the definitionand evaluation of the enhancement projects. To encouragethe development of the students’ ability to relate to a realand complex problem, the PBL didactic approach wasexperienced. In fact both approaches, WBD and PBL,foresee the sharing of objectives in the preliminary phasesof the projects among all the stakeholders and all thespecialists involved in the entire planning and learningprocess.


Figure 1 - Eastern residential unit, Officine ICO (production centre), former Company canteen and leisure centre, Western resi-dential unit, former Sertec Offices Building (Source: photos by Authors)


2.1 The Whole Building Design (WBD) approachfor the integrated design of high performancebuildings

The improvement of the energy performance of buildingsof high historical and architectural value is a goal that canonly be pursued through an approach to the project that isable to integrate multiple aspects, ranging from comfort,energy saving, conservation, protection and economic-financial sustainability of the projects (Martìnez-Molina etal., 2016). The construction and plant characteristics to beconsidered in order to improve the energy performance ofbuildings must, in fact, not only be compatible with thearchitectural features to be preserved, but alsoeconomically advantageous with respect to the building lifecycle (Directive 2012/27/EU, 2012). The WBD approach has as its objective the construction ofhigh performance buildings to be achieved throughintegrated design and an interactive process involving thestakeholders and the professional figures starting from thevery first planning and programming phases of the project.In particular, integrated design requires that the entire teamresponsible for carrying out the project (owners, real estatedevelopers, property managers, facility managers,architects, engineers, construction companies, specialists,technicians, tenants, etc.) pursues shared project objectives,collaborating synergistically in multidisciplinary groups andovercoming a rigid division of roles based on individualdisciplinary skills.This approach is based on a complete integration betweenthe people involved during the entire project life cycle,starting from the definition of the requirements, throughthe phases of planning, programming and construction, upto the final occupation of the building and management ofthe functional activities (Prowler and Vierra, 2008). The main project objectives, defined preliminarily,appropriately balanced and pursued simultaneously duringthe design process, are the following (Figure 2):• Accessibility: heights and widths of the constructionelements must be adequate in order to meet the specificneeds of disabled people;

• Aesthetic quality: aesthetic quality of the constructiveelements and of the spaces;

• Economic convenience: selection of the constructiveelements on the basis of life cycle costs, and evaluationof basic costs and budget control;

• Functionality: identification of functions, spacerequirements, design requirements, system performance,as well as resistance and efficient maintenance of theelements of the building;

• Protection: specific actions and strategies of interventionin a context or on a historical building which may beclassified as belonging to one of the four approaches:conservation, redevelopment, restoration orreconstruction;

• Comfort: physical and psychological well-being of users,

determined by constructive elements such as airdistribution, lighting, work spaces and plants;

• Security: physical protection of users and assets fromnatural or man-made risks;

• Sustainability: environmental performance of theconstructive elements.

The choice of a particular constructive element, forinstance, can condition at the same time the quality of theair inside the building, ease of maintenance, managementcosts, fuel choice and global climate change. Moreover, thesize of the constructive element is able to determine thetype of lighting and regulation, the organization of theinterior spaces and air conditioning, the same as the choiceof materials and plants can influence aesthetics, accessibilityand security (Martmez-Molina et al., 2016). The WBD approach therefore aims at creating buildings thatare at the same time safe, accessible, flexible, aestheticallypleasing, productive and sustainable both economically andenergetically throughout the entire life cycle (Prowler andVierra, 2012).

2.2 The Problem Based Learning (PBL) approachfor didactic innovation

Innovation in the field of education, at all educational levels,is in continuous development, it affects all disciplines and isincreasingly oriented towards the solution of real problemswhich are more and more considered in their multi-dimensionality and complexity. To tackle, in the context of the Atelier, the problem of theenhancement of an entire section of the city, a didacticapproach was tested in the area of Active Learning andinnovative teaching methods in the Faculties of Architecture(De Graff and Cowdroy, 1997): the PBL approach (Savery,


Figure 2 - Project objectives according to the Whole BuildingDesign approach(Source: Authors’ elaboration from (Prowler and Vierra, 2012))

2006), elaborated for the first time at the McMasterUniversity in Canada in 1969 (De Graff and Kolmos, 2003),has subsequently been developed and modified in otherforms and structures. The PBL approach is different fromthe more classic Project Based Learning as it focuses notonly on the “solution” of the problem or the “result”, but onthe problem itself and the process used to analyze andstructure it (Mills and Tregust, 2003).

The learning experience conducted during the Atelier ispart of the Erasmus+ project “CityLab. Engaging studentswith sustainable cities in Latin-America”, co-funded by theEuropean Union and inspired by the three main classic PBLapproaches, adapted to the reality of the Italian Universityand of the Faculty of Architecture:

• the Aalborg model, also called “Problem OrientedProject” (Kolmos et al., 2004);

• the model of the Maastricht University of 1976, also called“Seven-step Approach” (Moust et al., 2005);

• the model of the Alcala University, also known as the “4x4Model” (Prieto et al., 2006).

These approaches places the student at the centre of theeducational process, eliminates the hierarchical teacher-student structure, promotes participation and collaborationamong students (Ertmer and Simons, 2006) and facilitatesthe involvement of external stakeholders (Brundiers et al.,2010).

One of the fundamental pillars of this approach is thechoice of complex real problems for the definition of casestudies to be analyzed. In the learning processes it is indeeduseful to tackle real case studies, so students may acquiredisciplinary tools and technical knowledge that can bespent on the professional market for the definition ofsustainable projects, closely linked to territorial realities,socio-economic contexts and needs expressed by thedifferent stakeholders involved (Brundiers et al., 2010). It isalso important that students simultaneously developleadership, problem-solving, cooperation and team-building skills, which are transversal to all curriculardisciplines and useful in professional practice (Brundiers etal., 2010).Firstly, PBL is inclusive and aims to involve students in theprocess of knowledge acquisition and problem definitionrelated to the case study. Indeed, they are consideredresponsible for their project, collaborate among each otherand with external actors and become active in thecommunity of reference. Secondly, this approach is suitablefor developing the main aspects of educational innovationaimed at sustainable development planning (Lehmann et al.,2008).

In fact, as Lehmann explains (2008), sustainabledevelopment, directly linked to the planning of sustainablecities, is based on the continuous increase of the various“capitals” or “potentials” that feed it: human and intellectualcapital, productive and social capital. Thus it becomesevident that architecture students, as future professionals,must become increasingly capable of solving problems and

be aware of how these are influenced by the differentcapitals and connections that exist between them. The PBL approach can be applied to a course of study, acycle of conferences or a workshop or an Atelier, accordingto a process that can be represented by the Problem-basedlearning cycle and the cycle of acquisition of knowledge(Poikela and Nummenmaa, 2006) (Figure 3).

The phases of development of this process start with a firstphase in which the students (in groups of 4 or 5 people),after having analyzed and broken down the “problem” in itsmultiple aspects, try to define a vision and a sharedperspective (1. Problem Setting). The purpose of the nextphase is to be able to elaborate the previous knowledge inorder to apply it to the solution of the problem. This can bedone through a first brainstorming, which can be carriedout in the preliminary phase both by students alone or withteachers and stakeholders (2. Brainstorming). Afterwards,the results of Phase 2 are structured to define and selectresources, types of similar ideas are classified into separatecategories (3. Systematization). During the fourth phase themost problematic and important areas identified duringPhase 3 are defined (4. Selection). The first part of theprocess ends with the phase of formulation of the trainingobjectives and teaching activities (5. Learning task). Theknowledge acquisition phase is carried out autonomouslyby the groups of students and takes place through differentmeans: archival research, theoretical lessons, meetings withexperts and online research (6. Knowledge acquisition).Finally students move on to the phase in which the acquired


Figure 3 - Problem-based learning and knowledge acquisitioncycle(Source: Authors’ elaboration from (Poikela and Nummenmaa,2006))


knowledge is summed up (7. Knowledge integration), a stepthat can be completed with a synergy among students,teachers and stakeholders, to create the necessaryknowledge concerning the problem/case study and clarifythe initial problem (8. Clarification ) so as to move on to – inthe case of the Architecture courses – the project.Obviously, following a first phase of analysis and breakdown of the main problem into secondary problems, it mayhappen that the cycle has to be repeated in an iterativeprocess (Poikela and Nummenmaa, 2006).

3. INTEGRATION BETWEEN PROJECTAND ESTIMATIVE TOOLS

Starting from the learning goals and the approachesoutlined in the previous paragraph, the estimative tools thatthe students acquired during the “Architecture heritagepreservation and enhancement” Atelier were identified. Asalready mentioned, the training program entailed theintegration of the disciplines of Urban Restoration andEconomic Enhancement. The interaction betweenrestoration/reuse/energy retrofit and economicmanagement/enhancement has the educational objectiveof going beyond the traditional tools and techniques ofapproach to planning. It is aimed to create a synergy and akit of multidisciplinary tools able to effectively respond toreal problems the project revolves around, which are sharedwith the stakeholders and all the professional figuresinvolved. Through the discipline of Restoration, in particular, analysismethods were identified, aimed at creating a knowledgeframework related both to the single buildings and to theurban areas in order to enhance their protection, safeguardand reuse.The preliminary structure of the knowledge framework wasestablished through the acquisition of data from indirectsources and direct surveys in the field, also analyzing theregulatory provisions in force (City of Ivrea, 2013 and 2016).Furthermore, theoretical concepts and best practices at anational and international level were illustrated in order toencourage the development of a critical capacity able tosupport a correct interpretation of the figurative,constructive and structural characters of historicalarchitecture (Ascione et al., 2015 ; Boeri et al., 2016; Legnér etal., 2016). This was considered as the knowledge baseneeded to address the definition of design strategies andthe feasibility of conservation and protection projectsapplied at a building and urban scale (Bogarino et al., 2016).More generally, in dealing with complex design problemsat a strategic level, students acquired the ability to transformand enhance assets, taking into account, on the one hand,the need to preserve historical and cultural values and, onthe other, public and private economic viability, following asynthetic approach in which formal, performance andeconomic aspects are jointly considered (Pinto, 2010). Consistent with the need of a UNESCO site to integratestrategies for the enhancement and protection of heritage,

the objectives of preservation from physical decay and lossof identity, and those of compatible and efficient reuse,were therefore made to interact closely with the logic ofenhancement and economic and financial viability. In fact,maintenance able to guarantee lasting efficiency, use andenjoyment of assets through the inclusion of new functions– compatible with the assets themselves and with theenvironmental, social and cultural system of which they arepart – cannot leave out the evaluation of economicfeasibility, with regard to both the construction phase andthe future management of the new activities in place.

The tools and analyses identified for the analysis of physicaldegradation and the definition of restoration and energyretrofit projects, were therefore made to interact with someestimative tools aimed at identifying costs and at assessingproject economic viability. The following paragraph intendsto examine the main tools and approaches used, which arerelated to the discipline of economic evaluation.

3.1 The role of economic evaluation

Projects to enhance modern heritage are a complexchallenge not only in terms of conservation and restoration,but also and above all with regard to the feasibility andeconomic-financial viability of the projects.

The identification of new functions – compatible with thepre-existing, with the physical and socio-economic contextsof reference – requires a strategic evaluation of the generalprivate, public and public-private economic viability,represented by the various stakeholders called to take partin the whole process of enhancement (Curto et al., 2014):owners of the assets, construction companies, managers,end-users and the community (Guarini et al., 2017). Given the multiplicity of interests, the evaluation must usean appropriate methodology and diversified analyses andtools (Coscia et al., 2015; Bottero and Mondini, 2017). Thefunctional and technical solutions identified by therestoration and reuse project must first be verified throughthe quantification of costs with respect to the entirebuilding life cycle. The enhancement project is thereforeintended as being made up of three integratedcomponents: restoration, reuse and energy retrofit. Theeconomic component, starting from WBD, takes on aparticular role, as it can be itself proactive with respect tothe different scenarios.

In particular, the evaluation of the economic feasibility ofthe energy retrofit projects, selected on the basis of a seriesof possible technological and plant alternatives, is theprerequisite of the enhancement process (Fregonara et al.,2013; Fregonara et al., 2016).Therefore, evaluation plays an important role from the initialphase through the application of LCC, which can beconsidered a preliminary step and a prerequisite for theapplication of more consolidated instruments, such as theDiscounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis.

LCC is the tool that allows the different and specialized skills


to interact in the project process, with continuous feedbackbetween evaluators, technologists, planners, installers andrestorers. LCC is also very important precisely from aneducational point of view, as it provides students withsupport in assessing the economic feasibility of variousdesign, technological and plant engineering solutions(Fregonara, 2015).

In fact, LCC serves to economically assess the economicviability of alternative energy retrofit projects, both withrespect to the building envelopes and with respect to theplant solutions, calculating the global cost of the buildingduring its entire life cycle: construction/renovation,management, maintenance and final disposal (EN15603:2008, 2008). In particular, LCC calculates and makes itpossible to compare several profitability indicators: the NetPresent Value (NPV), the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), theNet Saving (NS), the Saving to Investment Ratio (SIR) andthe Pay-Back Period (PBP). These indicators support thechoice of the intervention which optimizes theperformance requirements – but also comfort, architecturalquality, energy efficiency, etc. –, and economic viability.

In the next phase, LCC is integrated with DCF to assess theeconomic and financial feasibility of the projects ofrestoration, reuse and energy retrofit, assuming costsrelated to restoration, the costs of renovation/reuse and thecosts of energy retrofit estimated for the scenario identifiedas being the most convenient (Fregonara et al., 2017). Theinvestment is analyzed through the well-known profitabilityindicators: NPV, IRR and PBP. This tool allows to analyze,through the discounted cash flows, the financial incomeswith respect to the invested capital, including the (final)residual value of the asset at the time of its disposal.

In almost the totality of cases, the discounted cash flowmethod was applied to transformation projects aimed not atthe buying and selling market but at the management ofboth private and public activities and services. LCC and DCFwere therefore integrated considering the life cycle of thetransformed buildings.

The economic enhancement of the Olivetti architectures isstrictly connected to the financial flows deriving from thenew activities for which the architectures themselves havebeen transformed, and for this reason the managementphase is central and decisive both for economic evaluationand for the assessment of environmental sustainability.

The analyses are aimed not only at verifying the profitabilityof investments, but also at identifying the economic andsocial conditions necessary to guarantee the enhancementof transformed assets over time.

In particular, in the case of cultural and social publicactivities and services, the calculation of the Break EvenPoint (BEP) is fundamental, as it allows to determine –starting from fixed management costs and ticket prices - thenumber of users necessary to guarantee a balance betweenfixed costs and financial revenue.

Thanks to the integration of the various economic-estimative tools, it is therefore possible to coordinate and

carry out the pre-feasibility and feasibility verifications ofthe projects, measuring their functional, technological,energy, structural, environmental and economicimplications, in line with the principles of the WBDapproach.

4. COURSE RESULTS

The Atelier “Architecture heritage preservation andenhancement” began with a first phase, conducted by theteachers, aimed at the choice of the case study to beanalyzed and the construction of the relative real problemto be addressed (3C3R model), taking into account both theeducational objectives, the definition of the context ofreference, and the availability of stakeholders to participatein the learning process (Hung, 2006) (Figure 4).

The selected case was the site “Ivrea, industrial city of the20th century”, recently inscribed in the WHL UNESCO.

The case study was chosen taking into consideration thetraining objectives and the related problems, presented tothe students by the teaching staff and by some stakeholdersinvolved. Specifically, the Coordinator of the Application“Ivrea, industrial city of the 20th century” and the at the timeMayor of Ivrea presented the site to the students, illustratingthe process followed for the application to the WHLUNESCO (at the time not yet concluded), the problemsfaced and those still open, the projects alreadyimplemented and those being implemented.

Starting from the evidences from the stakeholders, theteachers urged the students to analyze and structure theproblems, paying attention to private and public interests.The students then collected the data from direct andindirect sources and analyzed the actual state of thebuildings and the territorial, socio-economic and culturalcontext of reference with the support of SWOT analyses(Armstrong, 1982; Hill and Westbrook, 1997; Coscia and


Figure 4 - 3c3r model(Source: Authors’ elaboration from (Hung, 2006))


Curto, 2017, Coscia et al., 2018). Among the main sourcescontacted: the Technical Office of the City of Ivrea, theHistorical Archive, private companies and investment funds,owners or managers of assets. Moreover, thanks to thecollaboration of the Superintendence of Archaeology, FineArts and Landscape for the metropolitan city of Turin, thestudents were able to access to the architectural constraintsreports, which provide useful information for thestructuring phase of knowledge acquisition and thedefinition of restoration projects.

The data collection and analysis phase was supported by aGIS based building database, structured by the teachingstaff and made available to the students for themanagement of the knowledge phase and for thesubsequent implementation of the information layersrelating to the areas and buildings chosen for thedevelopment of the restoration and enhancement projects.

For the definition of the single projects of functionalredevelopment, the students involved, with the help of theteachers, experts and operators able to support them in thesurvey and collection of input data for the projectseconomic-financial evaluation.

The involvement of various experts such asconsultants/collaborators during the Atelier allowed toobtain useful feedback for the development of feasible,sustainable project solutions, consistent with the needsexpressed by the various stakeholders involved (City ofIvrea, Coordination Group for the inscription to the WHLUNESCO, public bodies and private companies, tradeassociations, assets owners and property and facilitymanagers).

In addition, the students were also supported by the staffof the Laboratory of Analysis and Modelling ofEnvironmental Systems (LAMSA) of the Politecnico diTorino, for the evaluation of alternative building energyretrofit projects, through the application of the softwareTermolog for the calculation of the global energyperformance index of the building and its energyperformance certificate (EPC) label.

The students, working in groups, then developed theirprojects individually and collectively, finally drafting ashared project Masterplan at the urban scale. The definitionof the Masterplan was possible thanks to theimplementation of GIS and to the progressive interactionbetween students, teachers and stakeholders.

The final evaluation of the students’ projects took place intwo phases. The first evaluation, during the examination,was carried out by the teachers. The second evaluation tookplace during a public event, during which the best projectswere awarded by the City of Ivrea.

In conclusion, on the basis of the educational objectives andtools of restoration and economic evaluation outlined in theprevious paragraphs, the joint work between students,stakeholders and teachers led to the experience of a sharedlearning process and the development of diversifiedprojects of restoration and economic enhancement at both

urban and building scale. The main results achieved can besummarized as follows:

• the structuring of the GIS “Ivrea, industrial city of the 20thcentury”, which allowed the processing of data startingfrom numerous information levels and the definition of ashared project Masterplan for the enhancement of theentire urban area (UNESCO site);

• the realization of more than 30 enhancement projects,aimed at the functional redevelopment and energyretrofit of the buildings located in the UNESCO site, aswell as the public spaces and the surrounding greenareas;

• the organization of a public event for the presentation ofthe projects developed by the students to thestakeholders of the territory of Ivrea, during which thebest projects were awarded by the City of Ivrea.

4.1 The GIS “Ivrea, industrial city of the 20thcentury” and the shared project Masterplan

The GIS “Ivrea, industrial city of the 20th century” and thedatabases that compose it have been structured to collectand analyze all the information concerning the built andunbuilt elements of the UNESCO site (Barreca et al., 2017):29 Areas (City of Ivrea, 2012 – updated to 2017), 94 cadastralparcels, 116 Buildings (74 main and 42 accessory), 29elements of the infrastructural system and 32 elements ofthe green system, a building outside the area but of greatdocumentary value (West Residential Unit - former Hotel laSerra), as well as the information concerning the territorial,socio-economic and cultural context.

The structure of the GIS, the conceptual scheme of theattributes and the survey files (of both the existing and ofthe projects), was prepared by the teachers before thebeginning of the course, starting from the web-GIS of theCity of Ivrea, and was implemented and integrated with theinformation provided by the students. Some dataelaborations were useful to support the definition ofsustainable new functions, compatible with the needs ofrestoration and suited to the context of reference (Cerreta& De Toro, 2012). Thanks to the support of the GIS, a sharedproject Masterplan was developed, capable of structuringthe knowledge phase in thematic areas and historicalperiods and facilitating the coordinated choice of the newfunctions envisaged by the project (Figure 5).

The definition of new functions was also supported by theinformation layers of the GIS containing the data relating tothe real estate market in Ivrea. Starting from the building’sreference functions, the real estate value system is in factconditioned by the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics ofthe properties, including the positional ones (Curto et al.,2017).

The Masterplan and the analysis of the results of the projecteconomic evaluation allowed to underline the importanceof using a trans-scalar tool for the planning of parts of thecity (Borgarino et al., 2016), suggesting possible future


developments and integrations in the fields of BIM, Gaming,3D Reconstruction and Augmented Reality to also favourthe indirect fruition of cultural heritage (Rua and Alvito,2011) and of structuring collaborative platforms (Coscia etal., 2017; De Filippi et al., 2016).

4.2 Reuse and energy retrofit projects of thebuildings located in the UNESCO site

The theme of the enhancement of the Olivetti heritage ofIvrea, addressed during the ay. 2016/17 and 2017/18, led tothe definition of more than 30 restoration, reuse and energyretrofit projects of the buildings located in about 16 Areas ofthe UNESCO site, as well as public spaces, green areas androutes that could be affected in the future redesign of theOpen air Museum of Modern Architecture of Ivrea(MAAM). Each project was developed taking into accountboth the typological and functional peculiarities of thebuildings, the different restoration needs and thecharacteristics of the neighbouring urban areas, and theoverall coherence defined by the Masterplan.

The detailed analysis of the current state (consistency) and

of the state of degradation, as well as the definition of aseries of actions aimed at the protection and conservationof the buildings, constituted an important starting point forthe development of compatible projects also respectful ofthe pre-existing historical-architectural value. Starting from the restoration projects and from theidentification of new functions, the economic-financialfeasibility was evaluated, applying the following types ofanalysis:• Assessment of the economic viability of alternative energyretrofit projects carried out with LCC analysis;

• Preliminary evaluation of the economic-financialfeasibility of the project with respect to a predefined timeperiod, carried out with DCF analysis.

Assessment of the economic viability ofalternative energy retrofit projects carried outwith Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis

The primary objective for the definition of energy retrofitprojects is the achievement of a series of minimumstandards of energy performance of a building, defined on


Figure 5 - The shared project Masterplan: definition of the new functions of the buildings located in the UNESCO site(Source: Authors’ elaboration)


the basis of the Italian Ministerial Decree 26/06/2015 whichestablishes minimum requirements. These standards are seton the basis of different thermal zones, use classes (DPR412/93) and geometric data of each building and sub-unit.

The possible energy retrofit projects were thereforehypothesised for “each building individually”, and werediversified according to the types of buildings and the veryheterogeneous functions.

On the basis of the minimum legal requirements, for eachbuilding, a basic scenario and a series of alternative energyretrofit projects were hypothesized. The choice of the“optimal solution”, from the point of view of energy savingand economic feasibility over a period of time, wassupported by the application of the LCC analysis (Becchio etal., 2015). A series of interventions, such as the replacementof windows, the introduction of external or internal coating,the replacement of some plants, were compared with thebase scenario and evaluated on the basis of the energysavings calculated by taking into account the entire buildinglife cycle (Litti et al., 2018).

In the example shown in Figure 6, the students initiallyanalyzed the current state of the three buildings of the

“Social Services Centre” complex compared to the newfunctions being hypothesised (53% social housing, 40%social centre and 7% bar). Starting from the existingconstructive elements (single-glazed frames and perimeterwalls in plaster, hollow bricks and air chamber) the basescenario was defined, hypothesising minimuminterventions to allow the adaptations required by the newfunction of the building to meet the legal standards. Subsequently, for each building, the base scenario wascompared with three alternative energy retrofit projects:• the insertion of inner coating composed of 13cm thickpanels in silicate hydrate and autoclaved calcium;

• the replacement of the windows and the insertion ofthermal break frames in steel sheets and low-emissiondouble glazing;

• the installation of 28 photovoltaic panels on the flat roof.These interventions were analyzed both individually and invarious possible combinations. Comparing the results of thevarious LCC analyses - NPV, IRR, NS, SIR and PBP - thecombined solution “internal coating + windows +photovoltaic panels” was found to be the most convenientfrom an economic point of view and with regard to energy,


Figure 6 - Results obtained with the calculation of the overall energy requirements – and relative energy performance certifica-te labels – of the three buildings of the “Social Services Centre” complex: comparison between the base scenario and threealternative energy retrofit projects(Source: Assessment of alternative energy retrofit projects by Ludovica Rapisarda and Alessandra Sacco, students of the Atelier“Architecture heritage preservation and enhancement”, Politecnico di Torino, academic year 2017/2018)

allowing to pass, in the case of the central building, forexample, from an EPC label “E” to a label “B” whileguaranteeing full protection of the original architecturalelements.

Preliminary evaluation of the economic/financialfeasibility of the project with respect to apredefined time period carried out withDiscounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis

Following the choice of the optimal intervention, the overallcosts of the intervention were estimated, inserting detailedcosts of energy retrofit among the other items of the bill ofquantities (Comité Européen des Economistes de laConstruction, 2003). The projects economic-financial feasibility was thereforeassessed using the consolidated DCF analysis, on the basisof the costs of the intervention – including those consideredfor energy retrofit – and of the revenues estimated on thebasis of the new hypothesised functions, considering therisk of the investment and the time of return on investedcapital. Feasibility was also verified both with respect to thehypothesis of sale of the asset following its requalification,and with respect to its management, so considering a longerperiod of time. Figure 7 shows, for example, three management scenarios(optimistic, medium and pessimistic), diversified on thebasis of the rent and the percentage of occupation of thepremises to be leased.The optimistic scenario provides for a rental fee of 90Euro/sqm and a 90% occupancy rate for renting premisesand is able to guarantee an 18 year PBP. On the other hand,the pessimistic scenario envisages a rent of 70 Euro/sqm andan employment rate of 20%: in this case the PBP is notacceptable as it exceeds 30 years. Finally, the averagescenario, with a rent of 70 Euro/sqm and a 70% occupancyrate, is able to guarantee a 28-year PBP.

4.3 Dialogue with the territory of Ivrea: thepublic event for the presentation and theawarding of projects developed by thestudents

June 16th, 2017, the City of Ivrea, in collaboration with theDepartment of Architecture and Design of the Politecnico diTorino, organized the public event “Oltre Olivetti. Scenariper il futuro di Ivrea. Il patrimonio come occasione dirigenerazione urbana e di sviluppo” (Beyond Olivetti.Scenarios for the future of Ivrea. Heritage as an opportunityfor urban regeneration and development), for thepresentation of the shared master plan and of the singleenhancement projects developed by the students of theAtelier “Architecture heritage preservation andenhancement”. On this occasion, the City rewarded the best projects,involving the main stakeholders of the territory of the Ivrea

area in the evaluation. The students who decided toparticipate in the event publicly presented their project toa special commission (made up of some representatives ofthe Municipality, the UNESCO Candidature Committee, theChamber of Commerce of the Canavese region, and somerepresentatives of the property funds and real estatemanagers) that selected the winners on the basis of thequality of the restoration project, the consistency of the newprefigured new functions, the level of design innovationand the economic-financial feasibility (Figure 8).The event, highly appreciated by the public and privatestakeholders of the territory of Ivrea, was included in theupdated UNESCO Application Management Plan (in thesection dedicated to the description of the sector “B -Knowledge and Conservation Action Plan”, measure “B - 3


Figure 7 - Results obtained with the application of DCF analysisfor the enhancement of the economic-financial feasibility of thefunctions hypothesised for the “Social Services Centre”complex: comparison between three scenarios (optimistic,pessimistic and medium)(Source: Assessment of alternative energy retrofit projects byLudovica Rapisarda and Alessandra Sacco, students of theAtelier “Architecture heritage preservation and enhancement”,Politecnico di Torino, academic year 2017/2018)


Integration of knowledge and interpretative resources”,action “B-3.1 Broadening the knowledge of the real estateof the Site”) (Municipality of Ivrea, 2012 - updated to 2017),testifying to the fact that the results achieved during theAtelier can represent concrete effects for the enhancementand management of the UNESCO site, publicly recognizedby the administration of Ivrea.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The functional redevelopment and energy retrofit ofmodern heritage is currently dealt with considering theaspect of restoration and reuse, without taking into accountthe objectives that can be pursued through energy retrofitprojects. The introduction of the objectives prefigured bythe WBD allowed to address the issue of enhancement ofmodern heritage as a real and complex problem, whichmust be analyzed taking into account a variety of aspects.

Modern heritage, in fact, is mostly made up of buildingssubject to restrictions on which the possible interventionsare often limited, both with regard to the identification ofnew functions and the application of technologies aimed atimproving energy performance.

In Italy, considering the percentage of buildings that aresubject to restrictions, it is essential to direct attention alsoto a particularly fragile heritage such as the modern one,and to consider energy retrofit projects as a necessary andsimultaneous practice for restoration and reuse.

It is therefore pivotal to identify the interventions that arenot only compatible with pre-existing conditions, but alsoable to combine protection with the choice for the optimalsolution with respect to energy and economic-financialfeasibility, considering the entire building life cycle.

The projects on the existing heritage, starting from the caseof Ivrea, show that it is possible to use technologicalinnovation aimed at comfort and energy saving even withheritage that is under restrictions, respecting the historical,architectural and cultural values and making significantimprovements in the overall energy balance.

The delicate and difficult balance between technicallimitations (functional, material, technological, structural)imposed by the law and the economic and financialfeasibility of the projects poses a stimulating andeducational challenge for the students who attend the lastyear of the degree course in Architecture.

The learning objectives of the Atelier “Architecture heritagepreservation and enhancement” of the Politecnico di Torinowere thus pursued as part of the process of enhancement ofthe heritage of the Olivetti area and UNESCO site “Ivrea,industrial city of the 20th century”, a particularly complexcase of reuse and energy retrofit involving different typesof buildings.

The case was broken down into its many aspects, startingalso from the learning objectives, bearing in mind the realityand the interests of the many stakeholders involved.

To support the training process, two approaches were takenand integrated: WBD and PBL. The first one guided thestudents towards integrated design of sustainable andefficient buildings, also possible thanks to theimplementation of an interactive process among all thepeople involved during the entire life cycle of the project.The second approach, however, made it possible forstudents to interact with each other and with thestakeholders in order to solve a real problem, also allowingthem to develop the multiple skills required. Studentslearned to define and manage a process aimed at solving acomplex problem through continuous and proactiveinteraction with the teaching staff and stakeholders in thearea of reference. The application of PBL during the Atelierconstituted an innovative learning experience at a nationallevel. In the degree courses in Architecture, in fact, it is astandard practice to analyze real cases inviting local actorsand stakeholders to provide evidences, in order tocontextualize the selected case study. Nevertheless, the


Figure 8 - The public event “Oltre Olivetti. Scenari per il futurodi Ivrea. Il patrimonio come occasione di rigenerazioneurbana e di sviluppo” (Beyond Olivetti. Scenarios for thefuture of Ivrea. Heritage as an opportunity for urbanregeneration and development) held at the Salone dei 2000 -16 June 2017(Source: photo by the Authors)

teaching approach is hardly based on pedagogicallystructured methodologies such as PBL and very rarely theresults achieved at the end of the courses really support andare acquired by the public administrations involved. In theinternational context, however, the application of PBL ismore consolidated, not only in individual modules/ateliers,but also throughout entire degree courses. In parallel, and at the same time as the application of PBL,students also acquired the disciplinary tools andmethodologies of analysis of the disciplines of restorationand economic enhancement. In particular, they were able tolearn and apply LCC analysis integrated with DCF analysis,using real data for the evaluation of economic and financialfeasibility. The results achieved at the end of the Atelier are many, bothconsidering the learning outcomes, and with regard to theenhancement of the selected case study. Starting from thedata collected and structured within the GIS “Ivrea,industrial city of the 20th century” a common knowledgebase was established that led the entire course to thedefinition of a shared project Masterplan. This Masterplanwas the basis for the development of more than 30restoration, reuse and energy retrofit projects of thebuildings located in the UNESCO site. For each building (orcomplex of buildings), the economic-financial viability andfeasibility were assessed, both during the examination andin Ivrea, at a public event during which a commissionawarded the best project. The enhancement projects and the presentation made onthe occasion of the public event allowed to conclude theinvolvement of the stakeholders during the learningprocess, “giving back” to the citizens and the administrationof Ivrea some potentially feasible projects and ideas for asustainable development of a part of the city. In fact, theresults of this learning experience go beyond theacquisition by the students of economic-estimative toolsand the definition of individual projects that are viable andachievable. The overall scenario composed of the totality ofthe projects defined by the students makes it possible totackle complexity at an urban scale and to define thestrategies and priorities of the projects concerning bothpublic and private subjects. Particularly relevant are thepossible positive effects on two sides: the strategic planningof the enhancement projects of this portion of the city andthe future management of the UNESCO site. The objectivesstated in the Nomination File on the future management ofthe site (City of Ivrea, 2012) in fact include the identificationof new functions aimed to foster the entrepreneurialdevelopment and the fruition on the part of visitors andtourists, to be achieved with a strategy of structuredcommunication and with the establishment of a centre forthe interpretation of the Olivetti heritage. Consideringthese objectives, it is possible to conclude that some resultsachieved during the Atelier might effectively support the

future enhancement and management of the site. Inparticular, the developed GIS could constitute, in additionto a structured knowledge base useful for the definition ofenhancement projects, also a dynamic operative tool for theprogrammed planning of the projects, and a basis fordeveloping the off-site fruition of the assets. In fact, thegeoreferencing and structuring of information in a GISmakes it possible not only to manage knowledge, but also todevelop ad hoc systems capable of managing every singlebuilding. Starting from this base it is therefore possible toput all the buildings in relation to each other and monitorthem, respecting a strategic plan based on differentpriorities and a consequent program of short, medium andlong term projects. In this regard, it is possible to grasp howimportant the redesign of the Open air Museumof ModernArchitecture of Ivrea (MAAM) is, a priority both for theenhancement of the Olivetti architecture – real and virtual- and as an occasion for the redevelopment of public spaces,green areas and infrastructures (Barreca et al., 2017). In thisregard, the role of the municipal administration - owneronly of two buildings but of most of the areas that form theconnective tissue of this urban portion – can and must becrucial in the implementation of a strategic territorial policy.The identification of public and private projects able tooptimize scarce resources is fundamental in a context thatis progressively becoming more dynamic and open to newforms of planning. The enhancement of the urban area thathas become a UNESCO site should therefore start from theredevelopment of public spaces and infrastructures,fundamental both for the redesign of the MAAM and tosupport the actions of private bodies who are starting toinvest in the area (it is important to consider, for example,the recent acquisition of the factory by an important privatebody). Targeted and forward-looking investments of thistype by public actors are fundamental starting points in thiscrucial and delicate phase of the sités enhancementprocess, as they represent a driving force for theimprovement of urban quality and strategic requirementsfor the future development of private projects. The resultsachieved in the Atelier highlighted that some privateprojects may be able to partly finance public projects thanksto planning fees, fostering a cycle in which priorities,viabilities and public and private objectives can converge,though only if analyzed and conceived as a system and notindividually.

The process implemented during the Atelier can thereforebe considered a Best Practice, as it has laid the foundationsfor the initiation of a dialogue between public and privateinstitutions (the administration, the university, the Chamberof Commerce, real estate owners and managers andcitizens) aimed at the exchange of information and ideasand the creation of synergies and shared developmentstrategies, with a view to an integrated planning of theOlivetti site.




Bibliography

ARMSTRONG, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning forstrategic decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1),197-211.ASCIONE, F., BIANCO, N., DE MASI, R. F., DE ROSSI, F., & VANOLI,G. P. (2015). Energy Retrofit of an educational building inthe ancient center of Benevento. Fesibility study of energysavings and respect of the historica value. Energy and Build-ings, 95, 172-183.BARRECA, A., CURTO, R., & ROLANDO, D. (2017). An innovativemethodological and operational approach to developingManagement Plans for UNESCO World Heritage Sites. AGeographic Inforamtion System for “Ivrea, Industrial cityof 20th century”. Aestimum, 71, 177-213.BARTHELMES, V. M. (2016). Cost-optimal analysis for the defi-nition of energy design strategies: The case of a nearly-Zeroenergy building. Valori e Valutazioni, 57-70.BASBAGILL, J., FLAGER, F., LEPECH, M., & FISCHER, M. (2013). Appli-cation of life-cycle assessment to early stage building designfor reduced embodied environmental impacts. Buildingand Environment, 60, 110-120.BECCHIO, C., FERRANDO, D. G., FREGONARA, E., MILANI, N., QUER-CIA, C., & SERRA, V. (2015). The cost optimal methodology forevaluating the energy retrofit of an ex-industrial buildingin Turin. Energy procedia, 78, 1039-1044.BOERI, A., GASPARI, J., GIANFRATE, V., LONGO, D., & PUSSETTI,C. (2016). Il riuso adattivo dei centri storici. Bologna e Lisbo-na: soluzioni per la rigenerazione urbana. Techne. Journalof technology for Architecture and Environment, 12, 230-237.BOGARINO, M. P., GASPAROLI, P., RONCHI, A. T., & SCALTRITTI,M. (2016). Governare l’evoluzione di un sistema urbano. Il

sito UNESCO di Crespi d’Adda. TECHNE: Journal of Thec-nology for Architecture and Environment, 12, 52-56.

BOTTERO, M. E MONDINI G. (2017). Assessing socio-econom-ic sustainability of urban regeneration programs: An inte-grated approach. Green Energy and Technology, 165-184.BRUNDIERS, K., WIEK, A., & REDMAN, C. L. (2010). Real-worldlearning opportunities in sustainability: from classroominto the real world. International journal of sustainabilityin Higher Education., 11(4), 308-324.

CERRETA, M., & DE TORO, P. (2012). Assessing urban transfor-mation: a SDSS for the master plan of Castel Capuano,Naples. International Conference on Computational Sci-ence and its applications (pp. 168-180). Berlin: Springer.

COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DES ECONOMISTES DE LA CONSTRUCTION, (2003).European Code of Measurement for Cost Planning.

COMUNE DI IVREA. (2016). Norme di Attuazione e ss.mm.. PRG2000. Elaborato P1. Var. 11/2016. Ivrea: Città di Ivrea.

COMUNE DI IVREA. (2013). Censimento dei beni tipologicicostruttivi e decorativi della Città di Ivrea. Catalogo deibeni culturali architettonici (art. 2.4, L.R. 35/95) - Normativaper gli interventi sugli edifici e loro pertinenze - Allegato A,Comune di Ivrea. D.C.C. n.15. Ivrea: Città di Ivrea.

COMUNE DI IVREA, Assessorato alla Cultura, & FondazioneAdriano Olivetti. (2012- aggiornato a Settembre 2017).Dos-sier di Candidatura "Ivrea, città industriale del XX secolo"- Tentative List WHL - UNESCO. Ivrea: Comune di Ivrea.

COMUNE DI IVREA, Assessorato alla Cultura, & FondazioneAdriano Olivetti. (2012). Piano di Gestione "Ivrea, città indu-striale del XX secolo" - Tentative List WHL - UNESCO. Ivrea:Comune di Ivrea.

COSCIA, C., LAZZARI G., & RUBINO, I. (2018). Values, memory, andthe role of exploratory methods for policy-design process-

* Prof. Rocco Curto, Full Professor, Architecture and Design Department, Politecnico di Torino.

e-mail: [email protected]

** Arch. Alice Barreca, PhD student, Architecture and Design Department, Politecnico di Torino.


***Arch. Diana Rolando, Researcher Law 240/10 art.24-A, Architecture and Design Department, Politecnico di Torino.


AcknowledgmentsFirst of all we would like to thank Prof. Lisa Accurti and Prof. Francesco Novelli, professors, together with Prof. Rocco Curto, ofthe Atelier “Architecture heritage preservation and enhancement”, part of the Master’s Degree in Architecture for HeritagePreservation and Enhancement” of the Politecnico di Torino, in the ay. 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. We also wish to thank the workinggroup of the Laboratory of Analysis and Modelling of Environmental Systems (LAMSA) of the Politecnico di Torino, for supportingstudents in the identification of alternative energy retrofit projects on buildings and with their evaluation through the applicationof the Termolog software.

We also would like to thank the local Administration of Ivrea, and in particular the former Mayor Dr. Carlo Della Pepa and theformer Councillor for Urban Planning Arch. Giovanna Codato, for their constructive dialogue and for kindly granting us the GISof the City of Ivrea, which constituted an important informative starting point for our work.

Finally, we would like to thank all the students of the Atelier, who carefully studied the assets system of the Core Zone of Ivreaand elaborated, starting from the data collected and included in the GIS provided by the teaching staff, excellent restoration andenhancement projects, making the related materials available for us.

es and the sustainable redevelopment ofwaterfront con-texts: The case of Officine Piaggio (Italy). Stustainability,10(9), 1-22.COSCIA, C., & CURTO, R. (2017). Valorizing in the absence ofPublic Resources and weak markets: the case of "Ivrea. The20th Century Industrial City". In S. Stanghellini (Ed.),Appraisal: from theory to practice. Results of SIEV 2015 (pp.79-99). Berlino: Springer.COSCIA, C., DE FILIPPI, F., & GUIDO, R. (2017). From Smart-citiesto smart-Communities: how can we evaluate the perfor-mance and the impacts of innovation and inclusive process-es in urban context? International Journal of PlanningResearch.COSCIA, C., FREGONARA E., & ROLANDOD. (2015). Project Man-agement, briefing and territorial planning. The case of mili-tary property disposal. Territorio, 73, 135-144.CURTO, R., BRIGATO, M. V., COSCIA, C., & FREGONARA, E. (2014).Assessing strategies for developing sustainable tourism inthe Iglesias area, Sardinia [Valutazioni per strategie di svi-luppo turistico sostenibile dell'iglesiente]. Territorio, 69,123-133, doi: 10.3280/TR2014-069018.CURTO, R., FREGONARA, E., & SEMERARO, P. (2017). A spatial analy-sis for the real estate market applications.Advances in auto-mated Valuation Modeling, 163-179.DE FILIPPI, F., COSCIA, C., BOELLA, G., ANTONINI, A., CALAFIORE, A.,CANTINI, A., (2016). MiraMap: a we-government tool for SmartPheripheries in Smart Cities. IEEE ACCESS, 4, 3824-3848.DE GRAFF, E., & COWDROY, R. (1997). Theory and practice ofeducational innovation through introduction of problembased learning in architecture. International Journal of Engi-neering Education, 166-174.DE GRAFF, E., & KOLMOS, A. (2003). Characteristics of prob-lem-based learning. International Journal of EngineeringEducation, 19(5), 657-662.DIRECTIVE 2012/27/EU. (2012). Directive of The EuropeanParliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on energyefficiency amending Directives 2009/125/EC and2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and2006/32/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, Euro-pean Parliament.EN 15603:2008. (2008). Energy performance of buildings -Overall energy use and definition energy ratings. EuropeanCommittee for Standardization, (CEN).ERTMER, P. A., & SIMONS, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL Imple-mentation hurdle: supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Inter-disciplinary Journal of problem based Learning, 1(1).FREGONARA, E. (2015). Valutazione sostenibilità progetto. LifeCycle Thinking e indirizzi internazionali. Milano: FrancoAngeli.FREGONARA, E., CURTO, R., GROSSO, M., ROLANDO, D., & TULLIA-NI, J. M. (2013). Environmental technology, Materials Sci-ence, Architectural Design and Real estate market evaluation:a multidisciplinarity approach for energy-efficient build-ings. Journal of urban technology, 20(4), 57-80.FREGONARA, E., GIORDANO, R., ROLANDO, D., & TULLIANI, J. M.

(2016). Integrating environmental and economic sustain-ability in New Building Construction and Retrofit. The Jour-nal of Urban Technology, 23(4), 3-28.FREGONARA, E., LOVERSO, V. R., LISA, M., & CALLEGARI, G. (2017).Retrofit scenarios and economic sustainability. A case-studyin the Italian context. Energy Procedia, 111, 245-255.GUARINI, M. R. (2017). An Integrated Approach for the Assess-ment of Urban Transformation Proposals in Historic andConsolidated Tissues. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,562-574.HILL, T., & WESTBROOK, R. (1997). Swot analysis. It's time for aProduct Recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46-52.HUNG, W. (2006). The 3C3R Model. A Conceptual frameworkfor designing Problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem Based Learning, 1(1), 10-17.ISLAM, H., JOLLANDS, M., & SETUNGE, S. (2015). Life cycle assess-ment and life cycle cost implication of residential build-ings -A review. Renewable and sustainable Energy Reviews,42, 129-140.ISO 15686:2008. (2008). Buildings and constructed assets.Service-life planning. Part 5: Life Cycle Costing. ISO/TC59/CS 14.KOLMOS, A., FINK, F. K., & KROGH, L. (2004). The Aalborg PBLmodel. Progress. diversity and challenges. Aalborg: Aal-borg University Press.LANGDON, D. (2007). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a contribu-tion to sustainable construction: a common methodology- Final methodology.http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sec-tors/contructions/studies/life-cycle-costing_en.htm.LEGNER, M., DEL CURTO, D., & BALKSTEN, K. (2016). Valorizationand management of the built heritage of fortified towns:the cases of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Sab-bioneta, Italy and Visby, Sweden. Preventive and PlannedConservation Conference (pp. 29-43). Monza: Politecnicodi Milano.LEHMANN, M., CHRISTENSEN, P., DU, X., & THRANE, M. (2008).Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POBL), asinnovative learning strategy for sustainable developmentin engineering education. European journal of Engineer-ing Education, 33(3), 283-295.LITTI, G., AUDENAERT, A., & LAVAGNA, M. (2018). Life Cycle Oper-ating Energy Saving from Windows Retrofitting in HeritageBuildings accounting for technical performance decay. Jour-nal of Building Engineering, 54-78.MARINÒ, P. (2015). Crowdfunding for the co-financing of pro-jects to enhance complexes of great historical and archi-tectural value: the case of “Torino Esposizioni”. TerritorioItalia, 2, 95-119.MARTÌNEZ-MOLINA, A., TORT-AUSINA, I., CHO, S., & VIVANCOS, J.L. (2016). Energy efficiency and thermal comfort in historicbuildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews, 61, 70-85.MILLS, J. E., & TREGUST, D. F. (2003). Engineering education isproblem based or project based learning the answer?Aus-tralian Journal of Engineering Education.



MOUST, J. C., VAN BERKEL, H., & SCHMIDT, H. G. (2005). Sign oferosion: reflections on Three decades of Problem-basedlearning at Maastricht University. The International Jour-nal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 50(4),665-683.

OLIVETTI, A. (1945). L'ordine politico di comunità.

PINTO, M. R. (2010). Strategie di riuso per la valorizzazione delcostruito. In S. De Medici,Nuovi usi per la tutela e la valo-rizzazione del patrimonio costruito: la privatizzazione deibeni immobili pubblici. Milano: Franco Angeli.

POIKELA, & NUMMENMAA. (2006). Understanding problem-based learning. Tampere University Press.

PRIETO, M. A., BABARROJA, E. J., REYES, M. E., MONSERRAT, S. J., &DIAZ, M. D. (2006). Un nuevo modelo de aprendizaje basa-do en problemas, el APB 4x4 es eficaz para desarrollar com-petencias profesionales valiosas en asignaturas con mas de100 alumnos. Aula Abierta(87), 171-194.

PROWLER, D., & VIERRA, S. (2008). Whole Building Delign.Whole Building design Guide. Whashington, DC: NationalInstitute of Building Sciences.

REPUBBLICA ITALIANA. (2015). Decreto Ministeriale 26 giugno2015 “Applicazione delle metodologie di calcolo delle pre-stazioni energetiche e definizione delle prescrizioni e dei

requisiti minimi degli edifici”. In pubblicato sulla GazzettaUfficiale n.162 del 15 luglio 2015.RUA, H., & ALVITO, P. (2011). Living the past. 3D models, virtualreality and game engines as tools for supporting archeolo-gy and the reconstruction of cultural heritage. The casestudy of the Roman villa of Casal de Freiria. Journal of archae-ological science, 38, 3296-3308.SAVERY, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem based learning.Definition and distinction. Interdisciplinary Journal of prob-lem based learning, 1(1), 9-20.STANDARD FPREN 16883. (2017). Conservation of cultural her-itage. Guidelines for improving the energy performance ofhistoric buildings. European committee for standardiza-tion, (CEN).WHC - WORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEE, (2018) UNITEDNATIONS EDU-CATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC ANDCULTURALORGANIZATION, ConventionConcerning The Protection Of The World Cultural And Nat-ural Heritage,Decisions adopted during the 42nd session ofthe World Heritage Committee, Manama, http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7143 (accesso del 10/09/2018)ZACÀ, I., D'AGOSTINO, D., CONGEDO, P. M., & BAGLIVO,C. (2015). Assessment of cost-optimality and technical solu-tions in high performance multi-residential buildings inthe Mediterranean area. Energy and Buildings, 102, 250-265.


restoration, reuse and energy retrofit for the enhancement ... · design (wbd), an important...

Documents