Amstel III - The Reuse City

AM STEL III THE RE USE CITY

by Dominik Lukkes

Preface

Dear reader, The book is the result of my graduation thesis called Amstel III - The Reuse City. It is the outcome of an inspiring year, where I got the chance to dive into the world of circular architecture and learn so much about this (to many people unknown) theme. I want to thank my tutors, Mauro Parravicini, Engbert van der Zaag, Peter Luscuere, Kasper Guldager Jensen and Thijs Asselbergs for their guidance during the entire process. Thank you!

The book has been divided in three chapters: research, analysis and design.

The research chapter outlines the current state of the art and provides relevant background information. The analysis chapter contains studies focussed on the project site, the building and the approach. The design chapter explains the architectural vision and displays the final design.

The goal of this book is to inspire not only architects, but also developpers, builders, demolition companies, municipalities and clients.

And, of course, you.

Dominik

Table of contents

4

RE SEARCH

ANA

LYSIS

DE SIGN BIBLIO

8

Introduction

10

Urban mining

16

Reuse

22

Conclusion

26

Context

30

Site

42

Building

50

Goals and principles

52

Urban plan

56

Building design

72

Vision

78

Bibliography

GRAPHY

5

Research

RE SEARCH

Research

Introduction Raw materials A circular built environment We are facing a number of large-scale challenges, such as the changing climate and its effects, the increasing world population and the depletion of fossil fuels and raw materials (Luscuere et. al., 2018). The bizarre fact that China has used more cement in the past 3 years than the United States has in the entire 20th century (Eurostat, 2016), is simply mind-blowing. If we zoom in on the Netherlands, and Amsterdam specifically, we see similar challenges. According to the ministry of infrastructure and the environment (MIE) and the ministry of economic affairs (MEA), the construction industry in the Netherlands is estimated to account for 50% of total raw materials used, 40% of total energy consumption, and 30% of total water consumption (MIE & MEA, 2016). To make the situation a little worse, we also see a lack of affordable housing and there is an abundance of vacant offices in the city of Amsterdam: roughly 462.387 m2 (which equals to about 7,9% of the total amount of offices in Amsterdam) is standing empty (Cushman and Wakefield, 2017). These buildings usually sit empty for a couple of years, until the decision is made to demolish them.

8

Raw materials 50% 50% Energy

Water

Energy

Water

30%

40%

30%

40%

The construction industry is responsible for the consumption of 50% of all raw materials, 40% of all energy and 30% of all water (sources: MIE & MEA, 2016).

40% of all waste in the Netherlands is construction waste, of which 90% consists of conrete, asphalt, and ceramics (sources: MIE & MEA, 2016).

Material waste

Construction waste

Material waste

10% Construction waste

40% 40%

10%

90% 90%

Introduction

According to the government, approximately 40% of waste in the Netherlands involves construction and demolition waste (MIE & MEA, 2016).

However, we also see developments that present a more positive prospect.

Following the ideas of the circular economy, the built environment is currently undergoing a transition.

Examples of this can be found in innovative architectural projects that experiment with new construction techniques and the reuse of building materials. Research has shown that in the past few years a lot of companies have invested money in online material marketplaces, where used materials and building components are being sold.

This should lower the threshold for architects and builders to start reusing building materials and components. However, this same research has shown that in 2017, only 200.000 euros of circular building material was sold. In a sector in which around 6 billion euros in sales are made annually, this amount is still very little (Slager & Jansen, 2018). In fact, it comes down to less than 0,01%.

So, despite the transition towards a circular economy, it becomes clear that there is a gap between the availability of used building components and the actual application of these components in building projects.

Cities and buildings as mines Enter urban mining: the philosophy of seeing urban areas, such as cities and buildings, as potential material mines. Instead of constantly creating building materials out of newly mined raw materials, urban mining focusses on the recovery of materials and energy from products of the urban catabolism (Baccini & Brunner, 2012). So instead of demolishing buildings and downgrading the materials and components these buildings comprise of, they are harvested for reuse. Reusing building elements and recycling materials is something of all times and has been done since the classical period (Addis, 2006).

To avoid misunderstandings in terms of terminology, a distinction is made between material reuse and component reuse. This thesis focusses on component reuse, where a component is defined as “a part of a building that predominantly consists of two or more different materials.�

The reason for choosing this definition is because buildings today mainly consist of components such as doors, windows, walls and floors, These components in their turn are predominantly comprised of more than one material. A door, for example, can be made out of wood mainly but is likely to have a metal handle as well.

But a copper pipe that is used

for plumbing basically is a component made out of one material. In urban mining, there is no clear distinction between recovering pure materials from buildings or recovering components that consist of more than one material.

Closing the gap In this thesis, the relation between urban mining and component reuse is addressed, since it seems as if these two processes are treated as being separated and independent, while in fact, they are inherently related. Furthermore, the question of how the process of urban mining can play a role in closing the gap between the availability and application of used building components and how it can stimulate this will be discussed.

9

Research

Urban mining Material depletion It is clear that the transition towards a circular economy both is impactec by and has an impact on the built environment. With the attention moving from limited and fixed stocks of raw materials to the increasing anthropogenic stocks, the base for the concept of urban mining has been created (Stallone, 2011; Bonifazi & Cossu, 2013). Urban mining originally focused on electrical and electronic waste (WEEE), because the concentrations of elements coming from natural ores in anthropogenic stocks are often comparable or even higher than in natural stocks (Cossu & William, 2015). Aside from the fact that these elements are depleting, they are also depleting rather rapidly. It will not take long before metals and other raw materials, such as gas, oil, and coal, will be depleted. For some of these materials, this will be before the end of the century. Although it should be noted that this is a projection of a worst-case scenario, it clearly shows that we are in fact running out of raw materials and fossil fuels and something needs to be done.

As explained before, the construction industry in the Netherlands is estimated to

10

account for the use of 50% of these raw materials, including, but not limited to, wood, iron, sand and other minerals needed to make concrete for example. Therefore, we cannot only look at metals and rare elements when talking about urban mining as we used to.

The concept of urban mining needs to be applied to the built environment as well. In this research, the definition of urban mining as defined

by Cossu & Williams will be adopted, although slightly amended. It reads as follows: [Urban mining is] “the process of reclaiming components from any kind of anthropogenic stocks, including buildings, infrastructure, industries, and products (in and out of use)�

(2015).

2087

Our natural materials are depleting at an alarmingly high rate (sources: UN TEEB, US Geological Survey, BP, Worm et al, 2006).

Urban Mining

196

2100

88

80

2012

Rainforests Coral reefs Agricultural land Coal Oil Gas Aluminium Phosphorus Tantalum Titanium Copper Silver Indium Antimony

Today

12

8

17

76

32 69

35

44 46

37

42

2075

2062 11

Research

From linear to circular Our current building chain has a clear start and end, usually ending at the phase of demolition. If we want to follow the concepts of a circular economy, we need to change this linear process into a circular one. This can be done by removing the phase of demolition and replace it with the phases that together comprise urban mining: the

Distribution

Design

Finance

Initiative

Operation Construction Distribution Harvest

12

phases of inventory, harvest and distribution.

These three phases are all related to and dependent on each other. Skipping a phase makes it hard, if not impossible, to follow through the next phase (Dekker et al., 2019).

Construction

Operation

Vacancy

Demolition

Initiative Finance Design Inventory

A new bullding cycle is proposed, where the phase of demolition no longer exists. Instead, urban mining is inserted. (source: Dekker et al, 2019).

Urban Mining

Inventorying Inventories are made to determine the availability and reusability of components in buildings. Making in an inventory means getting an overview of the number of components that can be harvested from a certain building, what their quality and value is, and how they are connected for example. There are two known methods.

The first method focusses on creating estimations of material quantities based on key figures and formulas.

Depending on the parameters, the quantities of the different types of materials can be determined. This method can be applied fairly easy if the right information is available (Dekker et al., 2018). In reality, however, this information is often lacking (Wu et al., 2014).

Knowing the precise context of a building component and how it is assembled for example is significant for determining the ease of extraction and whether it can be reused. An important factor to keep in mind is the fact that buildings tend to be maintained for quite long periods and are frequently adapted. This may cause their original structure and composition to be changed.

Extensive research is therefore needed to find out what resources one might find in a building (Koutamanis et al., 2018).

that might prove interesting for reuse purposes. In addition, knowledge of building materials, component assembly, and construction techniques is required.

Gathering this information is often difficult, making this method more labor-intensive and time-consuming (Dekker et al., 2018).

There is not a specific job title (yet) for those who engage in making inventories, but stakeholders from different fields of work are involved.

We can divide the different stakeholders based on the two methods of making an inventory. Consultancy and research firms are sometimes hired by municipalities and other governmental institutions to estimate material inventories for an entire area.

Therefore, they prefer the first method. In some cases, this involves creating timelines of the projects that will take place during a certain period in a certain region. These construction projects ĂĄnd demolition projects are then all connected to see if matches in supply and demand can be made (Dekker et al., 2018).

The second group mainly consists of architects, designers, demolition companies and so-called material scouts (Hinte et al., 2007). These stakeholders prefer the on-site method, mainly because they are looking for specific materials or building components. For these stakeholders, it is important to know in what state the building components are, how they are assembled and connected to other components, what their measurements are, and in what quantities they are available. These stakeholders are interested in reusing the components for construction projects or simply in selling them after they have been recovered (Dekker et al., 2018).

By means of a harvest map important information, such as a buiding’s year of demolition and the materials that it’s comprised of, can be made visual easily. Additionally, harvest maps can be created to link both material streams and waste streams.

A harvestmap as envisioned by architecture firm Superuse Studios, where materials can be found and bought online (source: Oogstkaart).

The second method is more precise and hands-on. It requires a thorough inspection of the building, including measuring, counting and evaluating the components

13

Research

Harvesting Harvesting involves the recovering of components from buildings and typically starts after the inventory has been made. Instead of demolishing a building entirely, the reusable components are (carefully) removed and separated.

Recovering these components requires knowledge on the assembly and disassembly of components. Harvesting the materials can be done in different ways. Some harvesting jobs require heavy machinery, but others can be done by hand with tools.

Building components like windows, doors, cabinets, installations, ducts, furniture, cables, and lighting etc. can be harvested by people without the need for heavy machinery.

However, if heavy (structural) elements need to be recovered, machines are necessary for lifting, turning and placing.

In this case, professional companies such as demolition companies are often hired to do the job (Dekker et al., 2018).

In the Netherlands, 90% of the total construction and demolition waste is concrete, brick or asphalt. The remaining 10% contains plastics, wood, and metals (Vereniging Afvalbedrijven, 2015). When translating this to building component level, this 90% would presumably consist of concrete from columns, walls, floors, and other structural elements, as well as brick from facades and asphalt from roofs and roads for example. The components that are usually subject to harvesting, such as windows, doors, flooring, walls, ceilings, faรงade cladding,

14

plumbing fixtures, wiring etc.

(Dekker et al., 2018) together, would count for the resting 10% waste.

Stakeholders that are involved in harvesting are demolition companies mostly.

An increasing amount of demolition companies has started to take this role of disassembling instead of demolition more seriously, mainly because of financial benefits (Dekker et al., 2018. In some situations, it turned out that harvesting a building was financially more interesting than demolishing a building after calculating what the value of the harvested components would be (Rau & Oberhuber, 2016).

Distributing Bringing the harvested components to their destination is a logistical process. In some cases, the components might be needed on a construction site on short notice. In other cases, they might not have a place to go yet. In both situations, a temporary storage place is usually required. There are three ways to handle the distribution of a harvest: the first option is to bring the harvested components to a storage place. This can be a location nearby the harvest location or nearby the location where they are known to be reused, but it can also be somewhere else.

Urban Mining

Bringing the harvest directly to the site where they will be reused is usually preferable because reducing the need for transportation additionally saves on CO2-emissions and costs. However, this is not always possible (Dekker et. al., 2018).

existing distribution networks for their new products, so it is fairly easy for these stakeholders to integrate the harvested components into these systems. Because this can save a lot of costs, it seems an interesting option (Dekker et al., 2018).

The second option is to distribute the harvested components to a manufacturer who will re-sell them. A window manufacturer, for example, buys the harvested windows, takes out the glass, repairs or refurbishes the frames and sells them again.

In some cases, this can be done easily, resulting in an almost new product. These manufacturers usually have

If the harvested components do not have a destination at the time of harvesting, the last option is to send them off to marketplaces where they can be stored until sold to anyone interested. Usually, demolition companies that have started to engage in urban mining are doing this (Dekker et al., 2018). At these (online) marketplaces, harvests are made available through

An appartment flat in Kerkrade is being harvested from (photo: Evert van de Worp).

collaborations between these demolition companies (Insert, 2018). The distribution of components coming from these marketplaces is sometimes arranged by the demolition company that has taken on the harvest job, by hired transportation services or by the clients themselves (Dekker et al., 2018).

Entire ‘units’ are extracted from the building and taken down with cranes (photo: HEEMwonen).

15

Research

Reuse Why reuse?

The main reason why we are reusing materials and goods is to reduce our society’s impact on the environment. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation defines reuse as “the use of a product again for the same purpose in its original form or with little enhancement or change” (2013). However, according to Addis (2006), it is possible to distinguish different forms of reuse: reuse of a whole building or some of its parts in its same location; the reuse of components that have been removed from one building and are then refurbished or reconditioned for use in a different building; the use of recycled materials, for example, in what are known as recycledcontent building products.

In this research the term ‘reuse’ is considered as a general term that entails various forms of reusing a building component.

To give an example: a building component can be reused one to one, as the Ellen Macarthur Foundation describes it.

However, a building component can also be reused after a slight modification has been made.

This is called refurbishing.

Although the component is not exactly the same way it was before, a part of it is still being reused.

16

In discussions on what is actually a good form of reuse from an environmental perspective, many different terms are often used, including, but not limited to, prolonging, upcycling, recycling, downcycling, refurbishing, remanufacturing, reconditioning and cascading.

What distinguishes these terms? What is good? Or are they all examples of a ‘less bad’ approach?

Definitions The definitions used in this research are predominantly coming from the Ellen Macarthur Foundation.

The reason for this is that their ideas concerning the circular economy have been adopted and copied by many institutions and researchers globally. It is important to note that the circular economy is not only about circularizing material streams. Therefore, we should not limit our approach to materials only. Circularity of energy, water, and air should be considered as well (Luscuere, 2018). However, since we are only addressing the component and material cycles in this research, we will limit our definitions to those as defined by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation. It should be noted that this list,

although presented by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, is not a direct translation of their wellknown butterfly scheme.

1. Prolonging Before removing a building, a component or even a material, the possibility of prolonging its life should be considered first.

In the case of components, they should be kept in use for as long as possible (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013).

Maintaining the materials and building components is a way to achieve this.

2. Upcycling Upcycling is “the process of converting materials into new materials of higher quality and increased functionality” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013). An example of this is the growth of algae out of CO2 and using them for the production of new materials (Dekker et al., 2018), where CO2 should not be seen as a climate change propelling waste product, as people tend to see it (Luscuere et. al., 2018), but as a resource.

3. Recycling Recycling is “the process of recovering materials for the original purpose or for other purposes, excluding energy recovery” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013). Using steel scrap to produce new steel

Reuse

is an example of recycling (Dorsthorst et al., 2000).

4. Downcycling Downcycling is “the process of converting materials into new materials of lesser quality and reduced functionality” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013). Shredding used jeans to make insulation out of it is an example of downcycling (Dekker et al., 2018).

5. Refurbishing Refurbishing is “the process of returning a product to good working condition by replacing or repairing major components

that are faulty or close to failure and making ‘cosmetic’ changes to update the appearance of a product, such as cleaning, changing the fabric, painting or refinishing” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013).

6. Remanufacturing Remanufacturing is “the process of disassembly and recovery at the subassembly or component level. Functioning, reusable parts are taken out of a used product and rebuilt into a new one. This process includes quality assurance and potential enhancements or changes to the components”

(Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013).

7. Cascading Cascading is “putting materials and components into different uses after end-of-life across different value streams and extracting, over time, stored energy and material ‘coherence’. Along the cascade, this material order declines” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013).

The Circular Economy - an industrial system that is restorative by design (source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

17

Research

Good or less bad?

Now that we have an overview of the different options on how to reuse harvested building components, we can evaluate them on their environmental impact. In other words: what is good and what is less bad?

According to the technical cycles proposed by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the preferred first step in handling products, such as materials or components, is to maintain them and therewith prolong their lifecycle. If maintaining is not possible, reuse one on one is the next best option.

After reuse comes refurbish or remanufacture and if that is also not possible, recycling is the last option (2013).

Brewer and Mooney have created a comparable hierarchy. Theirs, however, is more directly focused on the building, whereas the first step would be to relocate the whole building. If that is not possible, the components should be reused. After that follows the reprocessing of materials and the last step would be to recycle the materials coming from the components (2008).

The Delft Ladder is a 10step hierarchy developed by Dorsthorst et al., that also starts at building scale instead of product scale. Their first step is to prevent a building from becoming unused. If that is not possible, renovation might be needed to make the building usable again. Next in line is element reuse. This requires the building to be dismantled into elements and components.

After element reuse comes

18

material reuse, which entails recycling, upcycling and downcycling. The last steps are to incinerate the materials for energy recovery and landfilling (2000).

Comparing the different approaches clarifies that (after prolonging) reusing buildings, components or materials one on one is often the preferred way to go. If this is not possible, other ways of processing are possible.

Danish architecture firm Lendager Group designed a new building where facade cutouts from an old building are reused (photo’s: Lendager Group, 2019).

Reuse

State of the art By means of case study research, the current state of the art has been examined.

The building projects, of which most were completed in recent years, have been analyzed predominantly on the types of building components that were reused and how they were reused. The outcomes have been combined and narrowed down to component groups.

There are two projects that form an exception. These projects did not reuse used building components, but they designed the buildings so that they will be in the future. The so-called approach of design for disassembly.

1. Floors and walls: a. On two projects in Linkoping,

concrete floors and walls were harvested from unused buildings, that had not been designed and built to be disassembled back in the day. Therefore, a lot of sawing and cutting was required to remove the components from each other. According to the contractors, there were no technical or structural difficulties in deconstructing and reassembling the elements. It also turned out that the environmental impact of the project was less due to reusing these elements, compared to using conventional materials and techniques (Addis, 2006). b. A project in Copenhagen reused cutouts from a brick wall. Because the bricks were glued to each other with mortar, they could not be

separated without breaking the bricks. The decision was made to cut out square elements out of the brick wall and reuse the elements instead. The elements were connected to a concrete panel and used in a new facade (Lendager Group, 2018). c. Another project in Copenhagen created a test-building, based on the approach of design for disassembly. Special steel connections were developed to assemble and disassemble concrete walls and floors so that they could be taken apart easily when needed (Vandkunsten, Lendager Group and 3XN architects, 2018).

19

Research

2. Beam and columns: a. On a project in South London, structural steel beams and columns were reused in a cost-neutral way. The steel was inspected thoroughly, sandblasted, coated with zinc and painted (Addis, 2006).

Another project used steel profiles coming from an old factory nearby. The steel beams that were used for the structure of the new building, were extracted from an old textile machine (Superuse Studios, 2009). b. A recent project in Eindhoven involved a pavilion building.

This project was also focused on design for disassembly, using only borrowed products.

All building components used in the building would be returned to the original owner. This required special measures to assure that no component would be damaged at constructing and disassembling the building.

20

All the wooden beams and columns where connected by means of tension straps (Bureau SLA, 2017).

3. Windows and doors: a. In a few examples window frames were reused one on one to create partition walls. In these cases, the design of the partition wall was influenced by the measurements of the frames.

In some cases, the windows came from old buildings that were to be disassembled and demolished. The quality of the glass inside these frames was not high enough to meet energy efficiency requirements. Therefore, these window frames could not be used in the facades of the buildings in which they were reused (Superuse Studios; Architekten Cie., 2017). In other cases, plexiglass, that had been ordered mistakenly by a different client, was reused (Encore Heureux, 2015).

French architecture firm Encore Heureux designed this temporary pavilion in Paris. The attractive facade is made out of reused doors (photo’s Cyrus Cornut).

b. For a temporary structure, glass was reused to serve as a second skin. This type of reuse required a new system to mount the glass panels on to the facade (Cepezed, 2018). c. Doors are fairly easy to reuse one on one. In a particular example, the doors were used as facade cladding on a pavilion building by Encore Hereux. However, in another example, the reuse of doors was difficult and did not prove to be financially interesting.

This was due to the size of the demand, that was too large to be taken from one building.

Therefore, extra time went into searching for extra doors from other sources, leading to higher costs (Addis, 2006).

Reuse

4. Insulation: a. Insulation types such as stone wool, EPS and PS can often be amended fairly easy to fit the dimensions required by their new use. Especially rigid forms of insulation make it easy to be cut into pieces with the desired measurements (Wessel van Geffen Architecten, 2017; Superuse Studios), b. In a specific case, old jeans were shredded into small pieces and used as ceiling insulation (Architekten Cie., 2017).

The People’s Pavilion by Dutch firms SLA and Overtreders W promotes the value of a closed-loop system.

The facade consists of panels made from recycled plastics (photo: Philip Dujardin).

Choice of components It should be noted that these examples of reuse are not the only possible ones. Other types of components can be (and are) reused as well, such as, for example, installations, lighting fixtures, and plumbing fixtures.

However, they are not applied as frequently in reuse projects as the ones just described. In addition, the components used in this research can be found in almost any building. This research paper is simply too short to elaborate on all forms of component reuse.

Superuse Studios stacked reused windows to create office spaces inside a vacant swimming pool in Rotterdam, now called Blue City 010 (photo: Dennis Guzzo).

21

Research

Conclusion Reusability Based on the same case studies, interviews and literature review, three influential aspects, that were frequently encountered during reuse projects, have been established. Being aware of these influences, either positive or negative, can be helpful in making decisions when engaging in reusing building components.

In general, it is difficult to reuse buildings, components, and materials, because almost all buildings today have not been constructed and designed to be reused later. When these buildings are now demolished, the result is a mixed construction waste, which nowadays often ends up as road base layer. (Dorsthorst et al. 2000). Therefore, expertise is required to appraise the

status of the building including its structure, the facade, and all other parts. This information is needed to decide if it is sensible to reuse any parts of the building (Addis, 2006).

There are many more factors that influence the reusability of components, either directly or indirectly, such as, for example, transportation, value, usefulness after being removed and possibilities for refurbishment (Addis, 2006) Availability and demand Another challenge is getting the right information. It seems that there is no clear overview of what components are actually available and in what quantities. This makes it hard to find what one is looking for.

If the particular component has been found, often only a little information is available on that component (Slager &

Jansen, 2018). This has a great influence on the demand for used building components. It is expected that the demand should come from building owners, developers, clients, architects, designers and contractors (Addis, 2006).

Financial benefits vs environmental benefits Although almost every building is dismantlable with current techniques, the question is if it will be economically profitable. Another question is if it reduces the impact on the environment, compared to using conventional techniques and methods (Dorsthorst et al. 2000). It should be taken into account that the ecological gain of reusing can be greater of materials where the production process has a large CO2-emission (such as steel) than for materials

Influences: Reusability of a building, component or material

22

Availability and demand

Financial benefits vs environmental benefits

Conclusion

based on renewable materials (such as sustainable wood).

For this reason, for example, it can be ecologically justified to transport steel from a greater distance than wood (Dekker et. al. 2018). However, this does not mean that this is also the cheapest option.

Concluding It has become clear that preventing buildings and building components from ending up at the landfill is important in the transition towards a circular economy.

In terms of reuse, the general opinion on reusing seems to be, that one on one reuse is most preferable in terms of environmental impact.

However, it is not guaranteed that this is always the fact.

Many factors, such as the process of recovery, the transportation of the recovered

building components and the handling thereof, should be considered when calculating the environmental benefits compared to conventional standards.

If the process of urban mining is to stimulate component reuse, special attention needs to go out to the phases of inventory, harvest, and distribution, whereby the information on buildings and their components acquired in the inventory phase is key.

In addition, it must be clear to those who want to engage in reusing components what the possibilities are, what the consequences can be and what the challenges are.

sometimes to recover building components. However, many forms of reuse are possible with the techniques available today. To make it easier for building components to be recovered and reused in the future, it should be considered when designing a building, that upgrades or adjustments might need to be made to that building in the future. Having a building that consists of easily removable building components will make this possible. This is called design for disassembly or design for reuse and is something that has started to gain more interest among architects and builders.

The fact that many buildings have not been built to be disassembled, and therefore to be reused, is an important given as well. This makes it hard

Conclusions: 1:1 Reuse is most preferred

Information is vital for urban mining

Buildings today are not built to be reused

1:1 23

Analysis

ANA

LYSIS

Analysis

Context Amsterdam The context of this thesis is the city of Amsterdam. With 862.965 inhabitants, it is our most dwelled city. And the amount is increasing: it is expected that in 2040 little over 1 million people will live in the city. That means a lot more

26

houses need to be built, which seems a tough challenge.

Part of the solution lies in the transformation of office buildings into dwellings. The area of Amstel III, located in the southeast of Amsterdam, is one of these neighborhoods.

A massive transformation will take place the next 20 years.

These graphs show how the total amount of offices (vacant and in use) is decreasing. This is partly due to the demolition and transformation of old offices (sources: PBL, 2017; Cushman & Wakefield, 2017).

The city of amsterdam.

50

16

40

12

Context

30 8

20

4

10 0

Total stock Total office stock (milllion m²) 60 50

1995

2000

2005

milion m2

2010Percentage 2015 2020

vacant

1995

2000

Percentage of vacant offices (%) 20

Vacant

0

%

2005

2010

16

In use

40

12

30 8

20

4

10 0

1995

2000

2005

2010

VacantA need for space In use

As a result of globalization we see people moving from rural areas to cities more and more.

The city of Amsterdam has to deal with this development as well. Right now, there is a shortage in affordable dwellings, both in the rental market and the buying market.

The regulated rental stock is decreasing, which means more dwellings end up in the free sector. The rental prices in the free market in the Netherlands are about €15,5 per m2. In Amsterdam, the averige monthly price for a rental dwelling is almost 50% higher. This comes down to about €22,-per m2 (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2018; Pararius, 2018).

2015

2020

0

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

An abundance of space

A need for upgrades

At the same time, we see a signifcant amount of vacancy in office buildings. In the Netherlands, about 5,7 million m² of office space is currently vacant. That equals to about 11,7% of the total amount of offices. In Amsterdam, the vacancy is roughtly 460.000 m², which equals to about 7,9% of the total amount of offices there (PBL, 2017; Cushman & Wakefield, 2017). This 460.000 m² could potentially be turned in to 6500 dwellings of 70 m².

According to a research done by the Economic Institute for Construction (EIB) in 2016, 52,6% of all offices in the Netherlands are not meeting the energy efficiency requirements that are set for 2023. A more recent research has shown that it has lowered to 44%. All offices that do not have energy label C or higher (A or B) by 2023, will have to close.

This 44% equals to a stunning 35 million m² of office space.

In Amsterdam 2,5 million m² of office space does not meet these requirements (EIB, 2016; De Volkskrant, 2018). We are talking about huge amounts of space here, that will sit empty untill they have been upgraded.

27

2015

202

Analysis

City centre Amsterdam New West

Schiphol Airport

28

North Amsterdam East Amsterdam

Amsterdam South-axis

Southeast Amsterdam

Context

Duivendrecht Amstel

Ouderkerk aan de Amstel

Bijlmer

ArenaPoort

Amstel III

29

Analysis

Site

Amsterdam ArenA Bijlmer ArenA trainstation

Amstel III Zooming in one more time, we find Amstel III. Generally, Amstel III is described as being the area between the Amsterdam ArenA and the AMC hospital. It is a monofunctional office area that was developed in the 80’s and 90’s. Because people who worked there were commuting daily, mobility was key. Hence the area’s superb accessibility by car, train and metro, from all directions. Amsterdam Central trainstation is 10 minutes, while Schiphol aiport is only 15 minutes away. Utrecht (25 minutes) and Almere (20 minutes) are also close by car.

IKEA

Holendrecht trainstation

AMC hospital

30

31

Analysis

This image was taken in 1971, before the development of Amstel III, which started in the early 80’s (source: Beeldbank Amsterdam / DRO)

32

Holendrecht Centre being built in 1981 (source: Beeldbank Amsterdam / DRO).

Site

Amstel 3 in 1995 (source: Beeldbank Amsterdam / DRO).

Bird’s view on the central axis of Amstel III: the Hondsrugweg (source: Google Earth, 2019).

33

Analysis

Municipal goals Since it is clear that Amstel III is far from interesting at this point, the municipality has set some clear goals to transform the area into an “attractive and versatile area of Amsterdam, where people live and work.” Right now, Amstel III and ArenaPoort combined form Amsterdam’s third largest working area, creating roughly 50.000 jobs. Hence the 720.000 m² of office space.

To diversify the area, over the next 10 years 5000 dwellings are to be developped in the area. In 2040, when a total goal of 15.000 dwellings has been realized, 25.000 people will live in Amstel III. To create a diverse population, the municipality aims for a 40-4020 ratio in housing type: 40% social housing, 40% mid-range

housing and 20% high-end housing. In addition, dwellings in the social and mid-range sector should be larger than usual, respectively +45 m² and +80 m².

buildings is being densified by demolishing and adding 5 highrise buildings up to 90 meters. Although some office buildings remain untouched, most are demolished.

In terms of typologie, there is are no strict rules. However, the aim is to densify the area and to allow heights of 60 or even 90 meters. The municipality wants to explore the possibilities in transforming some of the vacant offices into appartment buildings. Due to the municipalities circular ambitions, this is preferred.

Developments like SPOT, fit very well in the current urban plan Amstel III, because of the spacious plots and wide streets. But why should we take down the existing buildings?

The space that is available already makes it fairly easy to extend the existing buildings.

Future developments Already many plans are being developped, of which most entail the demolition of existing buildings. SPOT is currently one of the larger redevelopments, where a plot containing 12

This render shows the masterplan for the Hondsrugweg by Kaan Architecten.

Highrises are added while the existing plots are desnfied (source: Kaan Architecten, 2017).

“The goal is to make the area known as an attractive and versatile area of Amsterdam, where people live and work.”

- Municipality of Amsterdam (2017)

34

Site

Therefore, the municipality of amsterdam wants to ...

... add 15.000 dwellings to the current program

+

+

... larger dwellings in all sectors, including social

... build higher and densify the area

... have at least 40% social housing

40% ... transform the area, following circular principles

m² 35

Analysis

2021

2020 2020 2021

2021 2022

36

Site

Demolitionmap Mapping out which buildings are to be demolished and/or transformed in the near future can be helpful. It enables one to anticipate on where potentially reusable building materials might be harvested from.

In most cases, this information is available at the municipality.

Having this knowledge made public can therefore be very helpful when wanting to engage in urban mining.

CONCRETE

70.500 ton 170.000 m

GLAZING 3

SAND AND GROUND

750 ton 290 m 3

FRAMES

50.000 ton 30.000 m

878 ton 325 m

BRICKS AND CERAMICS

ALUMINIUM

3

3

Material mines Case study

Next step is to translate these buildings into building materials and components.

By means of key-figures some material amounts can be estimated. It allows one to quickly scan which materials are in abundance and which are not. In this particular case, concrete is a common building material used for the load bearing structures of the office buildings.

10.500 ton 5.400 m

179 ton 65 m

STEEL

POLYSTYRENE

2

3

1.750 ton 220 m

112 ton 7.500 m

BITUMEN

GYPSIUM

2

875 ton 840 m 3

3

1.025 ton 1.000 m 2

70

37

Analysis

Hoogoorddreef 60+62

Hogehilweg 5+7

Hettenheuvelweg 8

38

Site

Harvestmap Mapping out which buildings are to be demolished and/or transformed in the near future can be helpful. It enables one to anticipate on where potentially reusable building materials might be harvested from. In this case, three sets of buildings were chosen to serve

as so-called donor buildings.

To find out what could be harvested from these buildings, the buildings have been documented, detailed pictures were taken and original building drawings were studied.

Next step is to decide what can be reused and what can not.

Hoogoorddreef 60+62 Built in 1988 12.600 m²

Hogehilweg 5+7 Built in 1984 5.400 m²

Hettenheuvelweg 8 Built in 1987 2.400 m²

39

Analysis

Component inventory Based on the research, a group of components was chosen to base the inventory on: walls, floors, columns, beams, doors, windows and insulation.

This set of components was then projected on the donor buildings, resulting in the ones below.

should be prolonged if possible. If this is not possible, they should be reused 1:1 in case of prefab elements, or recycled when the elements have been cast in place. The same goes for glass and windowframes.

For each component, the possibilities for reuse have been outlined. The concrete components for example,

Component

This table shows the different generic building components and how they can be reused.

Prolong

Reuse 1:1

Recycle/Downcycle

Concrete walls

(Prefab)

(Cast in place)

Concrete floors

(Prefab)

(Cast in place)

Concrete columns

(Prefab)

(Cast in place)

Concrete beams

(Prefab)

(Cast in place)

Gypsum wallboard Aluminum windowframes Double pane glass Bitumen roofing EPS insulation Glasswool insulation ideal situation

40

Refurbish

Site

Based on the research, decisions were made on how to reuse the components.

Gypsum wall board

refurbish

Concrete columns recycle and reuse 1:1

Concrete beams Interior doors

reuse 1:1

Insulation

Wires, pipes and ducts

refurbish and reuse 1:1 recycle

Bitumen roofing

recycle and reuse 1:1

Concrete floors recycle and reuse 1:1

Concrete walls recycle and reuse 1:1

reuse 1:1 Aluminum window frames Reflective glass

41

Analysis

Building Hessenbergweg 109-119 Now that the donor buildings have been analyzed, we know what can be harvested from the area. The same should be done for our subject building.

The building is located at the Hessenbergweg, opposite from SPOT. The reason for choosing this specific building, aside from the fact that the plot will be redeveloped anyway, is because of its central position within Amstel III. In a scenario where this transformation would actually take place, the building could serve as an example for the rest of the area.

Therefore, a central location that is visible and accessible is perfect.

42

In addition, the building is able to respond to the future developments on the other side of the street, where it is all about new buildings and highrises. Lastly, the building is connected to the Hondsrugweg: the future green axis of the area.

Red brick If we look at the building itself, we see a modest brick structure with a repeating pattern of aluminum windowframes. The three story office building, which is partly vacant, has a central entrance on both sides. The open floor plan allows for many configurations.

Building

Streetview from the Hondsrugweg.

Close up of the brick facade and the aluminum window frames.

Interior view showing the open floorplan of the building.

The building is located adjacent to SPOT, only separated by the Hondsrugweg park.

43

Analysis

Inventory As was done for the donor buildings, the subject building has been analyzed thoroughly.

Based on building drawings and a site visit, the building’s facade and loadbearing structure have been reconstructed.

Facade In order to make wellconsidered decisions on how to treat an existing building, it is necessary to make an

inventory of the building.

Being the first phase of urban mining, this phase is vital in determining what can be harvested and reused.

This requires calculating the material quantity and determining the material quality, as well as analyzing the used construction methods and details.

way. It is therefore not always possible to reuse components 1;1 without having to damage or downgrade another building component. Maintaining a component as it is, is therefore in terms of environmental benefits the preferred option (source: Dekker et al. (2019).

Most buildings that have been built in the past, were often not designed to be reused in any

Aluminum windowframes + Double pane glass

Brick facade + Glasswool insulation

44

Wood panel siding

Bitumen roofing + PIR insulation

Building

Prefab concrete floor slabs

Prefab concrete walls

Prefab concrete beams

Prefab concrete colums

Structure This building consists of prefabricated components mostly, which makes it relatively easy to make adjustments to the existing structure in the future if necessary.

45

Analysis

Components

This piechart shows the amount of materials in percentages.

It is necessary to try and quantify the amount of materials inside the building.

A calculation (based on keyfigures and original building drawings) shows that the building consists of concrete (71%) and brick (4.4%) mostly.

0,4%

0,3%

4,4% Stone & ceramics

21% Sand & ground

However, if we want to say something about the environmental ‘value’ or ‘impact’ of these materials, we need to look at the embodied energy of these materials as well. It should be noted that the quantity of a material does not equal the embodied energy of a material.

Component

0,7%

0,9% Steel Bitumen Glass 0,05% Plastics 0,01% 1,8% Wood Copper Gypsum

Amount (tons)

71% Concrete

Embodied energy (MJ)

Embodied carbon (kgCO2)

Life expectancy (years)

Concrete walls Concrete floors

3.147

4.311.390

557.019

100+

Brick facade

195

585.000

42.900

100+

Bitumen roofing

16

752.000

7.680

30

Double pane glass

14

210.000

11.900

20-50

Wood panel siding

2

19.000

1.020

20-50

Glasswool insulation

2

56.000

2.700

100+

EPS insulation

1,4

124.040

3.500

100+

Aluminum windowframes

0,5

77.500

4.120

20-50

Concrete columns Concrete beams

46

Building

This piechart translates the amount of materials to embodied energy.

2% Gypsum 3% Glass

2% Plastics

1% Sand & ground

6% Wood

7% Stone & ceramics

10% Bitumen

54% Concrete

15% Steel

Embodied energy Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of building. In other words: embodied energy is the energy needed to create a building material and bring it to its final destination.

Translating the material amounts to embodied energy, these pie charts shows that concrete is inside most and is responsible for the highest amount of embodied energy. However, bitumen is responsible for a relatively high amount of embodied energy, although its small amount

(0.4%) (sources: Metabolic (2018), Hammond, G,P. and Jones, C.I. (ICE) (2008), own calculations). Based on this fact, it was decided to maintain, amongst others, the existing concrete structure and to refurbish the bitumen roofing.

47

Design

DE SIGN

Design

Goals and principles The approach Based on the analysis, a set of design goals was created. The first goal is to transform the existing building from office to dwellings and public functions.

Second goal is to reuse all existing building components during this transformation. To achieve this, urban mining shall be implemented as a tool.

During the entire design phase, I followed a few principles. The first one, was to keep in mind that all building components should be reused in some kind of way. The second one, was that additionally needed materials should be from local donor buildings as much as possible. The last one recquires all detailing to be done in such a way, that the building can be disassembled easily.

Design goals:

50

1.

The building will be transformed where the office spaces make place for dwellings and public functions.

2.

All existing building components shall be reused.

3.

The process of urban mining shall be used as a tool to make the reuse of components possible.

Goals and principles

Design principles: Reuse the existing building and building components

Harvest additionaly needed building components locally

Design the building for disassembly

51

Design

Urban plan Concept The building that has been chosen to transform, is located at the center of Amstel III, amidst many plots that are to be redeveloped.

Based on the buildings location, three surrounding aspects were defined as being important: the Hondsrugweg park, the different building heights and the orientation toward the south.

Hondsrugweg park

52

Hondsrugweg The Hondsrugweg is to become the future green axis of Amstel III, giving pedestrians and inhabitants a qualitative public space. Therefore, the plinth of the building should engage with this park, possibly by adding commercial programming there.

Highrise vs lowrise It is importatnt that future developments should be taken into account. Because highrise is planned across the

park, the building should enable a subtle transition from highrise to lowrise. Therefore, a volume with a height of max. 25m is proposed.

Orientation To utilize the building’s orientation toward the southwest, balconies and gardens should be located at the southwest facade as much as possible.

Urban plan

Highrise vs lowrise

Orientation

53

Design

This site model shows the future developments: highrise and park.

54

Urban plan

55

Design

Building design Transformation

Public and private

In line with the municipal goals, it was decided to add more dwellings to the existing program. Because adding volume on top was not possible without having to reinforce the existing foundation, it was deciced to use the available space on both sides of the building. The existing building is extended on both the northeast and southwest facade. Two additional floors are built on top. To allow for enough daylight entering the building, 4 extractions are made creating 4 courtyards.

Because the plinth of the building is connected to the Hondsrugweg park in the northeast, it should engage with it. Therefore a public, commercial program is proposed on that side of the building. The southwest facade is optimally oriented towards the sun and is therefore proposed as the private side.

Here, residents have gardens and balconies at their disposal to enjoy the sun.

The existing floorplan is placed above the proposed, showing the extensions.

This model shows how the extensions (orange) are placed on both sides and on top of the existing (white) building. It also gives an impression of the public side of the building, where people are wandering and shopping.

56

Building design

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ ([LVWLQJ

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ ([LVWLQJ

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

64000

A

5400

B

5400

C

5400

D

5400

E

5400

F

5000

G

5000

H

5400

I

5400

J

5400

K

5400

L

5400

M

1

64000 5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5000

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5000

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5000

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

1

5000

2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ 3URSRVHG

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ 3URSRVHG

64000 5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5000

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5000

1

64000

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7

57

58

A

5400

B

5400

C

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ ([LVWLQJ

5400

D

5400

E

5400

F

5000

64000

G

5000

H

5400

I

5400

J

5400

K

5400

L

5400

M

Design

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5400

5400

*URXQG )ORRUSODQ 3URSRVHG

5400 5400

5400

5000

64000 5000 5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

Building design

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

59

Design

Materialization

e

This image outlines how the building is separated in three parts: the existing volume, the extenstions by which the dwellings are created and additional structure for the balconies.

The extension is constructed out of CLT wall and floor elements, that allow for easy assembly and disassembly

g

Existing As explained before, it was decided to maintain the existing concrete structure and brick facade. Some windows have been removed in order to create openings for the extensions.

d

New The new volume that embraces the existing is mainly constructed out of prefab CLT wall- and floorpanels.

This allows for easy assembly and disassembly. Additionally, because of its relatively light weight, two stories could be added on top of the existing structure. A new facade is made out of double pane glass in timber frames. The courtyard facades are finished with a vegetative system, that absorbs sound and gives the residents more privacy.

c

a

60

f

The existing prefab concrete structure and brick facade remain in-tacked mostly

a

Reused Throughout the entire building, materials and components have been reused. The entire balcony structure is made out of reused concrete elements harvested from the donor buildings. The same goes for the mirror glass with which the sliding panels have been created. Furthermore, insulation and bitumen have been refurbished to be reused again on the new roofs.

e

b

b

Some windows are removed to create openings connecting the extensions.

y

Building design

f

A new facade is made out of double pane glass in timber window frames

g

The closed facades are either materialized by reused timber siding or vegetative wall systems

e

g f

a b

d c

d

c

The mirror glass panels are harvested locally and reused 1:1

The concrete columns and beams are harvested locally and reused 1:1 61

62

63

Design

Respect the existing The physical model that was made shows clearly how the existing (red brick), the new (timber flooring and windowframes) and the reused (concrete columns and beams) come together.

While being placed on the “background,� the transparant

64

facade allows for the existing brick facade to remain visible.

The recognizable concrete colums and beams offer a clear separation of space, dividing the dwellings.

Building design

65

Design

Floor structure: Finish floor Floor heating 50 mm Insulation (isovlas) 90 mm CLT element 180 mm

Floor structure:

Finish floor Floor heating 50 mm Insulation (isovlas) 90 m Concrete floor (recycle Insulation (isovlas) 100

66

mm ed) 200 mm mm

Building design

Floor structure: Finish floor Floor heating 50 mm Insulation (isovlas) 90 mm Concrete floor (existing) 200 mm Insulation (existing) 100 mm

67

Design

A green core This section shows how the courtyard works. Aside from its function as entrance to the dwellings, it has been created to allow for more daylight to enter the dwellings. The reused mirror panels reinforce this effect. The courtyard becomes a place where residents meet each other. The green facade gives the residents a strong outdoor feeling, while assuring privacy and absorbing noise.

Concrete structure: Concrete structure:

New floor structure: New floor structure:

Concrete beambeam 400 x400 400x 400 Concrete Concrete column 400 x400 400x 400 Concrete column

FinishFinish floor floor Floor Floor heating 50 mm heating 50 mm Insulation (isovlas) 90 mm Insulation (isovlas) 90 mm CLT element 180 mm CLT element 180 mm

Detail Detail 1 1 7

68

Detail Deta 2 6

5

4

Building design

Existing Existing wall structure: wall structure:

New wall Newstructure: wall structure:

Brickwork Brickwork 100 mm 100 mm CavityCavity 40 mm 40 mm Insulation Insulation 80 mm 80 mm Concrete Concrete wall 200 wallmm 200 mm

GreenGreen facade facade Reflective Reflective glass glass panelpanel WoodWood cladding cladding Insulation Insulation (isovlas) (isovlas) 180 mm 180 mm Timber Timber framing framing CLT 100 CLTmm 100 mm Wall finish Wall finish

Detail Detail 3 3 3

2

Scale: Scale: 1:10 1:10 1

69

70

71

Design

Vision Discussion It seems that, if we want to allow the process of urban mining to influence and stimulate the reuse of building components, information on these components is vital. To get a better idea of how the process of urban mining can be amended, more information is needed on, for example, the exact harvest methods, how this method influenced the component, how transportation was organized etc. It is clear that still a lot can be learned on this phenomenon.

For now, the challenge lies in finetuning the process of urban mining and in finding ways of creating coherent overviews on the availability of building components, where they are located, in what quantities, what their quality is and maybe even on how they could be reused. Perhaps some sort of catalog can be created, comprised of all different types of building components and how to reuse them. At least this would give designers and builders an idea of what to do with these components, as knowledge on component reuse is one of the obstructing problems right now.

There are companies that have started introducing

72

material passports for building materials and components.

These passports are given to all building materials and components that are used in new construction projects and contain the types of information as stated before.

This is supposed to make it easier to locate and evaluate the materials when a building is up for demolition and therewith stimulate reuse. In combination with design principles such as design for disassembly and design for reuse, smart designs can be created that are prepared for future changes.

Integrating these new design approaches with state of the art urban mining techniques, might create new interesting forms of architecture.

A metabolic approach It would be very interesting to explore the possibilities for a metabolistic redevelopment, as proposed in this thesis, in a realistic situation. And how can this be translated to and implemented in other parts of the Netherlands, Europe and the rest of the world?

After all, we need to rethink the way we use our materials globally. Not only here in the Netherlands.

Vision

Amsterdam

Amstel III

5 Refurbished or recycled components are reused in the same development

Redevelopment

5

Harvest location

2

Temporary factory

Harvest location

2 4

7 Amstelstad

3 Harvested components are brought to a temporary storage until needed.

1

4 Refurbished or recycled components are reused in new development

Redevelopment

1 Project site

Development

1

3 1

Development

6 Previously stored components are retrieved from storage and reused in new development.

6 Temporary storage

Harvest location

6 1 Harvested components are reused 1:1 in a new development.

2 Harvested components are brought to a temporary factory to be refurbished or recycled.

2

Redevelopment

2 Temporary factory

4

7

Development

7 Additonaly needed new materials and components are distributed to developments.

73

Chapter title

74

Subchapter title

75

Bibliography

BIBLIO

GRAPHY

Bibliography Addis, B. (2006). Building with reclaimed components and materials. A design handbook for reuse and recycling. London: Earthscan.

Baccini, P. & Brunner, P.H. (2012). Metabolism of the Anthroposphere – Analysis, Evaluation, Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Berge, B. (2001). The Ecology of Building Materials. Oxford: Architectural Press

Bonnafazi, G. & Cossu, R. (2013). The urban mining concept. Waste Management 33, 497-498.

Brewer, G. & Mooney, J. (2008). A best practice policy for recycling and reuse in building. Engineering Sustainability 191, 173-180

Bureau SLA (2017). Peoples Pavilion. Retrieved from https://www.bureausla.nl/project/peoples-pavilion/ on December 16th 2018.

Cepezed (2018). The Green House. Retrieved from: https://www.cepezed.nl/projects/226-the- green-house on December

13th 2018.

Cheng et. al. (2018). Quantifying potential anthropogenic resources of buildings through hot spot analysis. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 133, 10-20.

Circl (2017). The making of Circl. (article that was published in September 2017 on the occasion of the opening of Circl).

Cossu, R., & Williams I. D. (2015). Urban mining: Concepts, terminology, challenges. Waste Management 45, 1-3.

Cushman & Wakefield (2017). Kantorenleegstand daalt naar laagste niveau in 10 jaar.

Dekker, E., Gao, Q., Lukkes, D., Markus, F. & Bohle, M. (2018). Upcycle Amstel. Delft: TU Delft Faculty of Architecture and the

Built Environment.

materials (From: Conference Proceedings of Sustainable Building 2000, Maastricht, Holland)

Dorsthorst, B. J. H., Kowalczyk, T., Hendriks, C. F. & Kristinsson, J. (2000) From grave to cradle: reincarnation of building Economisch Instituur voor de Bouw (2016). Verplicht energielabel voor kantoren - rapportage Eurostat (2016). Waste statistics, statistics explained.

Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013). Towards the circular economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition.

Encore Hereux (2015) Pavillion Circulaire. Retrieved from http://encoreheureux.org/projets/pavillon-circulaire/?lang=en on

December 14th 2018.

Architecture, Department of Architectural Engineering + Technology, Chair of Climate Design & Sustainability.

Geldermans, B. (2014). A contextual and spatial approach towards resource cycles. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of

(From: World Sustainable Building Conference 28-30 October 2014, Barcelona, Spain)

Heinrich, M. (2017). Material flows of the German building sector. (From: International HISER Conference on Advances in

Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste 21-23 June 2017, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands)

Hinte, E. van, Peeren, C. & Jongert, J. (2007). Superuse - Constructing new architecture by shortcutting material flows.

Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Insert (2018) Over Insert. Retrieved from https://www.insert.nl/over-ons/ on December 16th 2018

Koutamanis, A., van Reijn, B. & van Bueren, E. (2018). Urban mining and buildings: A review of possibilities and limitations.

78

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 138, 32-39.

Krook, J., Eklund, M., Carlsson, A., Frändegård P. & Svensson N. (2010). Urban mining. Prospecting for metals in the invisible

city. Environmental Technology and Management at Linköping University, Linköping and Environmental Strategies Research at KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Lendager Group (2018). The Resource Rows. Retrieved from https://lendager.com/en/architecture/resource-rows/ on

December 14th 2018.

has yet to be published).

62, 26-43.

Netherlands by 2050.

Luscuere, P.G. (2018). Circularity. (Introduction to Circularity with Beyond Sustainability as a contribution to AMS book, that Luscuere, P.G., Geldermans, R.J., Tenpierik, M.J. & Jansen, S.C. (2018). Beyond Sustainability in the built environment. Rumoer Ministry of infrastructure and the environment and the ministry of economic affairs (2016). A Circular Economy in the Municipality of Amsterdam (2018). Wonen in Amsterdam 2017, februari 2018

Pararius (2018). Huurprijs vrije sector blijft stijgen. Retrieved from https://www.pararius.nl/nieuws/huurprijs-vrije-sector-blijft-

stijgen/NI0000000242 on Oktober 12th 2018.

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (2017). Leegstand kantorenmarkt daalt, maar blijft structureel hoog, november 2017

Rau, T & Oberhuber, S. (2016) Material Matters – Het alternatief voor onze roofbouwmaatschappij. Haarlem: Bertram + de

Leeuw Uitgevers.

on a pilot construction site in Brussels. (From: International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling

of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands)

Romnée A., Billiet L., Mahieu O. & Vrijders J. (2017). Deconstruction, preparation for reuse and reuse of salvaged materials

and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste 21-23 June 2017, Delft University

Slager, B. & Jansen, G. (2018). Onderzoek voorwaarden gebruik bouwmarktplaatsen.

Stallone, R. (2011). What is urban mining? Retrieved from https://jessestallone.com/2011/04/20/what-is-urban-mining/ on

December 17th 2018.

http://superuse-studios.com/index.php/2009/10/villa-welpeloo/?lang=nl on December 14th 2018.

Superuse Studios (2009). Villa Welpeloo. Retrieved from

UN TEEB, US Geological Survey, BP & Worm et al (2006). London Metal Exchange.

Vandkunsten, Lendager Group & 3XN architects (2018). Circle House - Denmark’s first circular housing project. Denmark:

KLS PurePrint.

Vereniging Afvalbedrijven (2015). Afval in cijfers.

Volkskrant (2018). Bijna de helft van de Nederlandse kantoren moet in 2023 sluiten, als de energielabels niet snel worden

opgeschroefd. Retrieved from https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/bijna-de-helft-van-de-

on Oktober 14th 2018.

nederlandse-kantoren-moet-in-2023-sluiten-als-de-energielabels-niet-snel-worden-opgeschroefd~bc2d8b4d/

Wessel van Geffen Architecten (2017). Afvalbrengstation Den Haag. Retrieved from

https://www.wesselvangeffenarchitecten.nl/blog/afvalbrengstation_lbr_gden_haa.html on December 13th 2018.

Management 34 (9), 1683-1692.

Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L. & Liu, G. (2014). Quantifying construction and demolition waste: an analytical review. Waste

79

M A III LETS ER EHT YTIC ESU

sekkuL kinimoD yb