Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy and Buildings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild The new technology era requirements and sustainable approach to industrial heritage renewal Mirjana Roter Blagojević a , Anica Tufegdžić b,∗ a b University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Beograd, Serbia University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Trg Dositeja Obradović 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 1 December 2014 Received in revised form 11 June 2015 Accepted 25 July 2015 Available online 29 July 2015 Keywords: Sustainability Industrial heritage Modernization Adaptive reuse Energy efficiency a b s t r a c t Nowadays, developments in technology and the introduction of the philosophy of sustainable development have led to significant changes in theory and practice of preservation and development of historic areas and buildings. Modern presentation of their cultural values and use require improving their condition and making them compliant with standards and requirements applicable to newly constructed buildings and spaces in terms of energy efficiency. However, this makes the task of preserving the authenticity and integrity of historic spaces and buildings and their basic historical and cultural value challenging. The idea of sustainable development, which in addition to environmental and economic dimensions also contains an equally important social dimension, has also brought to the fore the cultural heritage as a non-renewable resource. In this sense, historical areas and buildings should be regenerated and adapted to the needs of modern times by providing them with adequate purpose and continuous maintenance. Based on a case study and analyzed main aspects and optimization of sustainable use of industrial architecture, i.e. the Zrenjanin brewery, this paper strives to point out the need for their modernization and improvement, in accordance with respect of their integrity and authenticity during the renovation process. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Despite the fact that nowadays the protection of cultural heritage is still primarily based on the 1964 Venice Charter [1], during the last decade a need emerged for some ideas, recommendations and protection measures defined by the charter to be reconsidered in more details and harmonized with the modern era. Important international documents were issued by the UNESCO [2], ICOMOS [3], Council of Europe [4] and other international organizations on which modern approach to protection and restoration of historic areas and buildings has been based throughout the international community. They have brought fresh ideas and significantly improved the theoretical framework and philosophy of protection, significantly expanding its focus (from buildings and totalities towards cultural landscapes) and the evaluation criteria, stressing the importance of not only ancient and monumental buildings, but also traditional vernacular, modern and industrial ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: roterm@arh.bg.ac.rs (M.R. Blagojević), atarher@gmail.com (A. Tufegdžić). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.062 0378-7788/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. architecture. Modern contemporary philosophy and practice of protection have been specifically influenced by the introduction of the concept of historic place, which indicates the importance of intangible heritage (spiritual, cultural, ethnographic etc.) and tradition, the concept of cultural landscape which reflect the need for devoting greater attention to the mutual relations between tangible and intangible heritage, and the natural environment. The focus is specifically on the need for preserving the authenticity and integrity of cultural and built heritage in the era of globalization, as well as its place and role in sustainable development of society. It is the widespread acceptance of the philosophy of sustainable development in all spheres of life and human activity which has led to new approach and modern principles of protection and improvement of natural, cultural and architectural heritage. The most important international institutions in the field of conservation of natural and cultural heritage were obliged to respond to the dramatic changes brought about by the modern era and a new millennium. Although modern technological development enabled significant improvement of all areas of human life, it also contained challenges in terms of the ecological balance of natural environment, which has been undermined by the excessive M.R. Blagojević, A. Tufegdžić / Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 use of natural resources; likewise, it enabled public and social values, spiritual and cultural identity of communities, traditions and peculiarities of historical settlements and architecture to be preserved in the era of globalization. A question arose as to the role and importance of local historical forms of cultural and architectural heritage in modern technological society without borders. Although the fact that modern technologies have great significance for the improvement of technical measures of protecting, presenting and using historical cities and buildings that should be respected, it also is necessary to underline the negative impacts of fast industrial development, technological progress and urbanization on the natural and cultural heritage, inadequate re-modulation and modern use of historic sites and buildings, which leads to loss of their fundamental values. This is particularly true in the field of preservation the old industrial architecture, which was once the main driver of progress, contributing to the advancement of society and development of settlements, is also now commonly abandoned due to obsolete technology and outdated energy sources used to power the machines, such as coal and oil. At international level, however, there are many examples of industrial heritage that were regenerated through modern ways of presentation and new purposes which justify the large economic investments in their preservation and presentation as monuments of technical culture [5]. 2. Methodology – systematic approach to sustainable renewal of built heritage Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs development becomes sustainable [6]. Ten years after sustainability was conceived of in terms of the three pillars of economic viability, social responsiveness and respect for the environment [7] culture was recognized as the forth pillar of sustainable development [8]. As a component of human environment and a part of the cultural heritage, historic buildings with specific values become a generator of sustainability. In recent decades, a special role in the sustainable development of society and the city received the industrial heritage [9] (Table 1). Renewal of built heritage, since ancient times rooted in social responsibility to cherish and safeguard cultural goods, nowadays should balance the historical values, implement efficient energy consumption and satisfy the user’s comfort. Energy efficiency measures within built heritage require creativity in order to preserve embodied energy, modernize construction, and implement advanced energy systems. On the other hand, the requirements and behaviour of users should be ethically justified in order to preserve the historical values, authenticity and integrity of heritage. Sustainable renewal is the proper management of use and change in and around historic places and spaces, so as to respect and enhance their value to society [10, p. 214]. 3. Approach – adaptive reuse as a method of sustainability Adaptive reuse is the method of abandoned and underutilized buildings adjustment for further use, while retaining their historical/archaeological, visual/cultural, economic, functional, and psychological values [11, p. 3–10]. In the contemporary conservation practice the imperative in the process of reuse has been placed on different aspects of sustainability, ranging from authenticity and integrity preservation, through minimum intervention and reversibility, to energy efficiency. 149 3.1. Conservation principles versus user requirements From the conservation point of view, authentication requires an individual critical approach to heritage. Authenticity defined as an essential qualitative factor in relation to the credibility of available sources of information and measure of the degree to which attributes of heritage truthfully and exactly testify to its importance [12], has three aspects: creativity, truth and cultural tradition [13]. True essence of built heritage lays in the integrated cognition of both, tangible and intangible, aspects of authenticity. Nevertheless, the greatest challenge is preserving the authenticity of a built heritage that has irretrievably lost its original purpose. Authenticity of a place, or rather material components of a built heritage, is the main factors in determining the vitality of its value presentation. However, without the third dimension of authenticity concept, referred to as cultural tradition by Jokilehto, heritage does not have the ability to transfer its importance to future generations. Considerations regarding the physical/formal and the conceptual/ethical aspects of integrity within the framework of conservation theory are all pointing to the concept’s complex nature. In the modern doctrine of protection, the adoption of numerous international charters has led to a growing number of dimensions of this concept: structural and technological, social, spatial, aesthetic, contextual [14, p. 30–31]. In recent theoretical debates crucial for the valuation of heritage, the structural, functional and visual aspects of integrity are also present [15, p. 2–3]. The most relevant for built heritage is the functional integrity, which provides a reference for understanding the various historical processes, but also for planning and managing its modern-day use, while structural integrity defines the current condition through the relation between elements that survived based on developing/deepening the functions remained from the past. In order to preserve the integrity, interventions on the monument should be reversible, reduced to a minimum, i.e. to the extent necessary for its survival, with a minimum loss in existing materials and clearly differentiating what is new and what is old [10, p. 95–98]. The largest interventions on industrial heritage are resulting from the continuous use, regardless of whether they are aimed at developing the original purpose or implementing a new purpose. In the international context, the issue of reuse has been discussed from the ethical point of view, in terms of minimum intervention, respecting the existing purpose and the compatibility of purposes, but also from the aesthetic point of view, in terms of integrity, character and harmony. The charters adopted are providing interpretations of minimal intervention in a quantitative manner, based on the ratio of the newly designed and original physical fabric, as well as in a qualitative manner, through assessing the degree to which aesthetic integrity has been preserved. Choosing a new purpose should be based on respecting the existing and original patterns of movement, plan/arrangement and decoration, while the new design should be in accordance with the general features of the old one. The relation between quantitative/formal and qualitative/conceptual elements is defined in charters for regulating the relation between formal elements based on aesthetic integrity, which is essentially a conceptual category. Moreover, the charters require assessing the new design based on the preservation of aesthetic integrity or coherence of the totality, where the totality consists jointly of the old and new. Thus, as outlined by the charters, aesthetic integrity regulates the relations among the individual formal elements, then it can be understood as a theoretical concept that describes the entirety of the building. Each historic building can be described in terms of its formal unity or totality, regardless of whether the totality represents an aesthetic value or not. As manufacturing technology in the case of industrial buildings is a crucial factor that influenced the development of architectural characteristics (except for stylistic), the principle that unites all 150 M.R. Blagojević, A. Tufegdžić / Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 Table 1 Sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial heritage. the elements into a totality is the technological functionalism [16, p. 41–42]. Given that it describes the architectural totality of the building and the site, technological functionalism can be understood as a principle of aesthetic integrity of industrial heritage. For understanding the technology of the manufacturing process, from the aspect of industrial archaeology, machines and buildings that represent their physical frame are equally important. In a post-industrial society, when industrial facilities are irreversibly losing their original purpose, we are faced with the problem of preserving the archaeological value of industrial heritage, where aesthetic integrity, as defined in terms of technological functionalism, only further deepens this problem. Specifically, as based on the belief that formal characteristics of an industrial building reflect the technological process which unfolded in them (or still does), technological functionalism is a limiting factor in reuse. Selecting any other function for the former industrial facility, except of converting it into a museum of the industry once was pursued in it, is paradoxical to its archaeological value. As technological functionalism prevents any changes, it can be regarded as an absolute value, rather than the criterion of minimum intervention. When transforming industrial buildings, the aesthetic integrity of the original and the new one can be ensured, provided that the new whole has been guided by the formal logic of the original. Simultaneously achieving the changes and the preservation of the former is possible only when the strategic character of the old is used as a guide for the aesthetic integrity of the new. The new materials can be completely different from the old ones, but if they are selected using the same strategy, the materials can retain their quantitative individuality, while they qualitatively create a new totality based on the rules of the old one. Thus, an old industrial building will be changed to a minimum degree in formal qualitative terms if the design of its conversion is driven by the concept of aesthetic integrity, in rhetorical, strategic, as well as in stylistic sense. 3.2. The issue of energy improvement Adaptation of buildings that includes improving energy performance is significant activity in contemporary architectural conservation practice. From the environmental view, adaptive reuse is important for the preservation of embodied energy used in all stages, from the production of raw materials to the constructed building. It is estimated that the embodied energy of a building is 20 percent if a building is operational for 100 years [17, p. 7]. Accordingly, it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative energy and climate change impacts caused in the construction process [18, p. 6]. In addition, historic buildings employ design and techniques learned from centuries, embracing principles as durability, reparability and passive survivability as they were constructed to last in a time when the energy dependency was low and before mechanical systems appeared in the market allowing then to function even when modern systems and energy sources fail creating at the same time a more energy conscious way of life [17]. Energy efficiency construction measures usually contribute to major energy savings. Therefore, prior to adaptive reuse of built heritage should be taken into consideration possibilities for improvements of the building envelope. The main requirements for designing energy efficient buildings are good thermal properties. Heat losses through the construction depend on the composition of elements, orientation and thermal conductivity. Thermal insulation of buildings can reduce energy costs for heating up to 70%. Low cost measures to improve energy efficiency in buildings with fast return of investments (up to 3 years) are: sealing of windows and outside doors, replacing of glazing with double insulated low-emission glazing (recommended U < 1.2 W/m2 K), checking and repairing of metal pieces on windows and doors to avoid thermal bridges, insulating of niches for radiators and shutter boxes, reducing heath loss through windows by installing curtains, shutters, etc. Higher cost measures to improve energy efficiency in buildings with longer return of investments (more than 3 years) are: replacing of windows and external doors (recommended U = 1.1 − 1.8 W/m2 K) and building envelope insulation (walls, floor, roof or sealing of unheated attic) [19, p. 12]. Energy systems, as lighting system, heating and power supply, ventilation and air quality, solar systems, regulation, and cooling systems, can provide great improvement in energy efficiency of built heritage with minimal changes in its original structure. However, energy systems cannot achieve significant energy saving without improvement of the building outer envelope. Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is sustainable if its energy improvement can provide structural protection and comfort, both for users and conservators. Reducing the energy demand significantly is feasible if a multidisciplinary approach guarantees high M.R. Blagojević, A. Tufegdžić / Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 151 Table 2 Valorization of the brewery in Zrenjanin. Aspects Form and design Materials and substance Use and function Dimensions Artistic Historic Social Scientific Facades: compositional unity artistic expression coloristic accents Red brick steel wood Unique integral industrial complexes from the early 20th century Project by renowned Czech Bureau Novak and Jahn Original form of characteristic buildings – study of typology Large format bricks, traditionally manufactured in Austro-Hungary, no longer produced Functional schemes provide information on the method of brewing in the 19th and 20th century Nurtured and preserved the traditional way of producing liquid bread, until recently consumed in the beer hall Projects of the historic buildings reconstruction Prussian vault barrel vault New functions in the complex palace Dundjerski once the centre of social life Original equipment evidence of technological development Testimony of the changed relation man – machine from craft to industrial production Once a strategic position in the urban matrix Possibility of studying old techniques and methods of craft brewing Traditions and techniques Line type complex: integrated malt and brewery distinctive chimney kiln Characteristic way of brick use – facades and vault Location and setting Urban landmark Spirit and feeling Ambient values Generated development of the first industrial zone along river bank Dundjerski palace expression of owners power in the early 20th century Evidences of the raw materials use and transportation development Place identity – the cult of beer consumption and Dundjerski family quality energy-efficiency-solutions, targeted and adapted to the specific case. 4. Optimizing the modern use of abandoned industrial buildings Optimizing the modern use of abandoned industrial buildings require a detailed assessment of many aspects relating to its values (historical, cultural, social, economic and technological) and existing condition, such as structural layout, its capacity to accommodate new uses, its potential to meet current standards, the condition of its installations structure stability and fabric [20]. In terms of environmental performance, confronting an existing building can be restrictive due to the fixed space layout; ceiling high for the inclusion of ductwork, windows display and its impact on the daylight amount and restricted space for the implementation of new measures can lower the possibilities of achieving a good performance. Nevertheless, limitations in the scope of energy efficient improvements are expected, particularly if these are changes that might affect the authenticity and integrity of the building or that may be irreversible. 4.1. Case study: Zrenjanin brewery With the goal of optimizing the specific social, environmental and economic requirements of the modern environment and society, and in accordance with the above discussed theoretical attitudes, based on the mental scheme that enables an interdisciplinary approach to research and evaluation of authenticity [21], the specific values, potentials and possibilities of the brewery in Zrenjanin were identified (Table 2; Figs. 1 and 2). Results of the evaluation were the main parameters in selection of the new uses and preparation of the conservation project [22], based on: renewal of small scale traditional beer production, use of original equipment, beer tasting cellar, promotion of beer festival, and presentation of Dundjerski family. Given that new uses are complementary to original, functional scheme and space layout are minimally changed and the integrity of the buildings is well preserved. If followed by the positive experience of foreign Fig. 1. Lager brewery of Lazar Dundjerski, Veliki Beckerek, 1910 (photo Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments Zrenjanin, early 20th century). examples, a quality adaptive reuse of historic buildings could be achieved through beer museum with preserved original elements of technological processes and other artefacts related to new structures in accordance with modern technologies and materials according to the principles of energy efficiency. Energy improvement required an analysis of the actual existing building’s performance and condition to understand which areas need to be improved, considering new users requirements and technical protection measures. At first was studied the behaviour of the building without considering mechanical and electrical systems, trying to implement the passive strategies to reduce the Fig. 2. Zrenjanin brewery today. Photo A. Tufegdzic [22]. 152 M.R. Blagojević, A. Tufegdžić / Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 Table 3 Characteristics of existing building envelope construction elements. Construction element Comment U [W/m2 K] Max allowed U [W/m2 K] Walls Without thermal insulation High air infiltration index 1.30 0.45 4.50 1.80 Windows Table 4 Characteristics of refurbished building envelope construction elements. Construction element Comment U [W/m2 K] Max allowed U [W/m2 K] Walls Outside – polystyrene 10 cm, inside – mineral wool 8 cm Double pane wooden window with low E coated glazing 0.19 0.45 1.4 1.80 Windows Fig. 3. Energy-efficient façade of the brewery, conservation project Author A. Tufegdzic [22] energy demand of the buildings, such as efficiency of the envelope. The thermal efficiency of the external building envelope was improved by installing thermal insulating material on the inner faces of external walls, treating thermal bridges, replacing single by double glazing on external windows and providing external window protection (Tables 3 and 4). The thermal improvement of the external building envelope enabled a great reduction of the air heating and cooling requirements of the internal old brewery spaces. Feasibility study has shown that energy efficiency construction measures will reduce maintenance and operating costs and ensure economically sustainable adaptive reuse of old brewery complex [22] (Fig. 3). 5. Conclusion Modern revitalization and protection of architectural heritage is based on clear principles that have crystallized during the half-century long implementation of the recommendations of the Venice Charter in 1964. Their constant review and modernization have provided the achievement of high quality conservation and presentation of natural, cultural and architectural heritage on international level. In recent times, special interest is directed towards the industrial archaeology and creation of new sustainable utilization of abandoned industrial complex due to their significant historical, cultural, technical and aesthetic values, as well as great economic and physical potential. The establishment of a logical framework for the implementation of strategic character inherited in the transformation process is recommended due to respect the principle of conservation of native values and integrity of the buildings, their authenticity and functional integrity, as well as the most delicate approach to optimize the use of modern industrial heritage. It is believed that the old industrial complexes will be minimally altered in a formal qualitative terms, if the design of their conversion is driven by the concept of aesthetic integrity in the rhetorical and strategic terms. The research has shown that conservation approach to industrial heritage is a complex process that should be theoretically based and practically verified, on the following premises: Criteria for the industrial heritage authenticity valorization must include both, tangible and intangible, characteristics of the monument; goal of the industrial heritage reuse must be preservation of its specific, socially recognized, values in a way which allows its contemporary use; indicator of success of the industrial heritage conservation and presentation is the level of project sustainability and the degree of community development. The Zrenjanin brewery clearly demonstrates that the ratio between the reasons behind energy efficiency improvements and the imperative of conservation may find a balanced consensus. Thus, this approach will provide necessary resources for the future maintenance of the complex, as well as the brewery will regain the prior importance that it had to sustainable development of the city and general social progress. Changing the traditional normative settings to enable the installation of energy efficiency measures is very important and valuable. Effective, sensitive methodologies can certainly be transplanted and adapted to other historic contexts. Validated processes can be tailored to the different built heritage constraints and potential opportunities, as well as to its unique genetic code – their value, authenticity, and integrity. Acknowledgments This paper is done as a part of research projects “Modernization of West Balkan” (No. 177009) and “Optimization of architectural and urban planning and design in function of sustainable development in Serbia” (No. 36042), both financed by The Ministry of Education, Science and Technologic Development of the Republic of Serbia. References [1] ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), 1964, Available from: http:// www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice e.pdf (accessed 12.01.15). [2] UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL ID=13087&URL DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTION=201.html (accessed 12.01.15); UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, 1976, Available from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev. php-URL ID=13133&URL DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTION=201.html (accessed 12.01.15); UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003, Available from: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention (accessed 12.01.15). [3] ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994, Available from: http:// www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts (accessed 12.01.15); ICOMOS, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), 1999. [4] Council of Europe, European Charter of the Architectural, Heritage, 1975; Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, Granada, CETS No. 121, 1985; Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for, Society. Faro, CETS No. 199. 2005, 1975, Available from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ cultureheritage/heritage/Resources/TextsHeritage en.asp (accessed 12.01.15). [5] Industrial Heritage, Europa Nostra, European Cultural Heritage Review 1, 2006. [6] United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, 1987, Available from: http://www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm (accessed 29.10.14). [7] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed 12.01.15). [8] Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, 2002, Available from: http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit docs/131302 wssd report reissued.pdf (accessed 12.01.15). [9] J. Douet, Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation, TICCIH, Lancaster, 2012, Available from: http://ticcih. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Contents table.pdf (accessed 02.04.15). M.R. Blagojević, A. Tufegdžić / Energy and Buildings 115 (2016) 148–153 [10] D. Worthing, S. Bond, Managing Built Heritage, The Role of Cultural Significance, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, Available from: http://www. shoratehran.ir/uploadedfiles/ files 9bfac22f6d5a5aa91f643bd1f66f937f %5BDerek Worthing, Stephen Bond%5D Managing built heri.pdf (accessed 04.12.14). [11] D. Latham, Creative re-use: working with the building, J. Archit. Conserv. 5 (2) (1999) 7–23, Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 13556207.1999.10785240-.VW7B-s-8PRY (accessed 25.05.15). [12] The Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relationship to Cultural Heritage, 2000, Available from: http://www.altesrathaus-halle.de/dokumente 17.asp (accessed 18.10.10). [13] J. Jokilehto, Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context, City Time 2 (1) (2006), Available from: http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/ revista/docs2006/CT-2006-44.pdf (accessed 15.09.14). [14] D. Bell, Guide to International Conservation Charters, The Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, 1997, Available from: http://issuu.com/hspubs/docs/name956654 (accessed 15.09.14). [15] J. Jokilehto, World heritage: defining the outstanding universal value, City Time 2 (2) (2006), Available from: http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/ docs2006/CT-2006-45.pdf (accessed 15.09.14). [16] T. Rogić, Converted Industrial Buildings: Where Past and Present Live in Formal Unity, PhD, Technische Universiteit, Delft, 2009, Available from: http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3A20de163d-db70-415d-b89a670c38bce5dd/ (accessed 06.12.13). 153 [17] J. Carroon, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings, Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010, Available from: http://www.amazon.com/ Sustainable-Preservation-Greening-Existing-Buildings/dp/0470169117 (accessed 06.02.15). [18] National Trust for Historic Preservation P. G. L., The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse, 2012, Available from: https://www.planning.org/tuesdaysatapa/2012/chicago/pdf/oct.pdf (accessed 02.04.15). [19] UNESCO, Energy Efficiency and Energy Management in Cultural Heritage, UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe, Venice, United Nations Development Programme in Croatia, 2013, Available from: http:// www.hr.undp.org/content/dam/croatia/docs/Research and publications/ environment/UNDP-hr-EE-MANAGEMENT-2014.pdf (accessed 14.03.15). [20] P.A. Bullen, P.E.D. Love, The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views From the Field (2009), Available from: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275109001450 (accessed 06.02.15). [21] The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994, Available from: http://www. icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf (accessed 12.01.15). [22] A. Tufegdžić, Revitalizacija kompleksa pivare u Zrenjaninu – konzervatorski rad (Revitalization of the brewery complex in Zrenjanin, conservation project), Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture Zrenjanin, 2013.