Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Indicators for warehouse buildings in functional zones_
| Functional area | Number of buildings | Average building score | BSI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional inner city | 405 | 58.54 | 1053.11 |
| Consolidated urban | 991 | 39.85 | 3291.42 |
| Suburban | 546 | 32.10 | 868.43 |
Weights of the criteria obtained with the AHP method_
| Criteria | Preschools | Primary schools | Rail transport | Bus stops | Bicycle stations | Medical clinics | Communi ty centres | Entrances to parks | Gyms | Commerci al facilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-schools | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 0.25 | 6.00 | 1.00 |
| Primary schools | 3.00 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 3.00 |
| Rail transport | 5.00 | 5.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 7.00 | 4.00 | 8.00 | 3.00 |
| Bus stops | 0.50 | 4.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 8.00 | 2.00 |
| Bicycle stations | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 3.00 | 0.25 | 4.00 | 0.20 |
| Medical clinics | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 0.33 |
| Community centres | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 4.00 | 0.20 |
| Entrances to parks | 4.00 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 4.00 | 0.33 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 0.33 |
| Gyms | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.17 |
| Commercial facilities | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.50 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 1.00 |
| Σ | 16.25 | 12.01 | 3.20 | 5.08 | 31.58 | 17.07 | 40.25 | 16.95 | 54.00 | 11.23 |
Factors influencing the possibility of land conversion by Gasidło (1998)_
| Type of factor | External factors | Internal factors | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural | Functional | Structural | Functional | |
| Influencing factors | Location; Spatial structure; Diversity of use and quality of neighbouring areas Technical infrastructure; Form of ownership; Number of owners | Transport availability; Cultural patterns and social behaviour; Action on spatial planning, environmental protection and cultural assets; Use of property rights and marketing of real estate; Operation of special incentives (e.g. SEZs) | Size; Pollution; Geological structure of the area; Land cover; Spatial arrangement of development; Building index; Building intensity; Type of facilities | Erosion; Sedimentation; Power of natural succession; Behaviour of people in area (vandalism, wild conversions); Environmental risks |
Case studies of residential developments on former warehouse sites_
| Location | Characteristics of area | Characteristics of investment | Literature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investments involving adaptation of existing storage facilities | |||
| HafenCity (Speicherstadt), Hamburg, Germany | The Speicherstadt, or Granary City, is the world’s largest complex of interconnected warehouses, often regarded as a symbol of Hamburg. The structures were built in 1888 of red brick in a neo-Gothic style. Facing the street is the front of the buildings and their rear part is the canal wall. The sites were listed as Hamburg’s protected cultural heritage in 1991 and as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2015. The Speicherstadt is part of the HafenCity district. | The investments in the Speicherstadt were part of the transformation of the former port and warehouse areas into the new HafenCity district between 1999 and 2025. Some of the buildings are still used as warehouses, but the majority have been allocated to other functions, including cultural – museum and exhibition activities (International Maritime Museum, Customs Museum), as well as residential functions. | Ibáñez León and Ríos Sapa (2020), Maciejewska and Turek (2019) and Heerten (2024) |
| Spichlerz Gliwice, Gliwice, Poland | Part of the barracks complex of the former Prussian Provision Office, which was then used as a hospital warehouse until the early 21st century, has been adapted for housing purposes. The building was added to the Register of Historic Buildings in 2006. | The project was conducted in 2007–2008, and the original form of the building was preserved. The architectural design involved only the addition of two cuboidal staircases, higher than the main body of the building by one storey. The brick, which is the original finishing material of the external walls, was cleaned. The usable area of the adapted building is 5000 m2. | Turek (2013) and Piegza and Rabiej (2023) |
| Meatpacking District, New York, USA | The Meatpacking District in New York City, located on the western edge of Manhattan, had served as an industrial district since the mid-19th century, dominated by the meat processing plants, cold storage facilities, warehouses and slaughterhouses from which it took its name. In the 1920s, the district was one of the main centres of the meat industry in New York City, but by the 1960s the district started to decline, and some of the buildings became derelict due to a change in the distribution structure of meat, dairy and agricultural products. The area has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 2003. | The area was revitalised in the 1990s, becoming a fashionable neighbourhood with luxury flats, boutiques, museums and restaurants, attracting residents and tourists. Some of the former warehouse buildings have been transformed into modern lofts. This is an example of the successful transformation of a warehouse space into a booming residential and entertainment centre. | Maquiaveli (2012) and Turner (2018) |
Summary of the services examined_
| Service | Optimum range [m] | Acceptable range [m] | Source of data on location of service points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-schools | 300 | 600 | BDOT |
| Primary schools | 600 | 1200 | BDOT |
| Stations and stops of rail transport | 600 | 1200 | BDOT (rail and metro), OSM (trams) |
| Bus stops | 300 | 600 | OSM |
| Bicycle stations | 300 | 600 | OSM |
| Medical clinics | 600 | 1200 | BDOT |
| Community centres | 600 | 1200 | BDOT |
| Entrances to parks | 600 | 1200 | BDOT |
| Gyms | 600 | 1200 | OSM |
| Commercial facilities | 300 | 600 | OSM |
Scales for pairwise comparison (Saaty 1980)_
| Variables | Preferences expressed in linguistic variables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Equal importance |
| 3 | Moderate importance |
| 5 | Strong importance |
| 7 | Very strong importance |
| 9 | Extreme importance |
| 2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values between adjacent scale values |
Indicators for storage areas in functional zones_
| Functional area | Number of areas | Average score of areas | ASI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional inner city | 19 | 66.53 | 3424.15 |
| Consolidated urban | 106 | 36.04 | 12635.12 |
| Suburban | 36 | 33.47 | 2038.52 |