Life Cycle Approach to Shopping Mall Redevelopment: A Model for Service Life Design

Abstract

This study investigates the enhancement of condition and the extension of service life in architectural structures of shopping malls through the application of a hybrid methodological framework that integrates Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Service Life Planning (SLP). Thisresearch identifies key parameters related to physical performance, sustainability indicators, and functional characteristics of architectural systems that are subject to deterioration and shifting market conditions during the operational phase. The methodology encompasses a theoretical synthesis of LCA/SLP principles and advances in modeling for both the integrated design of new facilities and the monitoring and renewal of existing ones—from data collection and early-stage planning, through construction, use, and maintenance, to end-of-life phases. A second component of the model focuses on quantitative assessment and condition forecasting, based on Markov chain modeling, applied to the case study of the “Deva 1” shopping mall in Serbia. The results demonstrate the model’s ability to correlate physical condition indices with predictive service life scenarios.This study further contributes by integrating time-dependent impact categories, usage profiles, and planning parameters into a unified evaluation matrix, which can be applied to the development and improvement of systems aimed at enhancing the structural, functional, esthetic, and indirectly economic value of shopping mall buildings throughout their entire life cycle—from an architectural perspective.

1. Introduction

Shopping malls, as architectural models of consumer culture from the second half of the 20th century, are today confronted with a range of spatial, functional, economic, and environmental challenges [1]. Spatial challenges relate to outdated spatial organization, poor connectivity with the urban context, and inadequate accessibility. Functional challenges include limited spatial flexibility and the inability to adapt to contemporary user needs and behaviors. Economic challenges are reflected in reduced business profitability, high vacancy rates, and declining investment attractiveness. Environmental challenges encompass high energy consumption, inefficiencies in existing systems, and a negative environmental impact in cases where demolition is favored over renovation. For these reasons many of them are losing their original function and becoming underutilized or degraded spaces, raising questions about their future within contemporary urban contexts. This issue is increasingly reflected in modern assessments of spatial and technical requirements, especially in terms of functionality, maintenance, and adaptability [2]. Consequently, the revitalization of shopping malls is not only an architectural challenge but also a socially, economically, and environmentally significant task.

The intensive development of shopping centers in the United States began in the 1950s and peaked in the early 2000s, when the country reached the highest retail space per capita in the world. However, the growth of e-commerce, investor preference for open-air retail formats, and the COVID-19 pandemic led to stagnation and the closure of numerous malls. Simultaneously, the construction of lifestyle and open-air malls increased [3,4]. Estimates suggest that the number of operational malls in the U.S. could decline from around 1200 in 2025 to 900 by 2028, with over 2 million m² of retail space demolished during 2022 alone [5]. In Europe, the pace of development has slowed since 2015, while Asia—particularly China—has experienced rapid growth, with more than 4000 new malls built since 2020 [4].

In response to these developments, many malls worldwide have undergone revitalization and adaptive reuse [6,7]. Mixed-use strategies that incorporate residential, office, healthcare, and recreational functions are increasingly applied as sustainable solutions [3]. The implementation of universal design principles has also gained importance, now evaluated through quantitative methods in commercial facilities. Similar processes have taken place in Serbia, where former department stores in major cities have been transformed into contemporary shopping centers [1]. The phenomenon of the “death of malls” is often attributed to outdated infrastructure, unsustainable business models, and low economic feasibility of renovation. Nonetheless, many aging shopping malls are located in areas with strong urban infrastructure, supporting the rationale for their redevelopment [8]. Case studies of successful projects, such as the recent revitalizations in Germany managed by Sonae Sierra, illustrate the application of multicriteria approaches in real-world urban contexts and highlight the potential for systematizing evaluation methods for broader use [9,10].

Contrary to approaches favoring demolition and new construction, contemporary architectural practice increasingly values strategies of transformation and reuse of existing structures, which preserve resources and reactivate urban zones. This topic is particularly relevant as it integrates architectural design, facility management, and sustainable development, offering a model that can inform strategic decisions in urban planning, architecture, and investment practices.

This study is important because it does not treat shopping malls as disposable architectures but rather as resources that, with a strategically guided approach, can serve as models for sustainable urban transformation.

1.1. Theoretical Background and Research Motivation

The analysis of shopping mall revitalization in this paper is based on the principles of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Service Life Planning (SLP). The LCA approach, according to ISO 14044 [11] and EN 15978:2011 [12] standards, enables the assessment of a building’s environmental impact throughout its entire life cycle—including construction, use, adaptation, and demolition phases. In parallel, the SLP methodology (ISO 15686 [13]) introduces factor-based methods for monitoring condition and time-dependent modeling (including the Markov model) to support long-term planning of building performance and reliability.

A recent review [14] highlights the growing number of studies on building life cycles, while noting a lack of research focused on commercial buildings such as shopping malls, especially in post-industrial and transitional urban areas. This gap reinforces the need for the development of specific models like the one proposed in this study. By applying LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) principles, the revitalization concept gains an additional socio-environmental dimension [15]. Concurrently, modern evaluation frameworks emphasize the need to systematize critical success factors during early planning phases [16].

Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to integrating LCA and adaptive reuse approaches in architecture and construction [17,18]. One recent example is a method that combines LCA, Building Information Modeling (BIM), and the Active House protocol to support the simultaneous assessment of environmental impact and user comfort during early design stages [19]. Moreover, ref. [20] stresses the importance of using LCA in evaluating commercial facilities, particularly to quantify the contribution of each life cycle phase to the overall ecological footprint, with operational phases identified as the dominant source of emissions. These findings further support the need for tools that integrate long-term performance with functional and spatial adaptability. Additionally, a review of over two decades of research confirms the increasing complexity of linking LCA approaches with energy efficiency in the fields of architecture and construction [18]. This underscores the necessity for integrated tools that connect building performance over time with functional, spatial, and design flexibility.

However, the specific application of these methodologies to shopping malls—as complex commercial systems characterized by pronounced market cycles, high energy demands, and variable functionality—remains limited. This research addresses this theoretical and practical gap by proposing a framework that links physical condition indicators with the potential for structural and functional adaptation, while accounting for sustainability, esthetics, economic efficiency, and design flexibility.

Unlike existing studies that separately address Service Life Planning or life cycle environmental performance, this paper proposes a hybrid LCA–SLP matrix that integrates condition assessment, sustainability indicators, and functional adaptability from an architectural perspective. This approach is particularly tailored to “greyfield” shopping malls in transitional urban environments, where reliable forecasting of performance and renovation needs is critical.

1.2. Methodological Outline and Case Application

The input data for the LCA of shopping malls can be collected based on the model proposed in this study, whose research boundary spans the entire life cycle—from the collection of relevant data categorized into market environment, site location, building characteristics, and facility management. The model is applicable both to newly designed and to operational buildings. Using a data set organized in the form of sets, the mathematical model determines the key impact factors underlying architectural design. Although the primary architectural objective is the design of the building itself, it must be aligned with site conditions and market context. Design-related inputs are determined by the requirements of the facility management system.

The model defines life cycle boundaries from early data collection through design, construction (for new projects), use, and ultimately to the end-of-life phase, including maintenance and preservation periods. The applied case study—“Deva 1” shopping mall in Serbia—tests the proposed hybrid LCA–SLP model within a defined 20-year timeframe and specific location, focusing on input–output data related to functional units (e.g., façade and envelope systems). Initial condition assessments are derived from expert reports and supported by qualitative or quantitative methods. Output results include service life estimates and time-based condition degradation models, ending with end-of-life condition ratings.

2. Materials and Methods

This research was prompted by challenges in architectural design, where the guidelines provided in the project brief are often insufficient for understanding the concept of the designed building. The selection and quality of construction materials are typically verified at the beginning of the construction phase, or as needed during the building’s operational use—most often in the case of significant or sudden damage—in order to confirm the structural integrity. Over time, materials lose their performance characteristics, marking the beginning of the building’s aging process. This study addresses the issue of changing conditions over time, building durability, and the dilemma of determining the appropriate moment for the architect to initiate a remodeling intervention by proposing a hybrid methodological framework based on the integration of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Service Life Planning (SLP). The framework is tailored to the specific context of shopping mall revitalization and aligns with internationally recognized standards—ISO 14044 [11] for LCA and ISO 15686 [13] for SLP—developed to bridge the gap between theoretical modeling and practical architectural application.

In line with the research objectives, the methodological framework is structured to integrate theoretical insights with practical analysis through the following interrelated phases:

• Theoretical Foundation: Contemporary theoretical foundations concerning the typology and challenges of shopping malls—as specific architectural and commercial entities—are presented through the theory of the “ideal shopping mall.” Success criteria are defined and categorized into four thematic groups: location, market context, architectural design, and facility management. These success factors are further analyzed using a set theory-based mathematical model to interpret architectural relationships. The conceptual basis, presented through the definition of building life cycle stages that integrate LCA and SLP principles, introduces the field of redevelopment and the alignment with defined quality requirements.
• Classification of Degradation and Risk Factors: This component addresses the identification of key sustainability disruption factors, which serve as input variables in the predictive modeling process.
• Case Study Application and Validation: The proposed hybrid model is tested on a real-world case study—shopping mall “Deva 1” in Serbia—through the quantitative verification of condition assessment and service life prediction using the Markov chain model. The methodology includes the collection and verification of input data, definition of the baseline (zero) condition, assessment of mechanical and physical performance of construction materials, tracking material property changes over time, structural analysis, and proof of load-bearing capacity and usability. Predictive model outputs are then used to define the projected service life.

Comparative analysis between actual and predicted condition trajectories provides valuable insights, informing the refinement of the model and supporting decision-making regarding revitalization options and timing. This methodological approach, framed through the lens of architectural performance, enables a comprehensive understanding of shopping malls across their technical, functional, and sustainability dimensions over time. It offers both creative and practical tools for redevelopment and facility management strategies, especially in transitional urban environments.

2.1. Theory of Ideal Shopping Malls (SMs)

The theory of the “ideal” shopping mall is grounded in the optimization of commercial performance and functional organization, where the core of success lies in selecting a focused business orientation, effective leasing strategies, and clustering of retail units. Esthetic qualities are consequently cited as contributing factors to overall success [21]. A successful SM must meet a series of criteria, which are determined through data collection and analysis across four main thematic areas:

• Location—Accessibility of the facility, involving studies on demographic gravity, availability, competition, and target groups.
• Architecture and interior design—Refers to the architectural form of the building, lighting and climate control systems, interior design and decoration, andlandscape design.
• Leasing strategy—Selection of anchor and satellite tenants, and the proportion of space leased to each.
• Tenant mix and clustering potential [22]—roping of stores with linked procurement and sales strategies, optimal spatial distribution of retail units, and Central Management (CM) operations.

The success of shopping centers can be attributed to three key groups of factors: supply, comfort, andexperience. Supply encompasses the diversity and attractiveness of retail offerings, the presence of major brands, franchise networks, and competitive pricing strategies. Comfort is defined by the functional and architectural quality of space, availability of leisure and public services, extended working hours, user-friendly access, parking availability, and efficient transport connections. Experience-related factors include spatial identity, interior esthetics, entertainment and dining options, and the presence of events and promotional activities that enhance the overall shopping atmosphere and users’ sense of safety and enjoyment. The primary driver of the SM success concept lies in attracting a high volume of customers, with all aspects ultimately shaped by consumer preferences.

Classification of SM Success Factors According to Sonae Sierra (SS)

According to the model developed by Sonae Sierra [9], the success of an SM depends on precise market positioning relative to the target audience, a carefully curated tenant mix, and the facility’s ability to flexibly adapt to changes in the market environment. Continuous analysis of consumer behavior is also essential, as it enables alignment of the service and retail offerings with actual user needs, thereby increasing customer loyalty and footfall. Innovative and dynamic management, combined with ongoing enhancement of services and amenities, ensures the long-term relevance and competitive advantage of the SM within contemporary urban conditions [9,10].

One of the most critical factors in the early stages of architectural design—and later in all phases of planning and during the revitalization of shopping malls—is the category of market environment [10]. This category encompasses factors such as location characteristics from the perspective of economic, urban, and architectural development, socio-economic indicators, competitive landscape, demographic trends—including the Human Development Index (HDI), Quality of Life (QL), and Environmental Quality (EQ)—target groups, and market forecasting. Projections of market potential changes based on purchasing power indices, as well as indices of retail activity and retail concentration, are classified as independent variables. The macro-location dimension of the market environment includes the broader context surrounding the facility, taking into account the image of the place, population catchment and gravity zones, infrastructure, and labor market conditions (e.g., unemployment), and is considered a conditionally dependent variable. Similarly, micro-location and traffic accessibility also fall into the category of conditionally dependent variables.

The architectural object itself—its size, footprint, number of floors, structural–functional concept, condition, and the diversity of brands and retail sectors—is classified as a direct influencing factor. Management is likewise a direct influencing factor, particularly in regard to operational leadership and brand positioning. These direct, conditionally dependent, and independent success factors are critical components in the decision-making process related to reinvestment and the future lifecycle of the facility.

Table 1. Success criteriaas influential factorsaccording to SS—extended to architect’s aspects.

Success Criteria of Shopping Malls	Category Ф	Influential factors F	Architect’s Aspects A
Demographics and Socio-economics	Market environment Ф1	Independent factors F1	Consultative aspect A1
Competition
Gravitational area		Conditional factors F2
Micro-location	Location Ф2		Secondarily suggestive aspect A2
Traffic accessibility
Building size	Building Ф3		Target aspect (crucial in developing redevelopment alternatives) A3
Number of floors
CLC (center layout concept)—structure, functionality, esthetics		Direct factors F3
Condition of the structure, facade, and visible interior surfaces
Adjustment of tenant mix and sectors
Management quality	Management Ф4		Secondarily suggestive aspect A4
Brands IT infrastructure

, third column, presents the influencing success factors according to their success criteria and category, while the fourth column outlines the “architect’s perspective” and the role of the architect in developing alternative redevelopment concepts.

The data presented in [10] served as the foundation for this research, which has been continuously upgraded over the years and has reached its final form (Figure 1). The objective of this study is to highlight the role and significance of architecture in the design process through the “architect’s perspective” within the system of influencing factors.The validation of results and the research are based on a mathematical model derived from set theory.

The initial phase of the research involves the collection and development of an input data set based on defined success criteria, followed by its classification into four categories Ф (Ф₁, Ф₂, Ф₃, and Ф₄) According to Table 1, the databases of categories Ф₁, Ф₂, Ф₃, and Ф₄ can be represented in the mathematical model as sets of basic random variables, grouped according to factors related to architectural aspects A = A₁ + A₂ + A₃ + A₄.

By forming the intersections of the sets, Ф₁ ∩ Ф₂, Ф₂ ∩ Ф₃, and Ф₃ ∩ Ф₄, grouped according to the criteria of architects A₁, A₂, A₃, and A₄, and by further intersecting the resulting sets, the set F of influential factors is derived as follows:

Ф₁ ∩ Ф₂ ∩ A = F1

Ф₂ ∩ Ф₃ ∩ A = F2

Ф₃ ∩ Ф₄ ∩ A = F3

where F1, F2, and F3 represent sets of basic random variables corresponding to influential factors.

The result is the collection of relevant data and the formation of data sets F1, F2, and F3, which serve as a foundation in the planning and design of new shopping mall facilities or in the remodeling of existing ones.

In the design process, the market environment Φ₁ has a consultative aspect A₁, location Φ₂ carries a secondary suggestive aspect A₂, the building Φ₃ has a target-oriented aspect A₃, and management Φ₄ also possesses a secondary suggestive aspect A₄.

The most significant influencing factor is the direct factor F₃, which pertains to the building and its management. The direct factor related to the building involves its materialization, encompassing the center layout concept, structural system, functionality, and architectural esthetics. It also includes the condition of the structure, façade integrity, condition of visible interior surfaces, and interior fit-out, as well as tenant and sectoral mixconfiguration. The direct factor is associated with a target-oriented aspect in the case of the building and a secondary suggestive aspect in the case of facility management.

The target-oriented aspect is crucial in the development of alternative redevelopment concepts for existing facilities, especially when considering the current condition of the structure or its projected performance. The conditionally influencing factor F2 refers to the building’s size, number of floors, location, and gravitational catchment area within the market environment. F1 represents independent factors, including demographic structure, socio-economic conditions, and competitive landscape within the broader market context.

The applicability of the proposed model extends beyond the design phase of buildings; it also enables sensitivity analysis related to the variation in input data sets Ф over time and their influence on changes in the condition of the facility. The available databases can be utilized for condition forecasting and for developing risk profiles and reliability assessments (ISO 2394:2015 [23]) and (EN 1990:2002/Al:2005 [24]).

2.2. Product Life Cycle of an SM—LPSC

Throughout the period of use, SMs exhibit both micro and macro aspects of their life cycle. The micro aspect encompasses development and management, while the macro aspect refers to the observation and analysis of the building’s overall lifespan [25].

The Life Product Service Cycle (LPSC) model, along with all changes occurring over time, can be observed through the lenses of technical integrity, esthetics, functionality, and economic viability, while also meeting environmental and health-related requirements.

The economic life cycle model can be viewed as the product lifecycle of a shopping center, spanning from procurement tosalesandmeasured through revenue andvariations in turnover, profit, or loss. All temporal phases are illustrated in Figure 2. The product life cycle of a shopping center, from a business perspective, consists of six phases [26]:

• Planning, design, and construction of the shopping center;
• Revenue growth, with the generation of peak income;
• Maturity, when revenues stabilize and remain constant;
• Saturation, marked by declining sales;
• Revitalization/redevelopment (reinvestment);

  (a)

  “Restoring momentum” by returning to an earlier phase of revenue growth;

• Degeneration, when the SM can no longer be reactivated or operate profitably;

  (a)

  Market exit, involving the permanent closure of the shopping center.

Redevelopment during phases 3 and 4 can prevent the shopping center from exiting the market.

Building Life CyclePhases—BLC

The building life cycle(BLC) or building service life (BSL), from the perspective of physical condition, includes the following phases: design and construction, the period between completion of construction and opening for use, the operational/use phase, the need for modernization or adaptation, potential reuse, and revitalization or expansion. This framework is defined by international ISO standards:

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—defines the goal, scope, and application area of the analysis (including resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions), followed by environmental impact assessment, which serves as the basis for drawing conclusions regarding overall evaluation.

Service Life Planning (SLP) is defined with the aim of improving the quality of service life design by ensuring the functionality of the building throughout its entire operational lifespan, in accordance with projected costs. This system of standards aims to minimize usage and maintenance costs, taking into account initial investment, designed performance, environmental influences, and expected durability over time.

The building life cycle(BLC) ofanSM represents the total time span from the moment of “birth” to the “end of life”of the facility, and includes the following phases:

• Production phase (A1–A3): Covers raw material extraction, transportation, and manufacturing of construction materials.
• Construction phase (A4–A5): Involves transportation of materials to the construction site and the actual building process.
• Use phase (B1–B7): Encompasses building operation, including energy and water consumption, maintenance, repairs, replacements, and renovations throughout its service life.
• End-of-life phase (C1–C4): Includes deconstruction, waste transport, waste processing, and final disposal.
• Additional phase (D): An optional phase that considers potential benefits from recycling and reuse of materials beyond the system boundaries [28].

The building life cycle is illustrated in Figure 3 across nine stages, encompassing both core and management phases.

Following prolonged use of the facility, the need for revitalization arises. Based on a detailed assessment, a comprehensive overhaul of the building is conducted according to all relevant parameters. This phase may involve re-evaluation of the structural condition and other building elements, as well as consideration of potential functional changes or expansion of the facility. After reactivation for use, multiple reuse cycles are possible until the complete exhaustion of the building’s service life.

Building Life Cycle Energy Needs (BLCEN) represents a critical cost factor. The lowest energy consumption occurs during building maintenance, accounting for only 4% of total energy use. The highest energy demand is associated with technical systems—including ventilation, heating, and hot water—which collectively account for 84% of total energy consumption. Energy use during the construction phase represents approximately 12% of the overall energy consumption across the building’s life cycle [29].

Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is not limited to the investment or preliminary cost estimate of a building, but encompasses the total set of costs and benefits incurred throughout the building’s operational lifespan. These costs include all expenditures from the research and design phase, construction investment costs, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, to thecosts of demolition and removal of the facility.

2.3. Redevelopmentof Shopping Malls—Renewal Cycle and the Level of Compliance with SM Requirements

The revitalization process is initiated through architectural remodeling and reinvestment, leading to the process of redevelopment. From a technical and economic standpoint, revitalization refers to the adaptation of equipment standards and overall quality of the SM to evolving market conditions, with the goal of preserving and enhancing its functional value.

More than half of the total 509 analyzed shopping centers in Germany—representing approximately 16.3 million m² of retail space—are in urgent need of revitalization or repositioning. This highlights a significant portion of facilities identified as “greyfield”centers, meaning they have lost their attractiveness and functionality, yet still retain potential for renewal [30].

The assessment of the condition of SM facilities is based on the extent to which conditional requirements are met regarding the building’s technical characteristics and equipment, facility management, and architectural features.Obsolescence of equipment and systems with high maintenance costs (as a technical factor), decline in maintenance and management quality, outdated architectural design, material degradation, or a combination of these three factors may serve as a basis for initiating revitalization processes. In modern shopping centers, interventions on interior retail unit elements are typically carried out every 4 to 6 years [1].

Success Factors in SM Operations and the Enhancementof Stakeholder Interaction—Strategic Planningfor Renewal, Reinvestment, and Revitalization

The development, utilization, and transformation ofanSM involves a network of interrelated stakeholder groups, which collectively shape the entire life cycle of the facility—from the conceptual phase and construction, through operation and revitalization, to its eventual future. Although these groups differ in roles and objectives, they jointly determine the sustainability, functionality, and longevity of the SM within the contemporary urban context. Each stakeholder group has its own role and area of interest, and often their goals are conflicting. As a result, successful SMs are those that manage to balance multilayered communication and the active participation of all involved actors. The revitalization of an SM requires the collaborative engagement of various stakeholder groups [30]:

• Investors and owners: A clear vision and adequate investment are essential. Owners must establish long-term goals and ensure the availability of financial resources.
• Architects and designers: Play a key role in enhancing the esthetic and functional qualities of the facility.
• Leasing departments: Responsible for identifying suitable tenants and positioning the revitalized center on the market.
• Tenants and brands: Selecting high-quality tenants aligned with the target audience is crucial.
• Marketing professionals: Communicating changes and the new brand identity is vital for attracting customers.
• Technology partners: Integration of Wi-Fi networks, mobile applications, and digital signage can significantly enhance the shopping experience.
• Innovative center management companies: Ensure professional operation and (re)positioning of the center through innovative strategies.

The process of revitalization and reinvestment entails the improvement of all three conditional requirements. Their sustainability is grounded in a series of critical reassessment phases, including the following:

• Data processing and analysis of the current condition and need for SM revitalization,
• Market research as the basis for adaptation to market demands;
• Potential recomposition of the SM, including Due Diligence (DD) procedures that regulate core rights and financial aspects within facility management;
• Facility management (FC) in accordance with IFMA (International Facility Management Association) standards, focusing on preventive actions and the implementation of revitalization and safety strategies [1].

The analysis of these phases contributes to the timely implementation of precautionary measures aimed at ensuring the long-term success of SM revitalization and, consequently, the sustained business performance of the facility. This includes all methods of monitoring and the application of a preventive measures framework based on early warning indicators.

Reinvention Through Design (RTD) [31] focuses on the transformation of traditional shopping malls into multifunctional spaces that integrate retail, residential, entertainment, educational, and community-oriented functions. This approach emphasizes adaptive reuse of existing structures in response to shifts in consumer behavior and evolving urban needs. The strategy is implemented through the following:

• Integration with surrounding urban flows, such as pedestrian zones, parks, and marketplaces;
• Conversion into mixed-use programs, including residential–commercial, cultural, and educational facilities;
• Rebranding through design, incorporating natural materials, green roofs, openness, and natural lighting;
• Energy efficiency and sustainability, in alignment with international certification standards such as BREEAM and LEED [32].

2.4. Integrated Design Models ofanSM Based on the Life Cycle Approach in the Cotext of Sustainable Construction

2.4.1. Monitoring of Building Condition

Throughout the life cycle of an SM, it is essential to maintain its relevance, comfort, appeal, and safety, which requires continuous monitoring, timely maintenance, innovation, and adaptation from the very beginning of its operation. Changes caused by aging must be holistically assessed, as different components have varying lifespans. The primary structural system typically endures the longest, whereas interior elements, façades, equipment, and installations are subject to more frequent replacements and upgrades. Over time, depending on evolving functional requirements, there may be a need for expansion or repurposing of specific parts of the facility.

The first step in the revitalization process is often modernization, involving the application of contemporary materials and technologies to enhance visual identity and improve user comfort. Modern SMs are commonly designed according to the Shell and Core concept, where the architectural expression and functionality of the building are prioritized by both investors and designers.

As the building ages, its structure undergoes technical changes—while esthetics may become secondary, the safety and durability of the core system are of critical importance. Structural interventions aimed at maintaining safety are typically capital-intensive and often represent a decisive point in determining whether further investment in the facility is justified.

During the operational phase of a building, monitoring, assessment, and condition forecasting are essential as part of contemporary models in architectural and structural design. According to European technical regulations, a significant innovation is the design of load-bearing structures based on service life (service life design). Within these provisions, durability is treated on an equal level with load-bearing capacity—i.e., mechanical resistance or structural deformability. Service life refers to the time period during which the building maintains its intended performance and properties. Globally, increasing attention is being given to the durability of materials and structural systems, as insufficient durability leads directly to high financial demands for building revitalization. Deficiencies arising from the use of materials that do not meet design specifications, improper or irregular maintenance, and a lack of attention to durability considerations during the design phase all contribute to the premature degradation of structural performance [33].

2.4.2. Architectural Structure System

The load-bearing structures of buildings are an integral part of the architectural concept. Any compromise to the structural system or its components not only endangers property and human life, but also undermines the integrity, functionality, form, and esthetics of the building. The architectural structure of a building is composed of three hierarchical system levels based on their significance: “primary, secondary, and tertiary systems” [34]. The substructure of exterior and interior elements also falls within the scope of durability research. Exterior cladding components, such as façades and roofing systems, are directly exposed to environmental impacts including rain, frost, UV radiation, and atmospheric agents, while interior finishes—such as ceilings, wall coverings, and flooring—are subjected to various physical, mechanical, and chemical influences, all of which contribute to material degradation over time [35].

2.4.3. Material Durability

The durability of materials primarily depends on the type of material and its mechanical, physical, and chemical properties, while the environmental conditions—i.e., the surrounding context in which the building is located—represent a highly significant influencing factor [33]. All construction materials inevitably undergo deterioration over time, resulting in the gradual loss of their initial properties. In pursuit of achieving eternal structures, historical constructions were often built with oversized dimensions and excessively high safety factors. Today, safety factors for both materials and loads are clearly defined by standards and regulations. One approach to extending the service life of a structure involves selecting materials with greater inherent durability, increasing cross-sectional dimensions, enhancing the thickness of the protective concrete cover over reinforcement, or applying anti-corrosion treatments. It is important to emphasize that human intervention—including regular inspection, maintenance, and repair—plays a critical role in the durability of both materials and structural systems. The study of material durability in structural applications is closely tied to the analysis of environmental conditions and their effects on the structure.

2.5. Service Life Planning-Based Concept(SLP)

Service life design is defined in modern technical regulations, with clear terminology, procedures, and criteria. Structural durability primarily involves analyzing potential material degradation based on the building’s function and environmental exposure. The selection of materials and structural systems is based on the analysis of environmental agents—physical, chemical, biological, or mechanical—relevant to the intended service life of the building. It is crucial to determine whether the structure is exposed or protected, subjected to aggressive chemicals, UV radiation, impact loads (e.g., from vehicles), or embedded in soil, water, or air. A well-executed and timely assessment of these deterioration factors during the design phase can significantly extend the structure’s lifespan.

During operation, deterioration processes inevitably occur, making structural monitoring essential for early detection and timely intervention. Ideally, a systematic monitoring program should be in place to track structural changes and identify damage, optimizing maintenance costs. These costs can be substantial over the service life—sometimes exceeding the value of a newly built structure—making demolition and reconstruction a more economical solution in some cases. Damage is usually first identified visually, revealing surface defects such as cracks, abrasion, or erosion. For large structures, electronic monitoring systems are used to detect and assess structural behavior and damage. In cases of more severe degradation, laboratory testing is required. Based on this analysis, a diagnosis of the structural condition is developed, followed by intervention recommendations. Remedial work typically restores the original load-bearing capacity, although increased demands may require structural strengthening. Over time, material performance declines, while regulatory standards often require higher load capacities, making the design challenge more complex.

2.5.1. Estimated Service Life (ESL) Structure or Structure Element

The calculated service life of a structure is determined based on the following:

• The definition of the relevant limit state;
• A time period expressed in years;
• The reliability level that the limit state will not be reached within that period.

InanSM, service life is typically dictated by user requirements and ranges from 15 to 40 years, and can be categorized as technical, functional, or economic.

Technical Service Life (TSL): Refers to the period during which the structure maintains its technical integrity and safety, until a specified limit state is reached—i.e., until load-bearing capacity or serviceability requirements can no longer be fulfilled. This includes proper maintenance and operational reliability. TSL depends on the properties and quality of the materials, design and construction standards, user behavior, maintenance practices, and environmental protection conditions.

Functional Service Life (FSL): Denotes the period during which the structure remains in use and fulfills its intended function and user requirements, until it becomes functionally obsolete due to changing demands (e.g., repurposing, need for different access, etc.).

Economic Service Life (ESL): Represents the economically viable period during which the structure remains in use, undergoing modernization or repair, until replacement yields greater financial return than continued operation. Over time, building value decreases while maintenance costs increase. ESL is often shorter than TSL and typically ranges between 30 and 50 years foranSM [36]. However, due to the high construction costs ofanSM and the increasing maintenance expenses over time, investors expect a return on invested capital. Capital risk assessment in SM projects is often constrained by frequent market fluctuations, shifts in demand, potential disruptions in leasing, or operational downtimes. As a result, the expected return period is frequently shortened—previously estimated at 15 to 20 years, and more recently even below 10 years. During the operational phase, total operating costs tend to increase progressively and may exceed the initial investment value of the facility. By aggregating profit, initial investment, and operating costs, the economic service life of the building can be determined through optimization methods. However, economic service life alone is not a decisive factor in determining whether to revitalize or reinvest in the building.

2.5.2. Correlation Between Technical, Functional and Economic Service Life

The moment of reinvestment—whether aimed at improving the facility or halting its physical and functional decline—is typically determined by the depletion of the technical or functional service life, or by the point at which the balance between the building’s residual value and the rising maintenance costs reaches economic non-viability. Economic factors related to revenue, sales, market demand, or esthetic considerations may also justify the initiation of reinvestment once the economic service life has been exhausted. The functional service life serves as a dynamic indicator, reflecting the condition of the facility in both technical and economic terms. The correlation between technical, economic, and functional service life is graphically illustrated in Figure 4.

The determination of a building’s service life is possible through the fulfillment of the three fundamental criteria. Figure 5 illustrates the respective domains of technical, functional, and economic service life. The overlapping area of all three indicates that none of the service life criteria have been exhausted, confirming the building’s continued performance and viability. The overlap of any two implies that those aspects remain active, while the third has reached the end of its service life. The absence of overlap signifies that the remaining service life has been exhausted across the other criteria.

2.6. Application of LCA Methodology in the Design, Monitoring, and Extension of SM Service Life

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology applied in sustainable design, facility management, and extension of building service life, particularly in complex commercial structures such as SMs. The LCA approach encompasses all aspects of a building’s environmental impact throughout its life cycle—from material extraction, construction, and operation to end-of-life and potential reuse or recycling.

LCA-Based Building Design

At the design stage, the application of LCA methodology enables architects and investors to make informed decisions that enhance the environmental, economic, and social performance of the building. Life cycle analysis allows for the quantification and optimization of resource use, selection of materials with a lower carbon footprint, and the prediction of and reduction in future operational costs. The most significant contribution of LCA lies in its ability to identify opportunities for extending the service life of SMs, which is crucial for reducing overall environmental impact and increasing economic sustainability.

Results of LCA Methodology in Practice

The ParkLake Shopping Center in Bucharest exemplifies the successful integration of these principles. During the development process, LCA analysis guided the selection of materials, energy solutions, and the optimization of water and waste management systems. The result was a facility with significant reductions in energy and water consumption and a notably reduced environmental footprint during its operational phase. Such case studies demonstrate that the application of LCA methodology not only minimizes the environmental impact of buildings but also substantially contributes to economic sustainability through resource efficiency and financial savings [37].

3. Discussion and Results

3.1. Basic Hybrid Model—Action of Integrated Design for the Remodeling of SM Buildings

Requirements, Degradation Causes, and Objectives of Sustainable Construction

Integrated design, condition monitoring, and life cycle-based planning are founded on the multiple demands of sustainable construction. The building is regarded as the spatial boundary of the system, while its entire life cycle represents the temporal boundary. The general definition of sustainability is based on time-dependent evaluation across three key dimensions, environmental, economic, and socio-cultural, observed throughout the building’s service life. The socio-cultural dimension encompasses user health and comfort, safety and functionality, and cultural values related to traditional construction practices, business culture, lifestyle patterns, architectural styles and trends, and esthetic quality [38]. According to the guidelines [39] that define methods and processes for sustainable construction, the three core dimensions of sustainability—environmental, economic, and socio-cultural—are extended into a more comprehensive framework of five sustainability qualities. This extension introduces the technical quality, which refers to the performance and durability of building systems, and the process quality, which encompasses aspects of planning, project management, and implementation practices, all evaluated in relation to the contextual characteristics and quality profile of the building site. These expanded dimensions aim to provide a more holistic understanding of sustainability within the life cycle of built structures, reinforcing the integration of performance-based, context-sensitive, and user-centered criteria in architectural and construction practices.

The sustainability requirements of an SM as an architectural entity, in accordance with the principles of integrated design throughout its life cycle, can be grouped into the following key categories: functional quality, durability, esthetic value, economic viability, environmental performance, and health-related factors [40]. The selection between alternative design solutions can be addressed through a multiple-criteria evaluation, leading to the identification of the most advantageous option. All sustainability-related requirements are interdependent and interconnected, forming an inseparable whole—not only during the planning, design, and construction phases of a new building but also throughout its operational life. This integrated system remains valid until the integrity of the established criteria is compromised, at which point a decision is made to initiate remodeling as part of an integrated design strategy.

Monitoring and forecasting the condition of buildings in use is based on the assessment of compliance with multiple sustainability requirements, which are dynamic and evolve over time. These shifting parameters serve as the foundation for selecting optimal strategies among alternative solutions aimed at preserving the integrity of sustainable performance.

In this study, the sustainability requirements, based on a modified framework that expands upon the initial scheme [40], also include the relevance of safety and comfort, which are particularly important in the context of SMs. These additions are reflected in the author’s extended model, as presented in Figure 6. The table also outlines the key sustainability requirements and the causes of degradation, which may trigger the decision to remodel, as well as the objectives underlying such interventions.

The primary goal of remodeling—as a strategy of integrated design in accordance with the building life cycle—is to ensure compliance with sustainability criteria throughout the entire operational period and to enhance sales performance. Particular emphasis is placed on the architectural design process, highlighting its role in improving consumer appeal, comfort, and the overall experience of the shopping environment.

Key redevelopment goals for SMs include modernization, spatial flexibility, utilization of location potential, and visual identity transformation. Modernization involves continuous condition monitoring and the replacement of outdated materials and systems to create a contemporary, appealing environment. Consumer stimulation is enhanced through strategic placement of escalators, which provide smooth, uninterrupted vertical circulation, increasing the usability and value of upper floors. Ideally, escalators should be positioned at a distance from the main entrance to encourage unplanned purchases, while ensuring that the walking time remains acceptable for passers-by.

Flexibility refers to the architectural adaptability of the space, enabled by modular skeletal systems and dry assembly techniques. This allows for rapid spatial reconfiguration without the need to modify integrated systems such as lighting, ventilation, or fire protection. Location optimization is achieved through improved accessibility, local competition analysis, and a curated tenant mix targeting specific customer segments.

3.2. Decision-Making (DM) on the Final Outcome of the Remodeling Action of the Building

The decision to initiate remodeling is made based on an analysis of the causes of sustainability degradation, whether of the entire building or specific components. This study includes the material, spatial, and financial scope of sustainability requirement violations, and proposed interventions are positioned along the building’s service life timeline. The decision-making process is grounded in multi-criteria evaluation, with criteria selected according to the level of compliance with sustainability requirements, as outlined in Table 2. From an architectural perspective, these criteria can be grouped by significance and similarity. The primary group includes structural integrity criteria, encompassing safety and durability, as well as ecological and health criteria, all of which are directly regulated by technical, environmental, or health standards. The secondary group includes criteria such as functionality, cost-efficiency, and esthetics, often referred to as “soft” requirements, as they allow for greater tolerance or postponement of fulfillment depending on business operations.

The timing of sustainability degradation plays a key role in decision-making. A breach of any primary requirement at any point during the service life may necessitate immediate closure of the facility, unlike secondary requirements, which may allow continued operation. From an architectural standpoint, the most critical metric within the primary group is the shortest time to failure, defined as the interval between the start of operation and the point when a primary criterion is no longer met.

Material selection can be determined through life cycle analysis of the structure, balancing the durability, mechanical performance, and resistance to aggressive environmentswith environmental concerns by choosing materials that have a minimal ecological footprint. At the same time, cost and social criteria—such as thermal comfort, esthetic value, and construction speed—must be considered. Optimal material selection results from the integration of ecological, economic, and social factors. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards specify that materials should be renewable, low-energy in production, and low-polluting, with minimal emissions of harmful substances throughout their lifecycle.

The environmental impact of materials spans their entire life cycle—from resource extraction and transportation to manufacturing, on-site assembly, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life waste management. The production of construction materials and building processes requires significant energy and water consumption, generates large amounts of waste, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, causes both indoor and outdoor pollution, and leads to the depletion of natural resources. Nearly 3 billion tons of raw materials are consumed annually for building construction. Additionally, energy is expended for the extraction, processing, transport, and assembly of materials. The energy consumption for structural material production can be expressed via a relative energy index, where wood is assigned a baseline value of “1”. Comparative values for concrete, steel, and aluminum are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Index of relative energy consumption [33].

No.	Structural Material	Index of Relative Energy Consumption
1	Timber	1
2	Concrete	3
3	Steel	17
4	Aluminum	70

Table 2. Index of relative energy consumption [33].

No.	Structural Material	Index of Relative Energy Consumption
1	Timber	1
2	Concrete	3
3	Steel	17
4	Aluminum	70

The emission of harmful gases is represented using a relative carbon dioxide emission index, where the CO₂ emissions from wood production are assigned a baseline interactive value of “1”. The corresponding relative emission values for the production of concrete, steel, and aluminum are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Relative carbon dioxide emission index [33].

No.	Structural Material	Index of Relative Carbon Emission
1	Timber	1
2	Concrete	8
3	Steel	21
4	Aluminum	264

Table 3. Relative carbon dioxide emission index [33].

No.	Structural Material	Index of Relative Carbon Emission
1	Timber	1
2	Concrete	8
3	Steel	21
4	Aluminum	264

Verification of load-bearing structures is conducted in accordance with current European structural regulations, which encompass the control of the Ultimate Limit State (ULS), Serviceability Limit State (SLS), and Durability Limit State (DLS) during the design, construction, and operational phases of the building.

3.3. Durability and Safety Requirement

Research methods addressing durability and safety are based on time-dependent data related to the deterioration and aging of load-bearing structural materials. These approaches rely on mathematical predictive models to assess structural condition over a defined time period.

For newly designed or well-preserved structures with known material properties and geometry, the use of probabilistic safety assessment methods—applied to structural components, materials, and loads—is recommended. These methods are based on stochastic models well-documented in the literature [30]. When evaluating the load-bearing capacity of structures experiencing material and geometric degradation over time, it is necessary to apply stochastic models for assessing the ultimate structural resistance. Structural safety involves verifying both load-bearing capacity and serviceability of the entire system or its individual components. Traditional visual inspection methods, widely used worldwide, are inherently subjective and often unreliable, as their accuracy depends heavily on the experience and expertise of the inspecting engineer. To improve the objectivity and reliability of visual assessments, a series of standardized procedures can be developed. More precise and realistic evaluations of material behavior over time can be obtained through continuous structural health monitoring, particularly using piezoelectric sensors, which provide quantifiable and time-dependent data on structural performance.

3.4. Case Study Results—SM “Deva 1” Kruševac, Serbia

As part of thisservice life assessment research (SLP), acase study was conducted on the “Shopping Mall DEVA 1” located in Kruševac, Serbia. The building comprises a basement, ground floor, and one upper floor (Po+P+1), with a total gross floor area of 4046 m². The temporal scope of the condition evaluation and forecasting spans a period of nearly 20 years (LCA).

Constructed under challenging socio-economic conditions, the facility was built using conventional materials. The structural system consists of reinforced concrete, while the walls are made of brick. This study focused on the external façade and structural elements exposed to weathering effects, and a global condition rating was established over time.

The classification of the building’s condition was conducted using the CAS (Condition Assessment Scale) method [41]. The modified CAS evaluation method includes a proposed scale of seven condition levels, each with a corresponding numerical rating, qualitative descriptive criteria, and percentage of damage (see Table 4).

Table 4. Condition assessment scales (CASs) [41].

Condition Assessments	Description	Demage Percentage
1	Excellent	0–10%
2	Very Good	11–25%
3	Good	26–40%
4	Fair	41–55%
5	Poor	56–70%
6	Very Poor	71–85%
7	Faile	More than 85%

Table 4. Condition assessment scales (CASs) [41].

Condition Assessments	Description	Demage Percentage
1	Excellent	0–10%
2	Very Good	11–25%
3	Good	26–40%
4	Fair	41–55%
5	Poor	56–70%
6	Very Poor	71–85%
7	Faile	More than 85%

3.4.1. Input Data and Methods

The input data for the case study were based on reconstruction project documentation and technical reports on the condition of the structure and façade, derived from post-construction inspections. The initial (baseline) condition was rated as 1—excellent. This rating was confirmed through quality certificates, declarations of conformity, and visual inspection methods.

Continuous visual monitoring of the actual condition showed that during the first three years (within the warranty period for the executed works), and under the application of intensive maintenance measures, there were virtually no observable changes to the façade, with only localized damages of less than 5%. It was not until the 10th year—when maintenance activities had ceased—that the first significant damage appeared, exceeding 11%, resulting in a downgraded rating of 2—very good. By the 15th year, still without maintenance, the condition was rated 3—good, until the 19th year when the condition further degraded to 5—poor.

The Markov model (Figure 7) used for predicting future condition relies on a time-based data set of condition ratings. It applies the frequency of state transitions, transition probabilities for specific time intervals, and the corresponding condition ratings (

Table 5. Time intervals.

Condition Si	tk—Time Corresponding to Condition Si	T(i+1)—Duration of Condition Si
S1	tk (1)	0 do T2
S2	tk (2)	T2 do T3
S3	tk (3)	T3 do T4
S4	tk (4)	T4do T5
S5	tk (5)	T5 do T6
S6	tk (6)	T6 do T7
S7	tk (7)	T7

).

The predictive model was developed for a “do-nothing” scenario. Transition probabilities between condition states were represented in a 7 × 7 square probabilistic Transition Probability Matrix, based on a finite set of discrete condition data points collected annually. The time interval between each discrete data point and its corresponding condition rating was one year. Based on the sequence of data points, a predictive degradation curve was constructed with 18 intervals. Real condition monitoring was performed through periodic visual inspections conducted annually, forming a curve of the actual observed condition from a sequence of discrete data.

3.4.2. Output Data and Conclusion

The output data for both the predicted condition curve and the actual condition curve are presented as a function of time (Figure 8). According to the probability-based prediction curve (1–L–N–P), the object would reach a condition rating of 3.887 in the tenth year of use—represented by Point N. In contrast, the actual condition of the building at the same time was rated as 2—very good (Point M). On the predictive curve, condition rating 5 was reached at year 14.921.

If the threshold of the service life is defined as the transition into a “poor condition” (rating 5) according to the predictive model, the technical service life of the building under a “do-nothing” scenario is estimated at 14.921 years. This point marks the moment for potential remodeling, after which the condition could theoretically return to “excellent” (Points O and P). At that moment, the actual condition of the building was rated at 3.3 (Point Q). For these reasons, the predictive analysis was conducted up to year 17.

At the end of the predictive service life, approximately 15 years, based on the aging-related condition criteria and from the perspective of technical functionality, the building was projected to enter a “poor condition” phase. Through timely remodeling interventions, however, the facility can be restored either to its original (excellent) condition or to an improved state. The transition from poor condition (Point P in the figure) back to excellent condition is illustrated by Point O. The timing, method, and scope of the revitalization are determined by the investor based on the architect’s recommendation.

Following the actual condition monitoring, the building reached a “poor” condition (rating 5) in the 19th year, which is taken as the end of its actual service life—represented by the curve 1–L–M–Q–E—at which point a recommendation was made to remodel the deteriorated parts of the structure.

It is concluded that the improvement in the condition of the building at year T = 10, as a result of continuous investment maintenance, is represented by the distance NM. The evident discrepancy between the actual and predicted states illustrates the effects of efforts aimed at maintaining the building’s “ideal” appearance.

Also, it is concluded that maintenance efforts significantly contribute to extending the building’s service life compared to the predictive scenario, particularly during the first 15 years of operation (Point P). After that period, due to material aging, the positive impact of maintenance diminishes considerably, as reflected in Point E at year 19.

Within the “Deva 1” case study, the hybrid LCA/SLP matrix was applied through the integration of building condition assessment (SLP component) with identified degradation factors and assumed usage scenarios over a 20-year period (LCA approach). By using the Markov model, quantitative modeling of the transitional states of structural elements was enabled, while input data such as technical documentation, usage conditions, and absence of maintenance were incorporated as key influencing factors within the evaluation framework. This approach established a synergy between time-based performance modeling and sustainability evaluation across the building’s life cycle.

The fundamental assumption is that the observed damage during condition assessment does not affect the safety and reliability of the building’s structural system. Analysis of the nature and extent of the damage confirmed that no structural cracks or fractures that propagated significantly over time were observed. In cases of more severe damage, laboratory testing would be required; however, this was not necessary in the presented case. The importance of annual visual inspections lies in detecting and monitoring the progression of damage and assessing the condition of visible building surfaces. In the event of sudden or rapid damage occurrence, it is essential to apply non-destructive testing methods for accurate monitoring.

4. Conclusions

The proposed hybrid methodological framework, which integrates the principles of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Service Life Planning (SLP), provides a significant contribution to the analysis and architectural design of shopping mall revitalization in transitional urban environments. Thisresearch is based on the assumption that the sustainability of commercial buildings cannot be viewed solely through a technical lens, but rather as the result of a dynamic interaction between architectural decisions and other factors such as use, management, maintenance, and external influences.

Through the implementation of the model on a real-world case—the “Deva 1” shopping mall in Kruševac—the predictive capacity of the methodology has been validated. By applying Markov chains and a 7 × 7 probabilistic transition matrix, a quantitative evaluation of the building’s technical condition over a twenty-year period of operation was enabled. The comparison between the predicted and actual condition curves demonstrated that properly planned maintenance significantly improves performance and extends service life, whereas the absence of maintenance leads to accelerated degradation and an earlier need for remodeling.

In addition to the assessment of technical condition, future research could extend the model to include the evaluation of functional performance, economic viability, and esthetic value throughout the building’s lifecycle. By analyzing the minimization of output indicators within these domains, it is possible to define thresholds for initiating remodeling actions, which may serve as a valuable foundation for further studies.

The originality of the adopted LCA/SLP integration lies in the formation of a unified evaluation matrix, which combines condition monitoring with set theory modeling. This enables the extension of the framework to additional sustainability factors. The model is flexible and can be adapted to other building typologies, making it a useful tool for strategic decision-making related to investment, maintenance, and adaptive reuse.

This study demonstrates that the proposed approach allows for the following:

• Reliable quantitative assessment of building service life over time;
• Identification of critical moments for intervention;
• Evaluation of maintenance effects in contrast to a passive “do-nothing” scenario;
• Informed decision-making in the design of future redevelopment strategies.

In conclusion, this work offers a theoretical and methodological foundation for an integrated understanding of architectural sustainability, contributing to the development of contemporary tools for lifecycle planning and management—particularly in the context of reactivating degraded urban areas and revitalizing “greyfield” commercial assets.