Download Evaluating Existing Buildings

Reusing Existing Facilities for Youngstock (Opportunity or Big Mistake)
Robert E. Graves1
November 20, 2003
“Most people over estimate the value of an existing building
and underestimate the cost of renovating it.”
Introduction
The three most important points to consider when evaluating existing buildings and facilities for another
use are location, location and location. No amount of money, creativity, engineering expertise, or
additional equipment can make up for a building being in the wrong place for its intended use. The best
solution is to use it for something else, tear it down, or move the building. If the location is suitable, a
building can always be modified for an alternate use. In extreme cases these modifications amount to
tearing down the building and starting over.
Completely evaluating existing buildings is a tough chore. It’s relatively easy to evaluate obvious
defects like leaking roofs, bulging walls, broken beams, missing support posts and inadequate electrical or
water systems. Determining the cost of repairing or replacing these items is reasonably straight forward
for an experienced contractor or engineer. These costs can be compared with the cost of a new building
and can be amortized over their expected life.
It’s more difficult to determine the long term cost of animal discomfort, lost productivity, or worker
frustration because of compromises made in building layout, inadequate ventilation, or poor accessibility.
There are many success stories about reusing old buildings (Johnson, 1988, Humstone, 1988).
Unfortunately there are few stories written about the common experience of remodeling jobs that were
poorly thought out, were a continuous drain on resources and productivity, and perhaps ended in a failed
livestock enterprise.
An experienced contractor or engineer should be consulted regarding items such as the structural
condition of an existing facility and condition of electrical wiring.
Building consultants, extension personnel, veterinarians and other farm service personnel can help in
determining management and housing methods that may be appropriate for your area.
Animal Needs
Establish animal raising needs in terms of space, ventilation, feed handling and manure handling before
you evaluate existing facilities as to their usefulness. The requirements for raising healthy animals in a
productive manner are the same for renovated buildings as for new facilities. The general requirements
include plenty of fresh air, adequate feed space, clean resting areas and continuously available frost free
water. Clearance for access with machinery for handling feed, bedding and manure is also important for
efficient operation. Buildings with buried or thick stone walls are often impossible to ventilate without
the addition of expensive mechanical ventilation systems. A safe convenient method should be available
to observe and catch animals for breeding, treatment and loading. Adequate lighting to allow working
with animals day or night is also necessary.
1
Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department
The Pennsylvania State University, 201 Agricultural Engineering Building, University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-7155 [email protected]; www.abe.psu.edu
General Evaluation
Three general questions to ask as you consider reusing a building are:
1. Why is the building available? Often, the building is available because it was replaced by a more
useful facility. Be sure that whatever problems caused it to be available in the first place won't be
problems if it is converted to house animals.
2. Are there other building needs on the farm? It may be that there is some other need that the building
is better suited for than raising animals.
3. How much would you be willing to pay someone else for the building if you didn’t own it? As you
contemplate writing out the check to someone else, it’s amazing how the list of things wrong with the
building will grow. Use this list as you make your evaluation.
Cost Analysis
Fraser (1986), divides items to consider when evaluating buildings for animal use into tangible costs that
can be assigned quantitative "out of pocket" values and intangible costs that can only be assigned
qualitative values.
Tangible costs are things like removing existing equipment or interior partitions, roof replacement,
replacing a concrete floor, upgrading electrical wiring, or installing a new ventilation system.
In most cases the renovation cost of a major component of a building (roof, floor, wall) is more (up to
twice as much) than the cost of the corresponding component in a new building (Fraser, 1986). Reasons
for this increase include:
1. Cost of removal of old materials before repair or renovation can begin.
2. Access with power equipment for removal and placement of new material i.e. (Interior concrete floor
replacement).
3. Unforeseen problems that require modifications of plans, changing of utilities or modifications of
equipment.
4. Renovated buildings usually have lower animal densities, increasing capital cost per animal housed.
Intangible costs are those resulting from reduced performance of the building as compared with a
new specially designed building. A renovated building seldom ends up just the way one would like to
have it. Items such as thick walls, posts, low ceilings, roof construction, surrounding buildings or property
lines usually force compromises in the ultimate layout, ventilation system and work patterns. This will
affect the day to day function of the building. Changes made in desired routines because of constraints of
a remodeled building and reduced animal performance because of less than ideal housing conditions are
continuing costs.
Bodman and Shelton (1986), suggest that if the projected cost of remodeling exceeds two-thirds to
three-fourths the cost of a comparable new facility, a new facility should be considered. The closer the
final remodeled facility can approach the functional features and design of the comparable new facility
the higher the percentage value that can be placed on the remodeled structure. As the number of
compromises from desired work routines, housing methods or ventilation in the remodeled plan
increases, the value of the renovated building declines when compared to a new one. A clear span post
frame building in good condition is more versatile and usually worth more than the basement of a two
story bank barn of equal size. Consider how age and construction of the remodeled building might affect
maintenance costs.
Factors to Evaluate
A logical process should be used to evaluate existing facilities. As each factor is considered, make a record
of the expected renovation and/or operating cost of that factor. If dollar values can't be assigned, at least
record a qualitative judgment, i.e. "Manure handling will always take longer than in a new barn." "Large
round bales can not be feed inside the barn because of low ceiling."
Important factors to investigate when evaluating a building include:
Location, Location, & Location
Distance and wind direction in relation to farm home, neighbors and property lines in regard to odor and
noise problems.
Ease of access for feeding, observing, manure removing, feed and animal unloading, animals moving
from pastures. Also, access for construction and maintenance equipment, fire protection and control of
visitors.
Distance and direction to roads, property lines, other buildings, streams, wet areas and sharp grade
changes in regard to expansion.
Space to provide for adequate environmental protection of ground and surface water.
Exposure of building for natural ventilation.
Distance and direction to other buildings and sharp grade changes in regard to access for manure handling,
feed handling, fire fighting and animal handling.
Surface and subsurface water flow in regard to keeping building and associated outside lots dry and
controlling outside lot runoff.
Compliance with local codes or ordinances that affect use of the building for livestock.
Ventilation - Suitability and Cost
Youngstock always require fresh dry air but usually do not require close temperature control. Buildings
that require mechanical means to assure good air quality will be costly to remodel and operate compared to
a new naturally ventilated building. The operating and maintenance cost of a mechanical ventilation
system required in a converted barn must be considered when comparing total costs to a new naturally
ventilated barn.
Is there a ventilation system?
Is the ventilation system adequate for the intended new use?
Will the ventilation system function adequately in summer and winter conditions?
Mechanical ventilation
- Cost and ease of installation of fans and inlet systems.
- Operating cost (electricity and maintenance).
Natural ventilation
- cost and ease of providing sufficient sidewall and roof openings.
- Location and orientation of building.
- Basement stables with buried walls and thick stone walls are difficult or impossible to naturally
ventilate.
Interior Space Arrangement and Clearance
Sufficient usable space for the number of animals desired?
Demolition costs for removing existing equipment, stanchions, concrete feed bunks, etc?
Adequate ceiling height to allow machinery access for materials handling and construction and safe
movement of animals, workers and machinery?
Adequate door height and width to allow machinery access for materials handling and construction and
safe movement of animals, workers and machinery?
Post and wall locations in regard to desired pen and feed bunk modules. (layout)?
Cost of relocating posts, beams and walls?
Clearance for mechanical equipment for feeding and manure removal?
Will special equipment be needed to allow use of this building because of restricted clearances? The cost
of buying and maintaining a special tractor or loader because of clearance restrictions in the barn must be
added to the total cost of remodeling the barn.
Manure Handling
Access for clean out equipment?
Are modifications to floor necessary?
Storage possibilities?
Control of outside lot runoff?
Utilities
Frost proof water?
The cost of breaking up floors and going through foundation walls to install frost proof water can be
high. Exposed water lines will be a continuous problem from freezing, and require regular attention to
heat tapes and insulation. Lost production due to poor water availability is also a cost. Water is the
cheapest and most important feed ingredient for raising youngstock.
Electricity availability.
Lighting for night work.
Wiring - safe and adequate.
Structural Soundness
Alignment and general condition of columns, beams, footings and foundation walls.
Alignment, strength and condition of support walls and columns.
Condition and support strength of hay mow floors.
Condition of roof framing and roof cover.
Maintenance Requirements
Special maintenance due to age or construction of building?
Major components of building that will need replacement in a short time compared to a new building?
Problems from poor drainage around walls and foundations?
Ease of rodent control?
Summary
In general most people over estimate the value of an existing building and underestimate the cost of
renovating it for an alternative use. The long term cost in terms of lost productivity of animals and
workers is almost never considered. Furthermore, lack of long range planning when remodeling
buildings often results in problems when it comes time to expand or make other modifications to the
remodeled facilities.
Evaluating existing buildings for alternative uses comes down to asking lots of questions and then
trying to answer them as realistically as possible. Some of the questions are hard to answer because
they require one to make assumptions regarding things such as foundations, insulation etc that are not
visible. Others are tough because they require the projection of lost productivity of animals and
workers resulting from compromises in animal comfort or efficient work patterns. The hardest
questions involve making decisions about a building that has an emotional attachment (“grandpa built
it”). What is the value to a dairy enterprise of a well preserved stately old barn that tourist stop and
take pictures of? Fine examples of early barns are important to keep and they make the countryside a
nicer place to live, they do not add to the value of animals raised in them! Does this mean that we
shouldn't preserve old buildings? No. It means that in many cases we shouldn't subject animals to the
poor conditions that often exist in converted buildings as an excuse for saving the building. In fact, in
the day of public resistance to large modern animal facilities the presence of a grand old barn can be a
plus from a public relations standpoint and will be a constant reminder of the roots of the farm. The
location of this type of building near the road and farm residences may make it better suited to use as
an office, shop or dry storage.
Conclusion
Remodeling an existing building can be a wise business decision or a big mistake. "Just because a building
is there does not mean that remodeling is the best option." (Bodman and Shetton,1986) Consider all the
costs associated with using an existing facility and compare them to the costs of a new facility. Evaluate
the affect of using the building on future plans, productivity and day to day operations. If the numbers look
good use it, if the numbers are questionable think it over! Old buildings can become a continuous money
sink both in tangible and intangible costs. Do not base a 10 or 20 year farm plan around a building with 5
years left on a 15 year roof guarantee!
References
Bodman, G. R. and D. P. Shelton. 1986. Existing buildings - remodel or abandon? Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Nebraska. NebGuide
G86-825 November 1986.
Fraser, H.W. 1986. Renovating livestock barns - a management decision. Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food. Ag Dex 400/721 Order No. 86-044, June 1986.
Humstone, M. 1988. Barn again: a guide to barn rehabilitation. Meredith Corporation and the
National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Johnson, D. W. 1988. Using old farm buildings. Agricultural Engineering Research Report No. 881 North Dakota State University. July 1988.