EARHB: Effective Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings – Dutch Case Studies (NRP Golden Phoenix)

Introduction

Adaptive reuse (AR) of heritage buildings is a complex, multi-stakeholder process. Recent work proposed a theoretical model to guide this process, but validation in practice and understanding how process steps connect to project effectiveness were lacking. This study validates and refines the model by examining four Dutch AR projects that won the NRP Golden Phoenix prize, and investigates the nexus between design methods/tools used by architects and project effectiveness as reported in jury notes. The study situates AR within sustainable development discourses, emphasizing reuse of the existing built environment as a strategy for social, cultural, architectural, and environmental value. The core conceptual backdrop includes two prominent design-process models from architectural theory: the analysis-synthesis (A/S) model and the conjecture-analysis (C/A) model, and recent calls to view AR as a composite, multi-step task taxonomy rather than a linear sequence. The validated model, EARHB (Effective Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings), retains the same phase structure but introduces inner loops to reflect non-linearity and iteration observed in practice. The EARHB model, therefore, better captures the realities of AR in heritage contexts where stakeholder negotiations, budget constraints, and evolving design strategies force revisiting earlier steps. The six criteria used to assess effectiveness—social value creation, sublimation-architectural aspects, sublimation-cultural aspects, environmental sustainability, economic value creation, and innovation—provide a concise framework for linking process and outcome. The authors emphasize that, while validated in four Dutch cases, the model is not prescriptive for all projects and invites further testing across contexts.

EARHB model: validation and core ideas

The EARHB (Effective Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings) model preserves the overall step structure of the prior theoretical model but embeds inner loops within and between steps, reflecting non-linear, iterative workflows observed in practice. The analysis demonstrates that the AR process is seldom strictly linear: loops commonly occur between Steps (1) through (6), before execution, and can reintroduce earlier considerations as stakeholders negotiate design strategy, use, and budgets. The model explicitly emphasizes continuous stakeholder involvement across steps and recognizes that final decisions may trigger reassessments of earlier analyses. In terms of evaluation, the study adopts the six criteria from prior work to gauge effectiveness, acknowledging that environmental sustainability remains under-addressed in jury reports and design discussions, signaling a need for broader sustainability focus in future AR projects.

Case selection and context

The study selects four Dutch AR projects that won the NRP Golden Phoenix prize to ensure demonstrated effectiveness: LocHal (Tilburg), Energiehuis (Dordrecht), Blokhuispoort (Leeuwarden), and Fort van Hoofddorp (Hoofddorp). Selection criteria included location outside the four major Dutch cities (to reduce metropolitan bias), status as heritage monuments, significant function change toward public use, availability of documentation, and willingness of involved actors to participate. The Netherlands’ prominence in heritage reuse, plus governance approaches such as “conservation through transformation,” provide a fertile context for validating a practice-oriented AR model.

Methods

A qualitative, case-study approach combines literature review, semi-structured interviews with architects and stakeholders, and case-site visits. Data were analyzed with transcript automation (Otter.ai) and qualitative software (Atlas.ti). Data were coded into three groups: (i) AR process steps, (ii) stakeholders and their influence on the architect’s role, and (iii) methods/tools used by architects. Effectiveness was assessed against six criteria drawn from prior work and NRP jury reports. The study follows an inductive logic, deriving conclusions from observed cases while acknowledging the potential limits of generalizability. Terminology is clarified: adaptive reuse (AR) means converting a building to a function significantly different from the original; a method is a particular way of doing something; a tool aids a specific activity; effectiveness refers to the capacity to achieve intended results according to the six criteria.

LocHal (Tilburg)

LocHal is a 1932 locomotive hall in Tilburg repurposed into a cultural and community hub (opened around 2019 after a 2017–2019 AR process). Stakeholders included a participatory mix of users, investors (municipality), regulators, and producers (e.g., ARUP for energy performance). Data collection drew on NS archives and cultural-history input; end-users and original users were engaged through multiple meetings, sketches, models, and feedback sessions. Design strategies in Step 5 emphasized preserving originality and spatial qualities, upgrading technology, fostering open dialogue with users, employing innovative rather than traditional approaches, and prioritizing occupant well-being and climate comfort. The project adopted a cyclical reuse approach, inspired by Nota Belvedere, and achieved NRP-recognized sublimations such as creating multifunctional spaces, clear design orientations, a pleasant atmosphere, and heritage preservation via contemporary additions. The AR process proved non-linear: Step 6 decision-making encountered challenges requiring revisiting Steps 1–4, with iterative revisits to ensure consensus before execution, which proceeded with contractor flexibility. Aftercare and post-completion evaluation were part of ongoing engagement, with long-term feedback informing future projects. LocHal’s case affirmed the EARHB model’s insightfulness but highlighted inner-loop complexity beyond the linear arrows of the schematic.

Energiehuis (Dordrecht)

Energiehuis, a former 1910 power station converted into a vibrant cultural center, illustrates a high-profile Dutch AR aimed at boosting regional cultural life. Stakeholders included the municipality, investors, regulators, producers (engineering firms), and original/end-users who contributed requirements in Step 4. Data collection relied on archival materials, site visits, and stakeholder interviews; 3D renders and drawings supported design discussions. Key design strategies in Step 5 focused on showing the building’s scars and authenticity—preserving materiality and the between-old/new contrasts to reveal the heritage narrative. Step 6 saw constructive collaboration among regulators, investors, and producers, though costs led to reduced floor area, prompting recalibration of earlier steps. Step 7 involved on-site execution with ongoing coordination, and Step 8 emerged as “aftercare” rather than traditional maintenance, reflecting architects’ evolving role after project handover. The jury highlighted outcomes such as clear design orientations, enhanced functionality, and preservation via contemporary additions, with post-project stakeholder engagement shaping ongoing improvements. The architect noted inner loops in Steps 1–4 and 6, underscoring the non-linear nature of AR even when the process appears tightly sequenced in diagrams.

Blokhuispoort (Leeuwarden)

Blokhuispoort—a historic prison complex transformed into a library, offices, and cultural venue—demonstrates how multiple stakeholders (BOEi, the Municipality of Leeuwarden, the Province of Friesland, and RCE partners) interact in a fast-tracked, multi-program AR. The architect’s team faced critique of a proposed significance-mapping tool (Hendriks & Van der Hoeve 2009) and noted that Step 4 (adaptive reuse potential) was not systematically executed after Step 3, yet the NRP jury praised the project for enabling a new public-use library and creative spaces and for strengthening local attachment. Design strategies in Step 5 included adding a new chapter to the building’s history, unifying interior/exterior styles, and combining technical upgrades with improved function and well-being. Decision-making proceeded through regular triweekly meetings (Step 6), with on-site execution (Step 7) constrained by budget. Aftercare (Step 8) is managed by BOEi, while evaluation (Step 9) relies on committee feedback and stakeholder impressions. The case illustrated pragmatic, parallel operation of steps and the need to adapt sequences in response to budget and social considerations, aligning with the EARHB’s emphasis on non-linearity and stakeholder-driven iteration.

Fort van Hoofddorf (Hoofddorp)

Fort van Hoofddorp, part of the Stelling van Amsterdam UNESCO site, was privately initiated in 2010 and opened in 2020 as a multifunctional cultural center. Initial funding challenges delayed progress through Step 6, after which the architect-owner revisited Steps 1–5 to refine designs before proceeding to detailed construction. Stakeholders included two private initiators, regulators, producers, and the surrounding community. The NRP jury recognized sublimations in cultural and architectural terms and praised the project for preserving unity while creating a future-facing, contextually rich space. The main architect’s dual role as investor connected design, funding, execution, and aftercare, illustrating how leadership can shape AR outcomes even amid financial uncertainty. The Fort van Hoofddorp case supports the EARHB model’s applicability to privately led AR, while highlighting the extended timeframes and iterative revisits required for high-quality results.

Results: synthesis of stakeholder roles and methods/tools

Across all four cases, architects played extended roles from initial analysis through to post-completion evaluation, with their influence amplified by engaged investors, regulators, producers, and users. A consistent finding is that involving original users and end-users, as well as local communities, strengthens social value creation and supports culturally sublimated outcomes. Producers and regulators facilitated feasibility, technical feasibility, and timely decision-making, while investors often drove resources, risk tolerance, and alignment with public value expectations. Methods and tools common across cases included in-depth archival research, site visits, stakeholder interviews, workshops, sketches, 3D renders, and data management practices. The tools supported a participatory adaptive reuse approach, enabling social and cultural sublimation through engaging stakeholders in the narrative of the building’s history and its contemporary function. In all projects, a balance between existing heritage values and new functional demands was pursued, with the design strategy (Step 5) guiding visible, authentic interventions. Budget constraints frequently required revisiting earlier steps (especially Steps 1–4) and adapting the design strategy (Step 5) to preserve essential functions and maintain project viability. Aftercare and evaluation, while present, varied in form and emphasis, with some projects integrating ongoing stakeholder feedback into post-occupancy adjustments and others relying on formal jury or committee reviews for lessons learned.

Discussion

The EARHB model’s validation highlights that effective AR of heritage buildings relies on non-linear, iterative processes that integrate stakeholder negotiation with design strategy. Architects’ roles extend across all steps, and their soft skills—openness, responsibility, communication, and negotiation—are as important as technical expertise. A broader, more participatory approach—engaging users, producers, regulators, and investors early and persistently—appears to enhance social value creation and architectural and cultural sublimations. The cases show that budget pressures and organizational dynamics can trigger inner loops (reconsideration of earlier steps) that ultimately improve outcomes, though environmental sustainability remained under-addressed in the jury criteria, indicating a gap for future AR projects. The toolkit of methods and tools identified in the study—archival research, end-user meetings, visualization, and iterative design explorations—offers practical guidance for practitioners aiming to align AR processes with six effectiveness criteria.

Conclusions

The study validates and refines a theoretical model for adaptive reuse by applying it to four effective Dutch case studies, resulting in the EARHB (Effective Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings) model. The EARHB model preserves the core steps but embeds inner loops to reflect non-linearity and iteration found in practice, offering a nuanced mapping of the AR process for heritage buildings. While validated in four cases, the model invites testing in additional contexts and actual project development. The findings underline the centrality of architects’ roles across all steps and the pivotal influence of methods/tools in shaping project outcomes, mediated by stakeholder engagement. Social value creation emerges as the strongest link between process and outcome, with local communities and original/end-users driving sublimations in cultural and social dimensions. Although the cases demonstrate notable successes, environmental sustainability requires more deliberate attention in both practice and evaluation criteria. The EARHB framework provides a practical basis for practitioners and a foundation for future research into sustainable, circular, and citizen-inclusive AR processes in heritage contexts.