Article 1: Buitelaar, E., Moroni, S., & De Franco, A. (2021). Building obsolescence in the
evolving city. Reframing property vacancy and abandonment in the light of urban dynamics
and complexity. Cities, 108, 102964.
Introduction
The article critiques the way policymakers and scholars often address building vacancy and
abandonment. These issues are typically treated as static and homogeneous problems that
require ad hoc interventions. The authors argue instead for a dynamic, differentiated
understanding of buildings and their life cycles.
They identify three main problems with current approaches:
● Vacancy is viewed statically, based on a snapshot of time, ignoring duration and life
cycle.
● All vacancies are lumped together, without considering differences in use, scale, and
location.
● Policies are reactive and fragmented rather than systematic or anticipatory.
The paper suggests that viewing the city as a complex evolving system (rather than a simple
organization) provides a better framework for understanding and managing building
obsolescence.
The State of a Building: Definitions, Causes, and Indicators - Definitions
The authors define obsolescence as the process by which a building’s performance and
usefulness diminish. They distinguish between two dimensions:
● Absolute vs. Relative obsolescence
● Building vs. Location-based obsolescence
Absolute refers to the building’s physical state, while relative relates to performance
compared to others or to changing preferences. Location-based obsolescence depends on
the accessibility and attractiveness of the surroundings.
Causes
Each type arises from different processes:
A. Absolute building: physical deterioration from wear and lack of maintenance.
B. Absolute location: decline of surrounding infrastructure or amenities.
C. Relative building: loss of marketability due to outdated design or changing user
needs (e.g., rise of flexible workspaces).
D. Relative location: decreased attractiveness of a location due to urban or economic
shifts (e.g., industrial decline).
Importantly, age alone does not cause obsolescence; it is socially and economically
produced through changing behaviors and values. Following Jane Jacobs, the authors
stress that urban processes are dynamic and context-dependent.
Indicators
Two main categories of indicators help identify obsolescence:
1. Financial indicators: depreciation in price or rent levels, often following an S-curve
(initial stability, rapid decline, eventual plateau or appreciation).
2. Physical indicators: visible decay or vacancy. “Structural vacancy” (longer than 3
years) signals obsolescence; “natural vacancy” (short-term) does not.
The article highlights that buildings can be vacant but well maintained, or occupied but
deteriorated.
, What Policies for Which State (of a Building)?
The City as a Complex Evolving System
The authors adopt the view of the city as a complex, adaptive system rather than a made
order. Drawing from Jane Jacobs and Sanford Ikeda, they argue that cities are emergent,
not designed in detail, and inherently dynamic. Implications:
● Change and decline are normal, not failures.
● Authorities should not try to “fix” every vacancy but create conditions for adaptation
and innovation.
● Policies should be anticipative and framework-oriented, rather than reactive and ad
hoc.
They differentiate:
● Taxis (simple order): reactive, ad hoc policies, prediction of details & frequent rule
changes
● Cosmos (complex order): anticipative framework policies, prediction of principles &
stable long-term frameworks
Viable Framework Policies
The authors propose three main policy types for the four cases of obsolescence:
1. Regulative policies
● Enforce minimum maintenance standards (for safety).
● Reduce unnecessary zoning constraints to allow adaptive reuse and mixed functions.
● Simplify bureaucratic procedures for changing building use (as seen in the
Netherlands and UK).
2. Fiscal policies
● Shift taxes from buildings to land value (“land value taxation”) to discourage leaving
properties vacant and incentivize improvements.
● Offer stable, long-term renovation incentives rather than fragmented short-term
measures.
3. Infrastructural policies
● Improve public infrastructure in declining areas to prevent locational obsolescence.
● Support private collaboration through business improvement districts or land
readjustment schemes.
● Avoid denial of shrinkage; adapt to it rather than fight it with unrealistic growth
policies.
Overall, policies should be anticipatory, stable, and performance-based, encouraging
continuous transformation rather than static preservation.
Concluding Remarks
The paper redefines building obsolescence as an inherent and necessary part of urban
evolution. Cities and buildings constantly change; obsolescence should be managed, not
eradicated. Policymakers should move from reactive short-term fixes toward anticipative
framework policies that enable self-organization and adaptability. This approach aligns with
circular urban economy principles: reusing obsolete assets minimizes waste and maximizes
value. However, politicians often prefer reactive policies because they offer quick visibility
and political credit. The authors warn that scholars should avoid reinforcing such tendencies.
evolving city. Reframing property vacancy and abandonment in the light of urban dynamics
and complexity. Cities, 108, 102964.
Introduction
The article critiques the way policymakers and scholars often address building vacancy and
abandonment. These issues are typically treated as static and homogeneous problems that
require ad hoc interventions. The authors argue instead for a dynamic, differentiated
understanding of buildings and their life cycles.
They identify three main problems with current approaches:
● Vacancy is viewed statically, based on a snapshot of time, ignoring duration and life
cycle.
● All vacancies are lumped together, without considering differences in use, scale, and
location.
● Policies are reactive and fragmented rather than systematic or anticipatory.
The paper suggests that viewing the city as a complex evolving system (rather than a simple
organization) provides a better framework for understanding and managing building
obsolescence.
The State of a Building: Definitions, Causes, and Indicators - Definitions
The authors define obsolescence as the process by which a building’s performance and
usefulness diminish. They distinguish between two dimensions:
● Absolute vs. Relative obsolescence
● Building vs. Location-based obsolescence
Absolute refers to the building’s physical state, while relative relates to performance
compared to others or to changing preferences. Location-based obsolescence depends on
the accessibility and attractiveness of the surroundings.
Causes
Each type arises from different processes:
A. Absolute building: physical deterioration from wear and lack of maintenance.
B. Absolute location: decline of surrounding infrastructure or amenities.
C. Relative building: loss of marketability due to outdated design or changing user
needs (e.g., rise of flexible workspaces).
D. Relative location: decreased attractiveness of a location due to urban or economic
shifts (e.g., industrial decline).
Importantly, age alone does not cause obsolescence; it is socially and economically
produced through changing behaviors and values. Following Jane Jacobs, the authors
stress that urban processes are dynamic and context-dependent.
Indicators
Two main categories of indicators help identify obsolescence:
1. Financial indicators: depreciation in price or rent levels, often following an S-curve
(initial stability, rapid decline, eventual plateau or appreciation).
2. Physical indicators: visible decay or vacancy. “Structural vacancy” (longer than 3
years) signals obsolescence; “natural vacancy” (short-term) does not.
The article highlights that buildings can be vacant but well maintained, or occupied but
deteriorated.
, What Policies for Which State (of a Building)?
The City as a Complex Evolving System
The authors adopt the view of the city as a complex, adaptive system rather than a made
order. Drawing from Jane Jacobs and Sanford Ikeda, they argue that cities are emergent,
not designed in detail, and inherently dynamic. Implications:
● Change and decline are normal, not failures.
● Authorities should not try to “fix” every vacancy but create conditions for adaptation
and innovation.
● Policies should be anticipative and framework-oriented, rather than reactive and ad
hoc.
They differentiate:
● Taxis (simple order): reactive, ad hoc policies, prediction of details & frequent rule
changes
● Cosmos (complex order): anticipative framework policies, prediction of principles &
stable long-term frameworks
Viable Framework Policies
The authors propose three main policy types for the four cases of obsolescence:
1. Regulative policies
● Enforce minimum maintenance standards (for safety).
● Reduce unnecessary zoning constraints to allow adaptive reuse and mixed functions.
● Simplify bureaucratic procedures for changing building use (as seen in the
Netherlands and UK).
2. Fiscal policies
● Shift taxes from buildings to land value (“land value taxation”) to discourage leaving
properties vacant and incentivize improvements.
● Offer stable, long-term renovation incentives rather than fragmented short-term
measures.
3. Infrastructural policies
● Improve public infrastructure in declining areas to prevent locational obsolescence.
● Support private collaboration through business improvement districts or land
readjustment schemes.
● Avoid denial of shrinkage; adapt to it rather than fight it with unrealistic growth
policies.
Overall, policies should be anticipatory, stable, and performance-based, encouraging
continuous transformation rather than static preservation.
Concluding Remarks
The paper redefines building obsolescence as an inherent and necessary part of urban
evolution. Cities and buildings constantly change; obsolescence should be managed, not
eradicated. Policymakers should move from reactive short-term fixes toward anticipative
framework policies that enable self-organization and adaptability. This approach aligns with
circular urban economy principles: reusing obsolete assets minimizes waste and maximizes
value. However, politicians often prefer reactive policies because they offer quick visibility
and political credit. The authors warn that scholars should avoid reinforcing such tendencies.
